New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Century America (The Atlantic World) (The Atlantic World)

NEW NETHERLAND

THE ATLANTIC WORLD Europe, Africa and the Americans, 1500-1830

EDITORS

Wim Klooster (Clark University) Benjamin Schmidt (University of Washington)

VOLUME III

NEW NETHERLAND A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Century America BY

JAAP JACOBS

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005

Cover illustration: Nieuw Amsterdam ofte Nue Nieuw Iorx opt Teylant Man, by Johannes Vingboons, ca 1664. Nationaal Archief, The Netherlands, 4. VELH, 619-14.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 1570–0542 ISBN 90 04 12906 5 © Original Edition: Jaap Jacobs and Samenwerkende Uitgeverijen Prometheus-Bert Bakker, Amsterdam 1999. The translation was made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) © Copyright 2005 by Jaap Jacobs, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

To Martha

CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................ ix Glossary ...................................................................................... xv List of Abbreviations .................................................................. xvii Introduction ................................................................................ Chapter One ‘A Blessèd Country, where Milk and Honey Flow’ ............................................................................ Chapter Two ‘The Peopling of Such Empty and Unfurnished Lands’ ................................................................ Chapter Three ‘The Exercise of Justice and Government’ ............................................................................ Chapter Four ‘The Trade, that Really Concerns us’ .......... Chapter Five ‘God’s Church and Honor Should be Cared for’ ................................................................................ Chapter Six ‘Each According to his Condition, State, and Circumstances’ ................................................................ Chapter Seven ‘In Such a Far Distant Country, Separated from all the Friends’ .............................................................. Conclusion ..................................................................................

1 7 45 95 191 263 327 403 475

Appendixes .................................................................................. 483 List of Archival Sources ............................................................ 495 Bibliography ................................................................................ 507 Illustrations Index ............................................................................................ 533

PREFACE

There used to be a bar in the Delta terminal of New York’s JFK Airport. It was called the Schuyler Bar. Whenever I waited for the departure of my flight back to Holland, I enjoyed a beer there. The name of the bar served as a reminder of the Dutch presence in New York in the seventeenth century, as did the Van Wyck Expressway used by the shuttle bus to Grand Central Terminal. Back at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, the large billboard in front of the main terminal building used to boast an advertisement for a brand of cigarettes: ‘Peter Stuyvesant! Discover the World’. New regulations by the European Union have resulted in the banning of such propaganda for unhealthy, if enjoyable, habits. And another reminder of New Netherland disappeared. Yet, New Netherland lives on in numerous documents on both sides of the Atlantic. Ever since the early nineteenth century, translators have worked on these documents, producing translations of varying quality. The early translations are defective in many places, whereas the modern translations by Charles Gehring, Director of the New Netherland Project, are of an outstanding quality. Yet true historical scholarship can come only through direct contact with original sources, and to me as a Dutchman used to reading seventeenthcentury Dutch documents, relying solely on translations was never an option. However good a translation may be, it still imposes a screen of varying transparency between the researcher and his sources. Also, I prefer to make my own mistakes and not to be accountable for those of others. I have therefore checked the original Dutch documents every time, during which process I also found much material that had not been translated, and in some cases discovered documents that were completely unknown. As a result the annotation in this book differs from what American readers may be used to. The first reference is to the original document, in the order of repository, collection, document, and usually page number. This is followed between parentheses by the document’s date and a reference to the translation, if available. In some cases a reference to Gehring’s Guide to Dutch Manuscripts has been added. All the quotations have been translated by me, and they often

preface

x

differ from published translations. Translating the seventeenth-century Dutch into modern English brought along some specific problems. For instance, in nineteenth- and twentieth-century publications the Dutch words wilden [plural], wilt [masculine singular], and wildinne [feminine singular] are usually translated into either the neutral ‘Indians’ or into ‘savages’, rather too strong to the modern ear. In both cases some of the nuance of the original is lost, especially as several other terms are also used. I have used ‘Indians’ in my own texts and left the original in the quotations in italics. For a number of other words, I have chosen to use an italicized Dutch word rather than an English equivalent that may evoke a different meaning in the reader’s mind. For personal names, I followed the method outlined by Charles Gehring: ‘Professional and craft names as well as nicknames and places of origins associated with individuals are kept in the Dutch’.1 Seventeenth-century Dutch patronymics usually end in various abbreviations, such as ss, sen, or szen, for zoon [son]. These variations have all been standardized in my own text and are indicated by sz. with the customary period to indicate the abbreviation. In quotations I have left the spelling unaltered. Amounts of money are designated by three numbers, indicating guldens, stuivers, and penningen [guilders, stivers, and pennies]. Last, in New Netherland the Gregorian calendar style (‘new style’) was used, which differed from the Julian calendar (‘old style’), used in England and its colonies, by ten days. This work is based on my book Een zegenrijk gewest. Nieuw-Nederland in de zeventiende eeuw, published in 1999 by the Amsterdam publishing house Prometheus/Bert Bakker. The text has been thoroughly revised, with several sections cut and others added. In preparing it, I have received support from a number of people, and it is a pleasure to acknowledge their efforts and I express my deep gratitude to them. Peter Longbottom supplied the first version of the translation, which was made financially possible by a grant from the translation fund of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek [Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research], which earlier provided the grant that made possible the research and writing of the Dutch version. Martha Shattuck read each chapter with a sharp eye, and the book benefited from discussing many of the sections

1

FOCM, xxxi.

preface

xi

with her in depth. Firth Fabend’s copyediting improved the text immensely, and Aglaia Cornelisse provided important assistance in proofreading. Ineke Schippers, Kees-Jan Waterman, and Harry Jacobs, my father, read the complete manuscript and offered many suggestions. Other people who read and commented on chapters were Bill Starna, Wim Klooster, Barry Sell, Jos van der Linde, and Janny Venema. The support of Marcella Mulder and Julian Deahl of Brill Academic Publishers was of a high professional quality. Of course, all remaining errors are mine. This book is dedicated to my dear friend Martha Shattuck, for her friendship, unflagging support, and her zeal for accuracy. Oegstgeest, July 2004

New Netherland, ca. 1664

Dutch Republic, ca. 1648

GLOSSARY

adelborst cadet burgemeester burgomaster; executive urban magistrate commies (plur. commiezen) subaltern administrative official equipagemeester equipage master fiscael high official, charged with upholding the rights of the wic gerechtsbode court usher Heren XIX literally: Lords Nineteen, the board of the West India Company landdag provincial convention or diet liefhebbers literally: devotees; non-members who attended the services of the Reformed Church morgen (plur. morgens) measure of land; depending on whether the Amsterdam morgen or Rijnland morgen is meant (which the sources often do not indicate), it is either 2.069 or 2.103 acres (0.837 or 0.851 hectar ondercommies junior administrative official patria fatherland [Latin] predikant minister sachem Indian chief schepel (plur. schepels) dry measure: 0.764 bushel of wheat; 1.29 bushels salt; ca. 28 liters schepen (plur. schepenen member of municipal court of justice or schepens) schout a law enforcement officer, appointed on the overlord’s authority, with the combined duties of sheriff and prosecuting attorney sewant the southern New England Narragansett Algonquian name for a particular sort of polished shells, threaded like beads; the colonists in New England adopted another Algonquian word, wampum vroedschap city council wilden Indians

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AB AC ACA ACHR AELG AMNA AV BDC

Archive Burgemeesters (in GAA) Amsterdam Correspondence (in NBTS, GASL) Archive Classis Amsterdam (in GAA) Albany County Hall of Records, Albany Archive Evangelisch-Lutherse Gemeente (in GAA) Administrative minutes of New Amsterdam (in NYMA) Archive Vroedschap (in GAA) Th.G. Evans and T.A. Wright (ed.), Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam and New York. Baptisms from 25 December 1639 to 29 December 1800 (Collections of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society 2) (2 vols., New York 1901–1903, repr. Upper Saddle River, N.J. 1968). BGE P.R. Christoph and F.A. Christoph (ed.), Books of General Entries of the Colony of New York, 1664 –1673. Orders, Warrants, Letters, Commissions, Passes and Licenses issued by Governors Richard Nicolls and Francis Lovelace (New York Historical Manuscripts: English) (Baltimore 1982). CJVR A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer 1651–1674 (Albany 1932). CMARS A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Minutes of the Court of Albany, Rensselaerswijck and Schenectady 1668–1685 (3 vols., Albany 1926–1932). CMFO Court Minutes of Fort Orange (in ACHR) CM 1655–1656 Ch.T. Gehring (trans. and ed.), Council Minutes 1655–1656 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 6) (Syracuse 1995). Corres. 1647–1653 Ch.T. Gehring (trans. and ed.), Correspondence 1647–1653 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 11) (Syracuse 2000). Corres. 1654–1658 Ch.T. Gehring (trans. and ed.), Correspondence 1654–1658 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 12) (Syracuse 2003). DP Ch.T. Gehring, (trans. and ed.), Delaware Papers (Dutch Period). A Collection of Documents Pertaining to the Regulation of Affairs on the South River of New Netherland, 1648–1664 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vols. 18–19) (Baltimore 1981). DRCHNY E.B. O’Callaghan and B. Fernow (trans. and ed.), Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York (15 vols., Albany 1853–1883).

xviii

list of abbreviations

A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Documents Relating to New Netherland, 1624 –1626, in the Henry E. Huntington Library (San Marino 1924). DTB Doop-, trouw- en begraafregisters [vital records] ERA J. Pearson and A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Early Records of the City and County of Albany and Colony of Rensselaerswijck (4 vols., Albany 1869–1919). ER E.T. Corwin (trans. and ed.), Ecclesiastical Records. State of New York (7 vols., Albany 1901–1916). FOCM Ch.T. Gehring (trans. and ed.), Fort Orange Court Minutes, 1652–1660 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 16, part 2) (Syracuse 1990). FOR 1656–1678 Ch.T. Gehring (trans. and ed.), Fort Orange Records 1656–1678 (New Netherland Document Series) (Syracuse 2000). GAA Gemeentearchief Amsterdam GASL Gardner A. Sage Library (New Brunswick) Guide Gehring, Ch.T. (ed.), A Guide to Dutch Manuscripts Relating to New Netherland in United States Repositories (Albany 1978). KP D. Versteeg (trans.), P.R. Christoph, K. Scott, K. StrykerRodda (ed.), Kingston Papers 1661–1675 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch) (2 vols., Baltimore 1976). LCNY A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), The Lutheran Church in New York 1649–1772. Records in the Lutheran Church Archives at Amsterdam, Holland (New York 1946). LP Ch.T. Gehring (trans. and ed.), Land Papers (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vols. GG, HH & II) (Baltimore 1980). LWI Lias West Indië (in Nat. Arch., SG) LO E.B. O’Callaghan (trans.), Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1636–1674 (Albany 1868). LWA Ch. T. Gehring (trans. and ed.), Laws & Writs of Appeal 1647–1663 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 16, part 1) (Syracuse 1991). MCR A.J.F. van Laer, (trans. and ed.), Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck 1648–1652 (Albany 1922). MDC ‘Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York. Marriages’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 6 (1875), 32–39 [1639–1652]; 81–88 [1652–1659]; 141–148 [1659–1667]; 184–191 [1668–1675]; 7 (1876), 27–34 [1675–1681]; 77–84 [1681–1685]; 8 (1877), 33–40 [1685–1688]; 10 (1879), 119–126 [1688–1692]; 11 (1880), 75–82 [1692–1695]; 125–132 [1695–1698]; 172–179 [1698–1702]. MOM (1) B. Fernow (trans. and ed.), The Minutes of the Orphanmasters of New Amsterdam, 1655–1663 (New York 1902). (2) B. Fernow (trans. and ed.), Minutes of the Orphanmasters Court of New Amsterdam 1655–1663. Minutes of the Executive DRNN

list of abbreviations

NA Nat. Arch. NBTS NNN NSMA NYCM NYHM

NYHS NYMA NYPL NYSA NYSL ODR OFDRCB ORCC OWIC RNA Res. WIZ SG UCHR VRBM VRBMs VRMP

xix

Boards of the Burgomasters of New Amsterdam and the Records of Walewyn van der Veen, Notary Public 1662–1664 (New York 1907). Notarial Archives Nationaal Archief, The Hague New Brunswick Theological Seminary J.F. Jameson (ed.), Narratives of New Netherland 1609–1664 (New York 1909, 2nd ed. 1967). Nederlands Scheepvaartmuseum Amsterdam New York Colonial Manuscripts (in NYSA) (1) A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1638–1642 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 1) (Baltimore 1974). (2) A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642–1647 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 2) (Baltimore 1974). (3) A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1648–1660 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 3) (Baltimore 1974). (4) A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Council Minutes, 1638–1649 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 4) (Baltimore 1974). (5) Ch.T. Gehring (trans. and ed.), Council Minutes, 1652–1654 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 5) (Baltimore 1983). New York Historical Society, New York City New York Municipal Archives, New York City New York Public Library, New York City New York State Archives, Albany New York State Library, Albany Original Dutch Records (in NYMA) A.P.G.J. van der Linde (trans. and ed.), Old First Dutch Reformed Church of Brooklyn, New York: First Book of Records, 1660–1752 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch) (Baltimore 1983). Original Records of the Common Council (in NYMA) Archive Old WIC (in Nat. Arch.) B. Fernow (ed.), The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini (7 vols., New York 1897, repr. Baltimore 1976). Resoluties Westindische zaken (in Nat. Arch., SG) Archive States General (in Nat. Arch.) Ulster County Hall of Records, Kingston A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, being the Letters of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, 1630 –1643, and other Documents Relating to the Colony of Rensselaerswyck (Albany 1908). Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripten (in NSMA) Van Rensselaer Manor Papers (in NYSL)

INTRODUCTION

In 1517, Dutch admiral Adolf of Burgundy escorted Charles V from the Netherlands to Spain, where he was to be crowned king of Aragon and Castilia. For his services Adolf was awarded the island of Cozumel off Yucatan. It took him a couple of years to organize an expedition to his newly acquired property, but when his ships finally set sail from the Netherlands in 1527 they never got further than the ports of Spain. Help from the Spanish authorities was necessary because the Dutch at this time lacked the navigational knowledge to cross the Atlantic. Assistance had seemed to be forthcoming earlier, but by 1527 the Spanish crown was intent on keeping the New World to itself. So the first Dutch expedition to the New World was thwarted at an early stage.1 While the episode itself is only a footnote in the history of Dutch colonial expansion, it explains why the Dutch were one of the last of the states of Western Europe to enter the colonial competition. Until 1572 the Netherlands were under the control of the Habsburgs, who prohibited direct contact with overseas colonies. The success of the Dutch Revolt in the last quarter of the sixteenth century made it possible for Dutch merchants to send their ships out across the Oceans. Initially, the Dutch turned their attention to Asia, where valuable spices could be obtained. In the West, the main commodities of interest were bulk goods such as sugar and dyewood, which the Dutch obtained from the Portuguese colony of Brazil. In Asia, the Dutch encountered relatively powerful indigenous states, in which the economies were well developed and the density of the population usually was high. Partly because of these factors, the trading posts in the East remained small. As a result, aggressive methods had to be employed only occasionally, whether against the indigenous population or against European competitors. Territorial expansion, with the objective of establishing colonial settlements, was difficult in the East, and it was rarely the intention.2

1

Sicking and Fagel, ‘In het kielzog van Columbus’. Van Goor, De Nederlandse koloniën; Van den Boogaart, Overzee; Boxer, The Dutch Seaborne Empire. 2

introduction

2

On the other hand, there were opportunities for expansion in the Atlantic regions. Here, the resistance encountered by the Dutch was not so much from the indigenous populations, who suffered greatly from the European diseases previously unfamiliar to them, but from other European nations, who had established colonies earlier than the Dutch. The objectives of the two great Dutch trading companies expressed this difference. Trade was the main objective of the Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie [East India Company or VOC], and territorial expansion was a means to this. The principal objective of the Geoctroyeerde West-Indische Compagnie [West India Company or WIC] on the other hand was to inflict damage on the colonial resources of the Iberian enemy of the Dutch in Europe. In pursuit of this objective, the WIC’s instruments were the conquest of enemy colonies and privateering on its shipping. In the first half of the seventeenth century some successes were achieved, such as the occupation of parts of Brazil and the capture of a Spanish fleet carrying a large treasure of silver off Cuba in 1628. But the combination of business enterprise and instrument of war ultimately proved unsuccessful. Gradually, the WIC was compelled to relinquish important parts of its shipping and trading monopoly to private merchants.3 There were few Spaniards or Portuguese to be found in North America, where the English were the main opponents. English colonists had early in the seventeenth century established themselves in both Virginia and Massachusetts. Wedged in between these two colonies was a region where Dutch merchants traded in peltries, principally beaver pelts, with the Indians. To protect these commercial interests the West India Company established a small colony: New Netherland.4 Although New Netherland started as a trading post, it gradually developed into a settlement colony, which made it unique among the Dutch colonies of the early seventeenth century. It was different

3

Klooster, The Dutch in the Americas; Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC; Postma and Enthoven, Riches from Atlantic Commerce, in which the introduction provides an overview of recent literature on Dutch expansion in the Atlantic. 4 For the historiography of New Netherland, see Goodfriend, ‘The Historiography of the Dutch in Colonial America’; Goodfriend, ‘Amerikaans onderzoek naar Nederlandse kolonisatie’; Goodfriend, ‘Writing/Righting Dutch Colonial History’; Kupperman, ‘Early American History with the Dutch Put in’; Roeber, ‘“The Origin of Whatever is Not English Among Us”’; Jacobs, Een zegenrijk gewest, 13–27.

introduction

3

from the trading posts in the East Indies or on the coast of Africa, because its population soon grew beyond what was required to maintain trade. It also differed from the northern part of Brazil, which the West India Company conquered in the 1630s. The Portuguese had been established in Brazil for decades, and when the West India Company superimposed a Dutch governmental, religious, and social structure, it had to take the existing society into account. Although the number of Dutchmen in Brazil reached a total that New Netherland could never top, the absence of previous European colonization allowed the colony in northern America to develop differently. It shared this trait with the Dutch colony founded later in the seventeenth century at the tip of southern Africa, at the Cape of Good Hope.5 Dutch Brazil, New Netherland, the Dutch islands in the Caribbean, Surinam, and parts of West Africa formed what has been called the Dutch Atlantic World. Over the last few years, the concept of the Atlantic World has gained much ground in American historiography, less so on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. As a concept, it tries ‘to transcend political boundaries and reconnect mobile people, goods, and ideas as they moved within and between North and South America, Africa, and Europe’.6 It is a useful concept, as it emphasizes the interconnections between people living on the Atlantic littoral. Although the Atlantic World is an intercontinental as well as a pan-European idea, the specialization of scholarship caused it to be quickly broken down into components, such as the English, French, Spanish, Dutch, and African-American Atlantic Worlds. Emmer and Klooster in a recent article in Itinerario actually questioned whether a Dutch Atlantic World existed. It is a valid question, especially as the economic and social impact of Dutch Atlantic colonies on the Dutch Republic was limited. But the reverse impact was much greater. New Netherland could not have existed without its ties to the Dutch Republic. The question of whether a Dutch Atlantic World is a useful concept quickly turns into a discussion about the definitions of ‘Atlantic World’ and a search for the bounds of the Atlantic littoral. The concept of Atlantic history is much less

5 Gonsalves de Mello, Nederlanders in Brazilië; Schalkwijk, The Reformed Church in Dutch Brazil; Boxer, De Nederlanders in Brazilië; Biewenga, De Kaap de Goede Hoop. 6 Williams, ‘An Atlantic Perspective’, 370.

4

introduction

useful to early modern Europeanists, to whom colonies are peripheral, than to scholars of colonies, for whom the relation with the European motherlands is central. Its focus on transatlantic and intercolonial relations should serve as an antidote to a narrow view of single colonies. While this book is not a study of the Dutch in the Atlantic, but of the Dutch in New Netherland and their relations with the Dutch Republic, I have tried where relevant to position it in the general framework of Dutch expansion in the Atlantic in the seventeenth century.7 The development of New Netherland from a trading post into a settlement colony is the subject of this book. Its central question is how and to what extent culture was transplanted from the Dutch Republic to New Netherland and what factors were of influence on the colonial culture. To begin, some elements of this question need to be defined. From a geographical perspective, New Netherland generates few problems. It comprised the settlements under Dutch rule on Manhattan and Long Island and those along the Hudson, the Delaware, and the Connecticut Rivers. The Dutch presence on the Connecticut River was of little importance. The Dutch presence on the Delaware was more problematic, for in 1639 Swedes established themselves on the banks of that river. The Swedish colony was overrun by the Dutch in 1655, and only after this a Dutch settlement of any size was established on the Delaware. The emphasis in this study, therefore, is on the settlements on Manhattan, along the Hudson, and on Long Island. Defining the timeframe is also relatively easy. The year in which Henry Hudson traveled to the river that was later to bear his name acts as a starting point, though actual colonization began only in 1624. The sources for the early period between 1624 and 1639 are scarce. Furthermore, in the following ten years, the colony underwent only a relatively limited growth in population. Because of these two factors, this study emphasizes the period after 1650. The choice of a closing year is a little more complicated. 1674, the year in which the colony was returned to English control under the Treaty of Westminster, would be an obvious choice, even though it includes the nine years from 1664 to 1673 under English administration. Yet, while 1674 marked the end of Dutch

7 Bailyn, ‘The Idea of Atlantic History’; Emmer and Klooster, ‘The Dutch Atlantic’; Howe, American History in an Atlantic Context; Klooster, ‘Winds of Change’.

introduction

5

forms of government, that date serves less well for other subjects. In some chapters, therefore, I shall make use of examples from after that date. A second element that requires explanation is the concept of culture. Various definitions exist for this term, each of which carries a different emphasis or provides a different nuance. I use the one proposed by Peter Burke: ‘a system of shared meanings, attitudes and values, and the symbolic forms (performances, artifacts) in which they are expressed or embodied’.8 This anthropologically tinted understanding of culture stresses its common character and hinges not on individuals. Burke’s definition focuses on the cohesion and the system of cultural forms and the distinction between the form of expression and the meaning behind it. Yet it is flexible enough to allow for many possible avenues of investigation. I have opted for a wide range of subjects: perception, immigration, government, economy, religion, status, material culture, and mentality, subdivided into seven chapters.

8 Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe, xi; Burke, History and Social Theory, 118–126.

CHAPTER ONE

‘A BLESSÈD COUNTRY, WHERE MILK AND HONEY FLOW’1

Jacob Steendam, who in his poems depicts New Netherland in biblical metaphor as a land of milk and honey, expressed himself in positive terms about the colony on several occasions. The principal motive for his accolades was to promote colonization, as it was for others who wrote about the Dutch colony in the seventeenth century.2 Yet Steendam was genuinely impressed by the natural beauty and the plentiful resources of New Netherland. And rightly so, as will be confirmed by anyone who today takes the train from New York to Albany. The railway line runs close to the east shore of the Hudson, providing a magnificent view of its natural beauty and of the dramatic topography of its west shore. The contemporary descriptions of the area make clear that the richness and beauty of the country were as impressive in the seventeenth century as they are today. Climate, geography, geology, flora and fauna, and the Indians provide the background to the culture of the colonists. What did New Netherland look like in the seventeenth century, and how were its qualities described at the time? European Descriptions First, why was it called New Netherland? Adriaen van der Donck, who in 1655 published his Beschryvinge van Nieuw-Nederlant [Description of New Netherland ], gives two explanations. New Netherland was fertile and situated in a moderate climate, possessing good opportunities for trade, harbors, waters, fisheries, weather, and wind and many other worthy appurtenances corresponding with the Netherlands, or in

1

Murphy, Anthology, 30–31 and 68–75. Funk, ‘De literatuur van Nieuw-Nederland’, 391; Van Boheemen, ‘DutchAmerican Poets’, 122. 2

8

chapter one truth and more accurately exceeding the same. So it is for good reasons named New Netherland, being as much as to say, another or a newfound Netherland.3

More important than the similarities between old and new Netherlands was his second explanation: the Dutch had been the first to visit and populate the area. In the same way, Van der Donck wrote, the French named their colony in Canada New France, although its climate displayed considerable differences from that of France. The same was true for New Sweden on the South River, where the climate was rather warmer than that of Sweden. As was common practice in European expansion around the globe, in naming first discovery took precedence over similarities between the old world and the new.4 In the seventeenth century the primacy of water transportation limited the presence of the Dutch to the areas accessible by boat along the coast and along the banks of the colony’s main rivers. For this reason, the descriptions of the colony, of which Van der Donck’s is the most extensive and most important, generally begin with the coast and then proceed inland via the rivers. Contemporaries knew little about the interior. Van der Donck reports that several of the Dutch had traveled inland as far as up to seventy or eighty miles from the sea, but no one knew how large the continent was. The Dutch traded with Indians living twenty or more days’ journey inland, but from the Indians’ reaction when asked about the size of the continent, Van der Donck surmised that they had no idea of its extent. Other indications, such as the large number of beavers the Indians trapped in the interior and the climatic features, led Van der Donck to conclude that the continent must be several hundreds of miles wide, but its exact size remained unknown to him.5 The first part of New Netherland that an immigrant arriving from the Dutch Republic saw was, naturally, the coastline, which is why Van der Donck chose to start his Beschryvinge with it. He described it as clean and sandy, with good anchorage, due to the sandy soil

3 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 1–2 (Description, 2–3). On Van der Donck: Hoffman, ‘Armory. Van der Donck—Van Bergen’, Van Gastel, ‘Adriaen van der Donck, New Netherland, and America’, and Van Gastel, ‘Adriaen van der Donck als woordvoerder’. 4 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 2 (Description, 3). 5 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 4 (Description, 5).

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

9

and the lack of severe gales from the sea. In some places the foreshore was broken up into islands, which were useful for keeping cattle as they could not stray away. The creeks inland were navigable, and therein lay the primary usefulness of the rivers, channels and creeks of New Netherland.6 Van der Donck provides little detail on the navigability of the bays and rivers, but he could afford to be brief about this matter, since the coast of New Netherland had been described extensively in 1625 by Johannes de Laet in his book Nieuwe wereldt [New World ]. De Laet was a bewindhebber [director] of the Amsterdam chamber of the West India Company, and compiled this work to provide the other directors of the recently founded Company with sound information about America. His main intention was to describe the land’s geography, and the work is filled with descriptions of the coasts, with copious details about distances, sandbanks, and the depths and navigability of the rivers. De Laet, who himself never saw America, based his work on the journals and reports of Henry Hudson (now lost) and Cornelis Jacobsz. May, among others.7 Both De Laet and Van der Donck indicate two large rivers as the most important, today’s Delaware and Hudson rivers. The most southerly river in New Netherland, the Delaware River, was named the ‘Zuydtrivier’ [South River] by the Dutch. According to Van der Donck, some compared the South River to the Amazon, not so much in size, as in other attributes. Fertile stretches of land along the South River made this area highly suitable for colonization. Van der Donck regarded the bay and the river, despite the sandbanks, as reasonably navigable, but thirty years earlier De Laet had had a different view: the bay within is full of sandbars and shoals, and even though there are numerous kills and channels, one should not come in unless he is familiar with the bay, for it is a dangerous bay.8

The difference may reflect the increase in geographical knowledge. In the thirty years between De Laet and Van der Donck, the Dutch

6

Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 4–5, 12 (Description, 6, 15). Juet, Henry Hudson’s reize, LII, LIII; Johnson, Charting the Sea of Darkness, 89; Jacobs, ‘Johannes de Laet en de Nieuwe Wereld’; Zandvliet, Mapping for Money, 167 and 291, n. 18. 8 De Laet, Nieuwe wereldt, 90 (NNN, 52). 7

10

chapter one

had sailed the South River regularly, and the sandbanks had been charted. On the other hand, Van der Donck, in his efforts to promote the colonization of the area, had a tendency to portray matters with a rosy tint.9 The second river was the ‘Noort-Rivier’ [North River], ‘the most famous and most populated of New Netherland’.10 The names the Dutch gave to this river are varied: ‘Rio de Montaigne’, the ‘Manhattes rieviere’, the ‘Groote Rivier’, and ‘de grootte Mouritse reviere’, after Prince Maurits.11 The name they used most frequently was North River. The English from the 1630s onwards used the name still borne by the river today, the Hudson. According to Van der Donck, the bay into which the North River flows was large enough to accommodate over a thousand large ships. It was easy to sail into this bay between the ‘Hamelshoofden’ [the Narrows], he wrote, and with a favorable tide ships could sail through to New Amsterdam in one stretch.12 On the west bank of the North River, opposite Manhattan, lay the area that the Dutch called Achter Kol, with ‘a great deal of waste reedy land’.13 The North River was much influenced by the tides. Even beyond the colony of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, Rensselaerswijck, in the north of New Netherland near Fort Orange [presentday Albany], the influence of the tides was noticeable. Slightly to the north of Rensselaerswijck lay the confluence of the North River with the Mohawk River coming from the west, where the Cohoes Falls were. Van der Donck was clearly impressed by this waterfall: [it is] very pleasant to behold. If there were any ancient poets there, they could conjure up wondrous and pleasant tales of this place, as being very suitable for that.14

Another colonist to be impressed by the Cohoes Falls was the predikant [minister] Johannes Megapolensis, who arrived in the colony in 1642. This observer found the waterfall, which in a ministerial way he esti-

9 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 5, 7 (Description, 7, 10); Funk, ‘De literatuur van Nieuw-Nederland’, 385. 10 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 8 (Description, 10). 11 De Laet, Nieuwe wereldt, 87 (NNN, 45); Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 266 (NNN, 102); Hart, Prehistory, 18. 12 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 6 (Description, 8). 13 Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 266 (NNN, 103). 14 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 8–10 (Description, 12).

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

11

mated to be as high as a church, sufficiently interesting to make a trip to view it closer up.15 The other branch of the river came from the north, and was navigable for small boats. According to the Indians, the river rose in a large lake, from which the river of Canada [St. Lawrence River] also sprang. This lake was named ‘het lack der Iracoysen’ [the lake of the Iroquois, Lake Ontario]. The Indians correctly reported that it was possible to sail in a small boat from the North River to the St. Lawrence River, but Van der Donck doubted this.16 Of much less importance was the ‘Varsche rivier’ [Fresh River, Connecticut River], called Fresh because its waters were less saline than the South River and the North River, as it was less affected by tidal flow. In his Nieuwe wereldt, De Laet paid little attention to the Fresh River, which in some places was quite shallow and not easily navigable. Van der Donck, on the other hand, praised the Fresh River for its navigability, its good fertile soil, and its good opportunities for the fur trade. It was all academic, however, for by 1655, when he published his Beschryvinge, the English were in firm possession of the Fresh River, and Van der Donck did not find it worthwhile to devote much attention to it.17 Van der Donck describes the other waterways in a manner that shows his utilitarian perspective: water mills could be erected on the various small streams, and the lakes were well furnished with fish. Van der Donck regarded the usefulness of the waterways for transport and for powering water mills of great importance, although he noticed as well the beauty of the natural surroundings, for instance of the waterfall at Cohoes. In placing primary importance on the usefulness of nature’s gifts, Van der Donck was typical of his time, in which the world was seen as having been created to serve mankind.18 The same emphasis on the potential utility of nature can be found in other descriptions of New Netherland’s waters and land as well. Johannes Megapolensis began his description of Rensselaerswijck as follows:

15 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 44 (NNN, 170). The account of Megapolensis was first published in Megapolensis, Een kort ontwerp. 16 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 8–9 (Description, 11–12). 17 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 10 (Description, 13). 18 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 11 (Description, 15); Thomas, Man and the Natural World, 17.

12

chapter one The country here is in general like that in Germany. The land is good, and very rich in every one of those provisions that the human body needs, except clothes, linen, woolen stockings, shoes etc., which are all dear here. The country is very mountainous, partly soil, partly rocks, and so exceedingly high that they [the mountains] seem almost to touch the clouds.19

The soil in the mountains was of a reddish type of sand or stone, but around the rivers it was mostly clay, described by Megapolensis as very fertile. Van der Donck was rather more specific in his description of the types of soil. Along the coast the soil was mostly sandy, but always mixed with some clay. The soil along the rivers was generally black, mixed with clay, a foot or more deep. He spoke highly of the plains of hundreds or even thousands of morgens [a measure of land equal to about two acres] along the rivers, regarding them as fit sites for future villages. Some of these plains were flooded in the springtime, as were the river forelands in Holland, but, he wrote, they could be diked, drained, and cultivated. In this way, Van der Donck brought New Netherland within the mental framework of his Dutch readership in patria.20 Van der Donck was of the opinion that the pleasant vistas in the hills and mountains would provide delight for lovers of landscape paintings or hunting. More important, he presumed that minerals could be found in the hills. In 1625 the instructions to one of the first directors of New Netherland, Willem Verhulst, explicitly ordered him to explore this possibility. As other Europeans had been, like Columbus at the end of the fifteenth century, the Dutch were obsessed with precious metals. The possible presence of gold ore in the vicinity of Rensselaerswijck raised hopes when one of the Indians visiting the area appeared to have decorated his face with it. The location where he had found the ore was examined, and samples were dispatched to the Dutch Republic in two ships. Both ships sank, and it was only after replacement samples had been procured and sent that it was ascertained that the material was not gold, but probably pyrite. However, copper and mercury were found in New Netherland. Of less value, but nonetheless useful, was the clay, which was suit-

19

Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 42 (NNN, 168). Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 43 (NNN, 170); Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 13–14 (Description, 17–18). 20

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

13

able for use in pottery and brick making. Also found were a type of stone suitable for making millstones, and quartz, alabaster, and marble, although little use was made of them at the time Van der Donck published his Beschryvinge. As with other aspects of the colony that he described, Van der Donck here points out the opportunities awaiting new settlers.21 The first accounts of New Netherland gave some commentators in the Netherlands the idea that the colony had a tropical climate. In his Historisch Verhael, Nicolaes van Wassenaer reported in 1624 that the land enjoyed a warm climate, with hot summers. Van Wassenaer, whose information was secondhand, wrote that one could hardly speak of winter weather in the area of the South River.22 That New Netherland was not tropical, despite the fact that it lay considerably further south than the Dutch Republic, soon became clear to the Dutch. In 1625, Johannes de Laet wrote that, although the climate and seasons agreed with that in patria, it was colder in New Netherland than the latitude suggested. Yet De Laet concluded that it was ‘a country well adapted for our people to inhabit, on account of the similarity of the climate and the weather to our own’.23 But the similarities were not so great as De Laet had presumed. New Netherland clearly had a continental climate, with colder winters and warmer summers than the Dutch were used to. According to Van der Donck, describing the area around New Amsterdam, spring generally began at about the end of February, after which frost was rare. Nature then began to come to life again. In the spring the easterly winds sometimes brought thunderstorms with them, he wrote, although these were not long-lived. The cows could be put out into the fields in March, and April was the time for sowing. Wild strawberries were to be found as early as mid-May.24 The summers, which began in May or June, were warmer than

21

Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 14, 29, 30 (Description, 17, 36 (note), 37); Wieder, De stichting van New York, 132–133 (DRNN, 75–76); Pagden, European Encounters with the New World, 17–19; Hine, Old Mine Road, 1–16; Abbott, ‘Colonial Copper Mines’, 296. 22 Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, February 1624, 146v (NNN, 73); Hart, Prehistory, 19. 23 De Laet, Nieuwe wereldt, 84, 89 (NNN, 50); Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 30–31; Schmidt, Innocence Abroad, 214; Bachman, Peltries or Plantations, 56–7. 24 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 46–48 (Description, 58–62).

14

chapter one

the Dutch were used to and generally drier. Often a refreshingly cool breeze came in from the sea. Van der Donck waxed lyrical about the summers in New Netherland. He noticed that in the summer the days were not so long as in the Netherlands, nor so short in the winter. He was also aware of a time difference between New Netherland and the Netherlands. He was in fact astonishingly accurate in estimating it at six hours. Unfortunately, Van der Donck does not relate how he arrived at this figure, but he does note as explanation that New Netherland was far to the west on a round globe.25 Autumn in New Netherland was generally mild and even more pleasant and agreeable than summer in the Dutch Republic. It lasted quite long. In the vicinity of New Amsterdam it could be Christmas before winter set in, although to the north the cold weather and frost arrived earlier. Autumn was the time for hunting, and for slaughtering. It is remarkable that Van der Donck did not mention the leaves’ beautiful change of color in the autumn.26 The nature of winter in the colony varied according to the northerly position and proximity to the sea. Near the sea the winters were relatively mild, but in Rensselaerswijck, in the north, the temperature fell so low that the North River was frozen over by the end of November, cutting off this section of New Netherland from the south. Of course, temperature was much dependent on the wind. The cold northwesterly wind could be strong and penetrating. At sea, these winds seldom proved to be a problem as they were offshore, but on land they took down many trees in the forests, Van der Donck noted. In the north, the snow could lie for months on end, while in the south it would quickly melt as soon as the wind shifted to the south. Van der Donck was surprised that New Netherland experienced such cold winters, despite lying at the same latitude as Italy and Spain. Furthermore, the cold was much drier than that in the more northerly lying Netherlands. Van der Donck suggested that the northwesterly winds swept over a frozen sea before reaching the colony. Inland, the snow often lay longer between the mountains, keeping the weather cold even late in the winter. The cold also brought with it certain

25 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 46–49 (Description, 58–63); Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 44 (NNN, 171). 26 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 49–50 (Description, 63–64).

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

15

important advantages, ‘as it clears the land of various kinds of vermin, and takes away all sharp and evil humors’.27 All in all, New Netherland had a favorable climate, and for colonists from the Netherlands it was more healthy than that of West Africa or of the West Indies. The air in New Netherland was good, without ‘heavy fumes or stinking mists’. Those who had fallen ill in the West Indies, Virginia, or elsewhere could be cured swiftly by the healthy air of New Netherland, according to Van der Donck. In warm weather, the air was further purified by thunder and lightning.28 Although New Netherland and Europe lay roughly at the same latitude and had to some extent a similar climate, both flora and fauna displayed differences from those the colonists were used to in their mother country.29 When the Dutch arrived in New Netherland it was almost completely forested. According to Johannes Megapolensis, they found the finest fir trees the eye ever saw. There are also in this country oaks, alders, beeches, elms, willows, etc. In the forests, and here and there along the waterside, and on the islands, there grows an abundance of chestnuts, plums, hazelnuts, large walnuts of several sorts, and of as good a taste as in the Netherlands, but they have a somewhat harder shell. The ground on the hills is covered with bushes of bilberries or blueberries.30

Van der Donck was more utilitarian than Megapolensis in his attitude to the trees to be found in the colony. For him, the proximity of the forests meant a sufficient supply of fuel. The hard walnut was particularly suitable for burning, but it could also be used for making flails and mill components. Other trees were utilized in the construction of ships and houses. Some colonists were afraid that the profligate manner in which the Dutch used wood could result in shortage, but Van der Donck considered these worries unfounded. He believed that the abundance of wood was such that it would never be lacking.31

27

Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 46, 50–52 (Description, 64–66). Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 46–47 (Description, 60). 29 Crosby, Ecological Imperialism, 11. 30 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 42 (NNN, 168). 31 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 15–17 (Description, 19–20); De Laet, Nieuwe wereldt, 84 (NNN, 38). 28

16

chapter one

The great variety of species of plants and trees in the forests of New Netherland did not come about solely through natural causes. Where the Indian had farmed, America was no natural wilderness, untouched by human hand. The Indian method of farming, whereby areas of forest were burnt down and the land planted for several years with maize and other crops, resulted in a mosaic of afforestation at various stages of development, with a wealth of species as a consequence. Van der Donck recounts that, when the Dutch put into culture a certain parcel of land, an Indian told him that it was very good land. It had been planted on by the Indians only twenty-five or twenty-six years previously, and it had now become forest again. Van der Donck found this quick reversion to forest difficult to believe, but other Indians confirmed the story. Walnut and oak trees covered the land and some trees were a vadem [fathom, ca. 1.70 meters] wide, growing so thickly that it was virtually impossible to pass through the wood on horseback.32 The sedentary farming carried out by the colonists differed from the way the Indians used the land, with the result that the appearance of New Netherland changed considerably under Dutch management. Van der Donck considered farming in New Netherland to be less arduous and difficult than back in Holland, principally because there was no need to dig drainage ditches. The colonists could easily erect fences as plentiful wood was available for the taking. For winter wheat or rye, the land was ploughed twice, while this was necessary only once in the summer. The land was regularly left fallow or planted with peas, but in many instances the soil was so rich that this was not necessary. Megapolensis reported that one particular farmer had had good crops of barley for eleven years in succession without having to leave the land fallow. The grains most cultivated by the colonists were wheat and rye. Barley and buckwheat were less common, as the finches and other birds were fond of these. In his description, Van der Donck devoted much attention to ‘Turkish wheat’, maize, which the Indians sowed at intervals of approximately six feet, alternated with pumpkins or beans. The Dutch adopted this Indian custom. Maize was frequently used as the first crop in newly cultivated soil.33 32 Cronon, Changes in the Land; Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 15–16 (Description, 20); Van Gastel, ‘Van der Donck’s Description’, 414. 33 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 43 (NNN, 170); Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 23, 25–27 (Description, 71, 30–31).

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

17

The Dutch brought a number of different fruit trees to the colony, such as apple, pear, and cherry. The trees sometimes bore so much fruit that branches would break off under the burden. Peaches and apricots also flourished in New Netherland, and Van der Donck continues with a summing-up of all the fruits that were to be found there: plums, almonds, medlars, cornelian cherries, figs, several sorts of currant, gooseberries, and thorn apples. He also saw opportunities for olive-growing.34 Vegetables and herbs were imported by the Dutch as well, including lettuces, salads, cabbages, parsnips, carrots, beets, endive, succory, sorrel, dill, spinach, radishes, Spanish radishes, parsley, chervil, cresses, onions, leeks, and the like. Enumeration seems to have been Van der Donck’s main strategy for convincing potential colonists of New Netherland’s possibilities. Vegetables and herbs generally grew better in the colony than in the Dutch Republic. This also applied to pumpkins, the cultivation of which required little attention. These were stewed in water and vinegar. In patria the Dutch generally despised the pumpkin as an article of food, but in New Netherland pumpkins were so good that they were a favorite food. The English colonists in the New World used pumpkins in pie fillings and also produced a type of drink from them. The Indians had their own sort of pumpkins, which they called quaesiens or cascoeten, names which the Dutch adopted. Also grown were watermelons, cucumbers, peas, turnips, and various sorts of beans.35 Grapes grew in the colony in such abundance that Van der Donck thought it almost unbelievable. With a little human intervention, the vines could produce wine as good as was produced in Germany or France, as the Swedes had shown on the South River. But not all types of grape were suitable. Some were rather fleshy, and were therefore called spekdruiven [fat or lard grapes]. These produced a thick sap called draeckenbloet [dragon’s blood]. Few Dutch colonists possessed any knowledge of viniculture, reason to bring over a German viniculturist from Heidelberg. Van der Donck remarked that, as a result, an abundance of wine could be expected within a couple of years.36 However, no evidence exists that this actually came to pass during the Dutch colonial period. 34

Van Van 36 Van ontwerp’, 35

der Donck, Beschryvinge, 18–19 (Description, 24–25). der Donck, Beschryvinge, 21–22 (Description, 67–70). der Donck, Beschryvinge, 19–21 (Description, 25–27); Megapolensis, ‘Kort 42 (NNN, 168–169).

18

chapter one

Apart from edible plants, the Dutch also brought to the New World ornamental plants, such as various species of roses and tulips. Imported medicinal herbs, of which Van der Donck provides an extensive list of Latin names, flourished in New Netherland. A surgeon, whose name Van der Donck does not mention, had established an excellent herb garden, which unfortunately was not maintained after his departure. Colonists in Rensselaerswijck also attempted to cultivate indigo plants from seeds sent over by Kiliaen van Rensselaer to produce dyestuff. As this was not carried out properly, the attempts proved unsuccessful. Later Augustijn Heermans met with some success, as he tried it in a more southerly area, in the vicinity of New Amsterdam. The soil in New Netherland was suitable for the cultivation of tobacco, but the tobacco from New Netherland was not as good as that from Virginia. Van der Donck expected that, with the increase in population, more tobacco would be grown, and that the quality would improve. As with maize, tobacco was used to make newly cultivated land suitable for the cultivation of other agricultural crops.37 The fauna in New Netherland was as varied as the flora. Van der Donck, and others too, reported the presence of lions, bears, moose, deer, wolves, and various sorts of birds and fish.38 According to him, lions were never glimpsed by Dutch colonists, but were known through pelts bought from the Indians. It is likely that these were lynxes, which can still be found in the Adirondack Mountains. The Dutch every so often saw bears, but these were not dangerous as they took flight as soon as they smelled humans. Some bear hunting was carried out, for bear skin was suitable for muffs. Van der Donck advised the bear hunter before shooting to make sure he could escape up a nearby tree, since the chances of putting a bear out of action with a single shot were small. The Indians savored bear meat. Van der Donck, who had never tasted bear himself, had heard it said that it was as good as pork. The Indians sometimes took the animals alive, in order to fatten them up. Bear hunting was usually carried out in the winter, as the bears were drowsy and slow as a result of their winter hibernation. The Dutch valued moose for

37

Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 24–25, 27–28 (Description, 28–29, 33). Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 35 (Description, 43–44); Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 277 (NNN, 114). De Rasière is ambivalent about the presence of lions and bears. 38

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

19

their meat more than deer. Van der Donck asserted that moose were easy to tame, and so could be used both as working animals as well as for slaughter, which must be considered a flight of fancy.39 Large numbers of deer featured in New Netherland, and venison figured heavily in the Dutch diet. Van der Donck was of the opinion that the wolves in New Netherland were not too much of a nuisance to the Dutch, since their main prey was deer. Occasionally they would take a calf, sheep, goat, or pig, although pigs were no easy prey if they were in a group. Various types of snake inhabited New Netherland, most of which were not dangerous, with the important exception of the rattlesnake, described by Megapolensis at length with some fear.40 In general, New Netherland’s waterways were rich in fish, both in quantity and in diversity. Salmon and sturgeon were plentiful, but at that time the Dutch did not bother to process the sturgeon’s roe to make caviar, to Van der Donck’s surprise. In spring the perch were so plentiful that in one hour Megapolensis’s sons caught fifty perch, each a foot long. The colonists also caught elft [shad], a fish already known to the Dutch, not unlike the herring. Unfamiliar were the twalift [striped bass] and the dertien [drum-fish]. These two were discovered after the capture of considerable numbers of elft [eleventh, in Dutch] during the first years of the Dutch presence in the colony, and their names were the Dutch words for ‘twelfth’ and ‘thirteenth’.41 In the inland waters carp, pike, trout, and eels abounded. Haddock, herring, mackerel, ray, flounder, and plaice were caught in the bays. Also lobsters, crabs, oysters, mussels, shrimps, and turtles were there for the taking. Other sorts of sea animals were available that were unknown in the Dutch Republic, but Van der Donck found them to be of small importance, as they were of little use to the colonists.42 A less usual phenomenon in New Netherland was the presence of whales. In his Beschryvinge, Van der Donck devoted ample attention

39

Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 36 (Description, 45). Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 35–38, 44 –45 (Description, 43–47, 57–58); Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 43 (NNN, 169–170); Gehring and Starna, A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, 6, 35, 37, notes 45, 53. 41 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 43 (Description, 54); De Vries, Korte Historiael, 259 (NNN, 222). 42 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 44 (NNN, 171); Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 42–44 (Description, 54–56). 40

20

chapter one

to the two whales that swam quite some distance up the river in 1647. The commies [a subaltern administrative official] of the patroonship Rensselaerswijck, Anthony de Hooges, witnessed it: The 29th of March in the year 1647 there appeared before us in the colony [patroonship] a certain fish, which, as far as we could see, was of extraordinary size. It came from downstream and swam a certain length past us upstream up to the fords and returned downstream past us again by evening. It was as white as snow, without any fins, round of body and blew out water from his head, like the whales or tuna.43

The inhabitants observed it with great wonder. The other whale was stranded close to the Cohoes Falls, to the gratification of the colonists there, who got a large quantity of train oil from it. Whales were also to be found in the South River, and Van der Donck foresaw lucrative opportunities for whaling there.44 Far more important than whales were the fur-bearing animals. The beaver (Castor canadensis) was the most valued of these, although raccoons, mink, and wildcats were also hunted, as were otters and foxes, the fur of which was sold into Germany via Amsterdam and Hamburg. Van der Donck devoted no fewer than eight pages to the beaver, more than any other subject, with the exception of the Indians. Originally, desire for beaver pelts had drawn the Dutch to New Netherland. The animal was hunted by the Indians both for its meat and its fur during a hunting season that lasted from December through to the end of May. Beaver meat was a delicacy, which the Indians rarely sold to the Dutch. The tastiest part of the beaver was the tail, but its prime possession was its pelt, which was covered with a soft ashen fur, verging on pale blue, used to make felt hats. The winter coat of the beaver was somewhat thicker and brown, and contained long, shining protective hairs of no use in the production of felt. If the protective hair had not been removed, the pelt was called castor sec. This type of pelt was highly valued in Muscovy, where a major proportion of the beaver pelts procured by the Dutch ultimately ended up. Beaver fur was also used there to trim garments. Another type consisted of beaver pelts that had been worn by the Indians. This type was called castor gras and was greatly prized,

43 NYSL, VRMP, box 31, folder 6 (29 March 1647; O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 1: 346). 44 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 5, 8 (Description, 7, 11).

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

21

because use had worn away the winter hair and had given the pelts a certain oiliness necessary for producing felt. These pelts were shipped via Amsterdam to France, where they were further processed.45 Of the birds of prey, Van der Donck paid the most attention to the eagle, which he thought very pleasant to behold.46 But he also mentions other birds of prey, such as falcons and hawks. At the time, little use was made of these birds for hunting. In 1651, Jan Baptist van Rensselaer did possess a hawk for hunting, which he described as ‘keen and alert and [. . .] king of all New Netherland’.47 However, this bird had been sent over to him from patria. Many of the birds found by the colonists in New Netherland were known to them, although the large numbers astonished them. The Dutch regularly consumed turkeys, partridges, pheasants, grouse, and pigeons. Some fowl, particularly the migratory birds, were present in such numbers that, according to Van der Donck, they hung as clouds in the sky and projected shadows on the earth. Their large numbers made them easy to hunt. Megapolensis reports that in the spring and autumn each morning and evening everyone stood in front of his house with a shotgun ready to shoot them as they flew by. Among the other birds mentioned by Van der Donck was a strange one, dubbed the West Indian bee, because it used its beak to suck honey from the flowers — the hummingbird. Hummingbirds were so delicate that they could be caught by first spraying them with water, and then enfolding them in paper and drying them in the sun, after which they were given as a present to friends, sometimes with a cage to keep them in. Among the waterfowl, various sorts could be eaten, such as geese and ducks, both of which were represented in different varieties and in large numbers. Also, swans, widgeon, cormorants, and even pelicans inhabited New Netherland’s waterways.48

45 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 38, 84, 87 (Description, 48, 113, 117); Hart, ‘The City-Colony of New Amstel’, II, 8; Rich, ‘Russia and the Colonial Fur Trade’, 312–313; Norton, Fur Trade, 104–105. 46 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 38–39 (Description, 48–49). 47 NYSL, VRMP, box 48, I, folder 3 (1 September 1651; CJVR 9). 48 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 40–42 (Description, 51–54); Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 277 (NNN, 114–115); Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 43 (NNN, 169).

22

chapter one Indians

Among all the new and remarkable phenomena to be found in the New World, the Indians occupied a special position. Both Van der Donck and Megapolensis devoted more attention to the Indians than to any other aspect of New Netherland. This was to some extent the result of the interest in unknown and exotic peoples by their readers in the Dutch Republic. The Dutch called the Indians wilden, not only in New Netherland but also in other parts of America. Van der Donck provides a threepart explanation for this. The Indians were considered wild ‘on account of the religion, because they have none or so little as to be virtually wild in this’. Second, Indian customs regarding marriage and the ownership of land were far removed from the European general laws that Van der Donck implicitly used as the norm. Third, the names ‘heathens’ or ‘blacks’, customarily used for Turks and blacks, were scarcely applicable, since they were too general. It was for this reason that the Dutch continued to use the term wilden, the first word that came to them, ‘since the first opinion or notion of women and the uneducated who do not know much is best’.49 Although the term was widely used, other words were also employed. Megapolensis uses Indianen [Indians] considerably more frequently than wilden. In other sources, the term naturellen [aboriginals] is found. On the whole, the first argument supplied by Van der Donck in defense of using the designation wilden was shared by most of the Dutch: religion, rather than race, was the defining factor.50 In Dutch descriptions of the Indians, much attention is paid to the Mohawks. This group in the area to the west of Fort Orange was the most easterly of the five Iroquois nations and was called ‘Maquas’ or ‘Mahakobaasen’ by the Dutch. The other Iroquois groups, the Oneidas, the Onondaga, the Cayuga, and the Seneca nations lived to the west of the Mohawks and were given the collective name of ‘Sinnekens’. The colonists had less contact with the western groups, although the sources indicate that the distinctions between the Iroquois

49 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 54 (Description, 73; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 107); Elliott, The Old World and the New, 41–48; Frederickson, White Supremacy, 7–13; Otto, New Netherland Frontier. 50 NYSA, NYCM 12: 36, p. 4 (13 March 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 84).

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

23

groups were recognized by them.51 The Mohawks were the most important, but certainly not the only, suppliers of beaver pelts to the Dutch colonists. On the east bank of the North River, opposite Fort Orange, lived the Mahicans, referred to by the Dutch as ‘Mahikanders’. Although at the beginning of the seventeenth century the Mahicans may have lived on both banks of the North River, in about 1628 they were driven off the west bank by the Mohawks, thus leaving Fort Orange lying between the two Indian communities.52 To the south of the Iroquois, around the Susquehanna River, which has its source west of that of the South River and runs south to flow into the Chesapeake Bay, lived the Susquehannocks, whom the Dutch named ‘Minquas’. Along the North River and in the vicinity of Manhattan there lived a variety of small groups, such as Esopus Indians, Wappinger, Tappan, Manhatan, Raritan, Canarsee Indians, and various others. These groups formed a branch of the Delaware Indians, known as the Lenapes. They spoke Munsee, an eastern Algonquian language. Another branch, which was principally to be found around the South River, spoke Unami, a related language. The Dutch were aware that the languages and dialects of the various Indians were diverse, but when it came to describing the lifestyle and appearance of the Indians, most of the Dutch made little distinction among them.53 All Dutch observers noticed the physical appearance of the Indians. Their stature was comparable to the Dutch, according to Van der Donck. Their skin was not as white as that of the Europeans, but yellowish. They had dark brown eyes and snow-white teeth, and their hair was jet black. The women wore their hair in long plaits, but the men shaved their heads, leaving a sort of cockscomb over the middle of the head. Here and there they left wisps of hair on the shaven areas, ‘such as are in sweeping-brushes, and then they

51

Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse; Snow, The Iroquois; Jennings, The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire. 52 Trigger, ‘The Mohawk-Mahican War’; Starna and Brandão, ‘From the MohawkMahican War to the Beaver Wars’. 53 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 67 (Description, 91–92; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 118–119); Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 45 (NNN, 172); FOCM, 150n; Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 1–17; Trelease, Indian Affairs, 1–24; Trigger, Handbook of North American Indians; Schulte Nordholt, ‘Nederlanders in Nieuw-Nederland’, 44; Verbeeck, ‘Van partner tot horige’.

24

chapter one

are in fine array’. It was the custom of the men to paint their faces in various colors, making them look like devils, according to Megapolensis. The Indians had little or no facial hair, and looked on hair other than on the head as ugly. Van der Donck reports that such hair was pulled out at the roots.54 The Indians were not particularly clean, as Megapolensis writes with obvious disgust. They smeared their heads with bear fat to prevent lice, and they never washed themselves: They are very slovenly and dirty; they wash neither their face, nor hands, but let all remain upon their yellow skin, and look like hogs.55

The Indians suffered few physical disabilities; cripples and hunchbacks were rare, according to Van der Donck. He had, however, come across an Indian who had become blind as a result of smallpox. As with smallpox, the Indians had little or no resistance to such infectious diseases as measles and influenza, which European colonists had brought with them. Van der Donck’s 1655 estimate that the size of the Indian population had diminished to about 10 percent of that prior to the arrival of Europeans is impossible to corroborate with other evidence. Yet the scanty evidence available, recently re-evaluated by José António Brandão, shows that by about 1660, the five Iroquois groups had been reduced to about twenty-five thousand people. Among the Mohawks, with whom the Dutch had the most contact, the mortality rate was much higher, but they still numbered 4,500. Brandão’s estimates are considerably higher than those of 1994 by Dean Snow, who puts the total for the Iroquois at 9,104 and for the Mohawks at 2,304.56 In the summer the Indian men clad themselves in a loincloth, by the Dutch dubbed a clootlap. Van der Donck apologizes for the use of this word, which might appear unseemly to his Dutch audience,

54 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 53, 57 (Description, 72, 78; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 106, 109–110); Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 45–46 (NNN, 173). De Rasière considered the skin color to be orange, similar to the Brazilians: Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 268 (NNN, 105). 55 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 46–47 (NNN, 175). 56 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 50, 53 (Description, 64, 72–73; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 109); Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 58–59; Brooklyn Historical Society, journal of the travels of Jaspar Danckers and Peter Sluyter, p. 217 (Gehring and Grumet, ‘Observations’, 107); Brandão, “Your fyre shall burn no more”, appendix C; Snow, The Iroquois, 110.

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

25

but which in New Netherland was so normal ‘that it does not offend the delicate ear of women or maids’.57 During the winter the Indians wore animal skins, with shoes made of deerskin. In many instances, their clothing was decorated with sewant or zeewant, the Narragansett name for polished shell, threaded like beads. The colonists in New England adopted another Algonquian word, wampum. It was made from two types of whelk (Busycon carica and Busycon canaliculatum) for the white beads, and a clam, Northern Quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria), for the black beads, which were actually dark purple. As the trading relationships with the Dutch increased, instead of animal skins the Indians began to wear more duffel and other woolen cloth, also adopting the use of stockings, shoes, and shirts. Van der Donck remarked that the Indians wore these garments without laundering them, until they were completely worn out.58 The Indians provided for their needs by hunting, fishing, and farming. Invariably, the Dutch descriptions point to a rigorous division of labor. Hunting and fishing were the responsibility of the men. Fishing was carried out in the spring and early summer, with the use of fykes or bag-type nets.59 The catch was cooked as it was, neither gutted nor skinned. Nor, according to Van der Donck, was it preserved with salt. The Indians did, however, dry fish, ‘which they pound half stinking into meal, to use in the winter (as has been heard) in their porridge’.60 In the autumn and winter they hunted bears, otters, beavers, and deer, among other animals, for which they utilized traps, bows and arrows, and later also guns. During the hunting season, the men were often away for months. The women carried out the farm work, to the indignation of the Dutch, who considered this division of responsibilities inappropriate: ‘The women are obliged to prepare the land, to mow, to plant, and do everything; the men do nothing but hunt, fish, and make war upon their

57

Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 56–57 (Description, 77; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 109). 58 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 56–58, 67 (Description, 77–79, 93; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 109–110, 119); Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 45, 47 (NNN, 173, 176); Hamell, ‘Wampum’, 42; Cantwell and Wall, Unearthing Gotham, 132–133. 59 Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 268 (NNN, 105). 60 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 70 (Description, 97; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 121); Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 47 (NNN, 175).

26

chapter one

enemies’.61 The principal crop was maize, from which a porridge or mush, called sappaen, was made, which was the main diet. Some of the maize harvested was also stored in pits in the ground for the winter.62 Beans were an important part of the Indian diet, and were, together with fresh meat, used in stews that were regarded as a delicacy. The eating habits of the Indians surprised Van der Donck: they have tremendous control over their appetite, stomachs, and bodies, so that they can get by with very little for two, three, or four days. When supplies are ample again they will quickly make up for the loss or the delay, without upsetting their stomachs or making themselves ill.63

The Indians lived in villages, the larger of which were encircled by palisades, and called casteelen [castles] by the Dutch. Generally, the large settlements were situated on top of hills, in the vicinity of water. Their houses were approximately seven meters wide and, according to Van der Donck, who might be referring to the Iroquois longhouses here, could be as long as some hundred feet. They constructed them by placing walnut stakes in the ground, and then bending and binding these together, to create a canopy or tilt. The sides and roof were covered with wood and bark. Holes were made in the roof to allow the egress of smoke. The hearths were situated in the middle of the houses, with the sleeping areas along the sides. In these houses, twenty to thirty of which stood in a casteel, lived a number of families in extremely close proximity, sometimes up to one hundred and fifty people, according to Van der Donck, who was amazed by the large numbers living under one roof.64 Although a certain degree of kinship and cooperation existed among the peoples of the Iroquois, this did not result in any form of central authority. Each village was, in principle, autonomous. Within the village a form of governance existed, which in the eyes of the Dutch carried little authority:

61

Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 46 (NNN, 174); Cronon, Changes in the Land, 52. Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 48 (NNN, 177). 63 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 55 (Description, 76; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 108); Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 270 (NNN, 107). 64 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 58–59 (Description, 79–82; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 110–113); Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 18–19. 62

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

27

The government among them consists of the oldest, the most intelligent, the most eloquent and most warlike men. They commonly make the decisions, which are then executed by the young men and the warriors. But if the common men do not like the decision, the matter is laid before the mob.65

The Indian leaders were called oversten [headmen] by the colonists, although the Indian word sachem, and its variations sackimas or sackemackers were also used. This word was also used in dealings with the Indians as the title of the colonists’ leaders. Van der Donck opined that leadership was hereditary among the Indians. Although he was to some extent right in this thinking, it might have amazed him, had he known it, that in this matrilineal society it was the female heads of the families who selected the male leaders.66 The authority of the sachems, relatively limited in Dutch eyes, was based on their capacity to maintain mutual peace and consensus by means of persuasion and the ritual exchange of gifts. Megapolensis believed that, in general, the sachems were the poorest among the Indian peoples, as they had to give rather than receive, in contrast with European societies in which one of the powers of people in authority was to levy taxes. Megapolensis did not grasp that the sachems’ authority was founded on the ritual exchange of gifts, a custom soon transferred to diplomatic negotiations between the Dutch and the Indians. After each point that the Indians brought up, they presented some sewant or a few beavers. The colonists were to learn that reciprocation kept relations with the Indians from deteriorating.67 Interaction between the Indians and the Dutch was somewhat hampered by the linguistic situation. It is true that most of the Dutch were capable of communicating with the Indians to carry out trade, but their mastery of the language seldom went beyond that. The

65

Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 49 (NNN, 179). Eekhof, ‘De “memorie” ’, 266 (NNN, 103); Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 71 (Description, 98; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 122); Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 49 (NNN, 179); CM 1655–1656, 86n; Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 40, 42–43; Brandão, “Your fyre shall burn no more”, 28–29. 67 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 71 (Description, 98; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 122); Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 41–43, 46, 56; Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 49 (NNN, 179); Jacobs and Shattuck, ‘Bevers voor drank, land voor wapens’, 108; Brandão, “Your fyre shall burn no more”, 22–25. 66

28

chapter one

Reformed predikant Jonas Michaëlius, who was on Manhattan in 1628, stated that even those who can best of all speak with the Wilden and get along well in trade, are nevertheless altogether blind and bewildered, when they hear the Wilden talking among themselves alone.68

Neither did the Dutch at Fort Orange understand much of the Indian language. Johannes Megapolensis tried to learn the language of the Mohawks, but experienced several problems. In attempting to compile a vocabulary, he failed to make them understand his goal. Also the variety of tenses, declinations, and conjugations confused him, as it did not conform to his knowledge of Latin and Greek.69 Colonists who had been living in New Netherland for a longer period could not give him much assistance. When he requested the help of the commies of Fort Orange, Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert, the latter replied that he was of the opinion that the Indians changed their language every two or three years. Megapolensis considered this highly unlikely. Despite the linguistic problems, some of the Dutch had sufficient mastery of an Indian language to function as interpreters during negotiations. In a few cases Indians could speak French or English. The observations of Van der Donck and Megapolensis on the religious perceptions of the Indians indicate that the language barrier was not so great that abstract questions could not be discussed.70 ‘They are totally estranged of any religiosity’, stated Megapolensis. The Indians had a ‘genius’ whom they treated as a god, but whom they did not worship. On the other hand, according to Megapolensis, they worshipped the devil, for example by making libations, or by the slaughtering of bears as a peace offering in the event of setbacks in battle. Van der Donck reports that on the swearing of an oath, the all-seeing sun was invoked, although the Indians were not actually worshippers of the sun. In the same way, the moon and the

68 Eekhof, Michaëlius, 121–122, 133 (11 August 1628; NNN, 128); Feister, ‘Linguistic Communication’, 31; Buccini, ‘Swannekens Ende Wilden’, 15–20. 69 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 45 (NNN, 172). 70 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 77 (Description, 103; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 127); NYSA, NYCM 6: 170 (27 November 1655; CM 1655–1656, 145), 254 (26 January 1656; CM 1655–1656, 204); Feister, ‘Linguistic Communication’, 33–34; Starna, ‘Assessing American Indian-Dutch Studies’.

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

29

planets were assigned certain powers.71 Neither Megapolensis nor Van der Donck had any affinity with the animistic spiritual world of the Indians so alien to the monotheistic European religions. With a mixture of astonishment and repugnance, the Dutch describe the Indian rituals through which, for example, evil spirits were driven out of a sick man. This was accompanied by ‘such apen spel [antics] that it was a wonder to see’.72 In general, astonishment and repugnance characterize the early Dutch descriptions of the Indians. However, in a few instances a certain tinge of admiration can be detected in the accounts of Megapolensis, for example as he describes how Indian women get back to work immediately after having given birth. This example deserved imitation: ‘we sometimes try to persuade our wives to liein likewise, and that the way of lying-in in Holland is a mere fiddlefaddle’.73 But generally the Dutch described the character of the Indians in negative terms: Johannes de Laet, for example, found a certain Indian group to be ‘not at all industrious’, they were ‘very evil thieves and wicked people’.74 This is, of course, second-hand information, which De Laet, who had never been to the New World himself, may have gleaned from the reports of returning captains. But comments of a similar nature were made by people who had actually had personal contact with the Indians, in which the implicit assumption of European superiority and Indian inferiority is evident. Most of the Indians were, according to Van der Donck, ‘simple and ignorant’, ‘most vengeful and headstrong’.75 Isaac de Rasière described them as ‘very inveterate against those whom they hate; cruel by nature; so inclined to freedom that they cannot by any means be brought to work’.76 Again, the value the Dutch placed upon utilitarianism is evident. Van der Donck, too, reports that the Indians

71 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 48 (NNN, 177); Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 76 (Description, 102; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 126); Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 24. 72 Huntington Library, San Marino, HM 819, journal of the travels of Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert, p. 20 (4 January 1635; Gehring and Starna, A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, 17–18). 73 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 46 (NNN, 174). 74 De Laet, Nieuwe wereldt, 88 (NNN, 48). 75 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 68 (Description, 94; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 120). 76 Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 268 (NNN, 105).

30

chapter one

were not suitable as slaves: ‘to heavy sustained labor which may seem slavish, they, especially the men, are quite averse’.77 In sum, these contemporary descriptions provide a good picture of New Netherland, both as to what the land looked like and as to the way the Dutch colonists looked upon it. Of course, their view was determined by their religious and cultural background, which colored their interpretation of the New World. Also, the descriptions were all produced for readers in the Netherlands, and consequently, the motherland was used as a frame of reference. That means that it was the stranger aspects of New Netherland to which most attention was paid, for example the rattlesnakes, hummingbirds, and Indians. Furthermore, promoting colonization was an important aspect of much of this writing, in particular, Van der Donck’s portrayal of New Netherland. To a greater extent than others, he emphasized how the colonists could utilize the riches of the land to their advantage. Even so, the utilitarian perspective did not prevent observers in the seventeenth century from appreciating the natural beauty of New Netherland. Both of these aspects of the literature can be seen in the following quotation from Johannes de Laet: it is a beautiful and pleasant land, full of very beautiful forests and also vineyards, and nothing is wanting but the labor and industry of people to be one of the most beautiful and fruitful lands of that region.78

The First Voyages to New Netherland Indians may have been considered lazy and unsuitable as slaves, but what they were good for was to supply peltries. The presence of fur was the reason that the Dutch had become interested in the area. Although the Mediterranean navigators Verrazano and Gomez had already explored the North River in the sixteenth century, it was only after news of Hudson’s travels reached the Dutch Republic that it became evident what the area had to offer. In 1609, Henry Hudson was commissioned by the East India

77 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 52 (Description, 72; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 106). 78 De Laet, Nieuwe wereldt, 88 (NNN, 48).

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

31

Company to explore the Northeast Passage. Although earlier attempts by Willem Barentsz. and Jacob Heemskerck to sail to China via the north of Asia had been unsuccessful, the East India Company decided to try this route once more. Hudson first sailed with his ship Halve Maen past the North Cape, but then decided, against his instructions, to head for North America. He directed his attention to the area between the thirty-seventh and forty-second parallels, between Chesapeake Bay and Cape Cod. At that time, little was known about this part of the North American coast, despite the English presence in Virginia from 1606. First sailing past the South River, Hudson arrived at the North River on 2 September 1609. On 3 September he explored the Lower Bay, and in the days following he sailed up the river that was later to bear his name, exploring it as far as what is now Albany, where it became too shallow for passage of a seagoing ship. On the way, he skirmished with some Indian groups and traded with others, obtaining tobacco and beaver and otter pelts. In early October he departed from North America and set course for Europe.79 Upon his arrival at Dartmouth on the south coast of England he was arrested by the English authorities, for in making his voyage of discovery, Hudson had contravened a charter that the King of England had issued in 1606, by which a major portion of the North American continent had been allocated to two English trading companies. Although the Halve Maen was handed back to the East India Company, Hudson himself remained in England, from where a year later he made a final attempt to discover the Northwest Passage. This attempt proved fatal: part of the crew mutinied, and he and some other members of the ship’s company, including his son, were set adrift in a sloop, never to be seen again.80 The journal of Robert Juet, one of the members of the crew, is a good source on Hudson’s 1609 journey, but far less is known about subsequent voyages from Amsterdam to the area later to be called New Netherland. It is not even known for certain when the first voyage after Hudson’s took place. It is possible that a ship under

79 Juet, Henry Hudson’s reize; Otto, ‘Origins of New Netherland’, 30–35; Otto, ‘Common Practices and Mutual Misunderstandings’; Johnson, Charting the Sea of Darkness, 82–148. 80 Johnson, Charting the Sea of Darkness, 149–212.

32

chapter one

the command of Hendrick Christiaensz. approached the North River from a southerly direction as early as 1610. A little more is known about the second voyage. After reports of Hudson’s trip reached Amsterdam, a group of Lutheran merchants quickly showed interest. This group, under the name of the Van Tweenhuysen Company, consisted of Aernout Vogels, Franchoys, Leonard, Paulus and Steffen Pelgrom, Hans Hunger, and Lambert van Tweenhuysen. In 1611, the Van Tweenhuysen Company dispatched the ship St. Pieter, under its captain Cornelis Rijser. It is probable that Hendrick Christiaensz. and Adriaen Block sailed with this voyage as supercargoes.81 The following year, Block made a second trip for the Van Tweenhuysen Company, this time as captain of the Fortuyn. It is believed that during this journey a fortification, Fort Nassau, was built on what was later to be called Castle Island, near Albany, where some of the crew remained to continue trade during the ship’s absence. It is also possible that during these years a fort at Branford CT, discovered in 1998 on the coast of Connecticut, was constructed.82 During Block’s voyage, in the winter of 1612–13, it became clear that the Van Tweenhuysen Company was no longer the only party interested in the fur trade on the North River. While Block’s ship was lying in the bay, the ship Jonge Tobias arrived, captained by Thijs Volckertsz. Mossel. He had been dispatched by the Hans Claesz. Company of Amsterdam, which consisted of Hans Claesz., Barent Sweers, Arnout van Liebergen, Wessel Schenck, Jan Holscher, and Jacob Bontenos. Because Hans Jorisz. Hontom, the supercargo on Mossel’s ship, offered the Indians twice as much for their beaver pelts as Block, disagreement ensued. Obviously, such practices would reduce profit margins considerably. The traders managed to avoid further difficulties by reaching a temporary compromise in which, presumably, they agreed upon a predetermined price per beaver. In addition, it is likely that they agreed that Block should receive twothirds and Mossel one-third of the profit from beavers.83 After both ships had returned to the Dutch Republic, negotiations were carried out between the companies of Van Tweenhuysen and

81

Hart, Prehistory, 18–22. Personal communication of John Pfeiffer, Wesleyan University; ‘Hollands fort gevonden in VS’. 83 Hart, Prehistory, 22–23. 82

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

33

Hans Claesz. to avoid the costly consequences of too severe competition. When it became apparent that no agreement could be reached, the Van Tweenhuysen Company dispatched two ships: the Fortuyn, on this occasion under Hendrick Christiaensz, and the Tijger under the command of Adriaen Block. The Hans Claesz. Company sent out a single ship, the Nachtegael, of which Mossel was the captain. Continuation of the conflict in America was inevitable. Only after Block, who had sailed a month later than Christiaensz. and Mossel, arrived in the North River was a compromise reached: Mossel was to receive two-fifths and Block and Christiaensz. three-fifths of the beaver trade. Furthermore, Block promised not to trade on the North River, but elsewhere on the American coast. However, floating ice delayed his departure, and he was still in the bay of the North River at the end of January 1614 when fire accidentally destroyed his ship.84 Mossel was not above taking advantage of Block’s unfortunate situation. He and his supercargo Hontom offered Block their help in exchange for a change in the previously-agreed ratio of the allocation of the beaver trade. Block refused, and ordered his ship’s carpenter to build a small yacht that, significantly, was named the Onrust [Unrest or Restless]. This is the first ship known to have been built in New Netherland. Unfortunately, the fire was not the end of Block’s misfortunes. A month later part of his crew mutinied. A number of them boarded Mossel’s ship Nachtegael, while supercargo Hontom, together with the greater proportion of the crew, were away engaged in trade. After several skirmishes the mutineers sailed away to carry out piracy in West Indian waters.85 The situation was exacerbated when, shortly afterwards, two new ships appeared in the bay. The first of these, also called the Fortuyn, was commanded by Cornelis Jacobsz. May who was in the employ

84 In the beginning of the twentieth century, during the construction of the subway on Manhattan, remains were found of a ship, with traces of fire. During the construction of the World Trade Center at the beginning of the 1970s, attempts were made to find additional parts. It has been thought that these remains were of the Tijger: Dilliard, Album of New Netherland, 27; Solecki, ‘The “Tiger”’; Hallowell, ‘Disappearance of the Historic Ship Tijger’; Cantwell and Wall, Unearthing Gotham, 150–153. However, recent research by Gerald de Weerdt, presented at the conference ‘New Netherland at the Millennium. The State of New World Dutch Studies’, October 21, 2001, New York, has shown that the remains date from the eighteenth century. 85 Hart, Prehistory, 24–30.

34

chapter one

of a company in Hoorn. The other ship was the Vosje, which almost a year earlier had sailed from Amsterdam to explore the Northwest Passage. The Vosje, captained by Pieter Fransz., had been dispatched by Jonas Witsen, Simon Willemsz. Nooms, and the Admiralty of Amsterdam. The arrival of these ships made it necessary to revise the earlier allocation ratio. Each of the four companies was to receive one-quarter of the beaver pelts, which was to the disadvantage of the Van Tweenhuysen Company. In June 1614, after several months of trading, the three ships left for home. A number of the crew of Block and Christiaensz. stayed behind with the Onrust at the Fort Nassau trading post.86 Back in patria, the four companies swiftly reached an agreement, leading to the founding of the Compagnie van Nieuwnederlant [New Netherland Company]. Some of the merchants had already combined their efforts in the Northern Company [Noordse Compagnie], set up for whaling near Spitsbergen and Jan Mayen Island. The competition on the North River had made them realize that it was also necessary to work together in the fur trade. The investments in transatlantic voyages could yield profits only if the buying price for the beaver pelts was kept low. But even the cooperation among the four companies could not ensure that no other competitors would appear on the horizon. The only way to achieve this was by securing a governmental charter. On 27 March 1614, the States General had issued an ordinance that paved the way for granting monopolies for trade with a newly discovered area. Seven months later, with effect from 1 January 1615, the States General granted such a patent to the New Netherland Company, allowing it to undertake four voyages in three years. The area to which this patent applied lay between the fortieth and fortyfifth parallels, which did not include the South River.87 Immediately after having been granted this patent, the New Netherland Company was compelled to defend its monopoly. An Amsterdam company, for which Albert Gerritsz. Ruijl performed the

86

Hart, Prehistory, 30–31; Muller, De reis van Jan Cornelisz. May, lii–liii. Hart, Prehistory, 32–33; Muller, Geschiedenis der Noordsche Compagnie, 67; Hacquebord, Stokman and Wasseur, ‘The Directors of the Chambers of the “Noordse Compagnie”’; Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal 1613–1616, 227 (27 March 1614; DRCHNY 1: 5), 337 (11 October 1614; DRCHNY 1: 10); Nat. Arch., SG, lias lopende, inv. no. 4929 I 61 (11 October 1614; DRCHNY 1: 11–12); Cau, Groot placaet-boeck 1: 563–566 (27 March 1614; DRCHNY 1: 5–6); Zandvliet, ‘Een ouderwetse kaart van Nieuw Nederland’. 87

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

35

duties of factor, was involved in equipping a ship, another one bearing the name Fortuyn. Under the command of Erasmus Pietersz., this ship intended to sail to the area reserved for the New Netherland Company. When the New Netherland Company attempted to forbid the voyage, Ruijl countered by saying that his company had been the first, or at least the second, in the area, and had already sailed there a number of times. Although nothing is known about any voyages that Ruijl and Pietersz. may have made, the possibility cannot be ruled out, if not to the North River but to another river. Already in 1607, English colonists had started a settlement there named Jamestown. A later deposition by Englisman Ananias Banneth, first mate on the ship Samuel, reveals that Ruijl died in Virginia, presumably in Jamestown, and was buried there in August 1622. This opens the possibility that Ruijl was already trading there earlier. As to the conflict in 1614, Ruijl and the New Netherland Company probably came to some agreement whereby ship, equipment and goods were taken over by the New Netherland Company.88 Little is known about the voyages commissioned by the New Netherland Company. Van Wassenaer, in his Historisch verhael, reports that Hendrick Christiaensz. undertook ten voyages for the Company, but that would be an extraordinarily large number in four years.89 Between 1614 and 1616 Cornelis Hendricksz. van Monnickendam explored the coast around the South River as captain of the Onrust. Another small ship built in New Netherland, the IJseren Vercken, was also used for reconnaissance and trade on the South River. On the basis of these journeys, in August 1616 Gerrit and Jonas Witsen, Lambert van Tweenhuysen, and Paulus Pelgrom on behalf of the Company requested a separate patent for this area, which lay below the fortieth parallel. The States General first requested more written information, subsequently postponing the decision three times, after which no patent was granted. It is likely that the States General were already considering the establishment of a West India Company.90

88 Hart, Prehistory, 34–35; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 47–48; Jacobs, ‘The Dutch in the Atlantic, in New Netherland, and in Virginia’; GAA, NA, inv. no. 291, fol. 15 (12 July 1623). 89 Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, December 1624, 85 (NNN, 78). 90 Hart, Prehistory, 35–36, 52; Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal 1613–1616, 680 (18 August 1616; DRCHNY 1: 12); Condon, New York Beginnings, 26; GAA, NA, inv. no. 547, fol. 304 (16 October 1620).

36

chapter one

In October 1618, ten months after its patent had officially expired, the New Netherland Company applied for a new monopoly. The States General wanted first to reconsider the ordinance of 1614 and decided to reject the application for the time being. As in 1616, the latent plans for the establishment of a West India Company played a role in their decision. In any case, the decision meant that the monopoly enjoyed by the New Netherland Company had definitely come to an end, opening the trade to all. As a consequence, the New Netherland Company disintegrated. Two merchants, Hendrick Eelkens and Adriaen Jansz. Engel, who had joined the Company later, on the expiration of the patent and on their own initiative immediately dispatched the ship Schildpad to America. The captain, Jacob Jacobsz. Eelkens, who had earlier visited the North River as supercargo under Christiaensz., was Hendrick’s nephew. The principal actors of the New Netherland Company, including in any case Van Tweenhuysen, Witsen, and Samuel Godijn, who had joined later, sent the ship Swarte Beer under the command of Hendrick Christiaensz. to New Netherland in October 1618. Christiaensz. had been warned by Eelkens and Engel not to hinder their trading activities, but nonetheless his conduct led to dissension among the Dutch traders in America. Furthermore, Christiaensz. had problems with the Indians. Early in 1619 Indians attacked the Swarte Beer in the vicinity of Nooten Eylandt [Governor’s Island] and killed him and most of the crew.91 The five survivors believed their problems to be over when a ship from Vlissingen arrived in the bay. This ship, the name of which is unknown, sailed under captain Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont for a company in Zeeland. For the crew of the Swarte Beer the arrival of Thienpont meant that they would be able to return home safely, but it also meant problems for the ship’s owners, because Thienpont seized part of the ship’s cargo, consisting of goods for trade with the Indians such as kettles, knives, and adzes, and took the ship to Zeeland. This compelled the Swarte Beer’s Amsterdam owners to take legal proceedings to regain their property.92

91

GAA, NA, inv. no. 645, fol. 36v–37 and 43–43v (9 September 1619). Hart, Prehistory, 36–37, 54–55; Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal 1617–1618, 515 (4 October 1618; DRCHNY 1: 21); Bachman, Peltries or Plantations, 13; DRNN, xiii; cf. Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 49; GAA, NA, inv. no. 645, fol. 36v–37 and 43–43v (9 September 1619). 92

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

37

Up to 1623 both Eelkens’s company and the New Netherland Company regularly sent ships to the North River. Situations of conflict still occurred but, in contrast to 1614, this did not lead to any real form of cooperation despite pressure from the States General. Although the continuing competition probably resulted in a reduction in profit margins, the ongoing dispatch of ships to the North River shows that the merchants still believed profit could be made. Not all the voyages were successful, even so. For example, in 1620 the Indians refused to trade with Willem Jorisz. Hontom and Jacob Jacobsz. Eelkens.93 The formation in 1621 of the West India Company had a considerable impact on the enterprises of the private merchants. Because the WIC, for some time after the granting of the charter on 3 June 1621, was unable to develop activities, the States General granted dispensation. In September 1621 the New Netherland Company received permission to send out two ships, on the condition that these would be back in the Dutch Republic before 1 July 1622. When on 18 June 1622 the ships had not yet returned, their owners decided to apply to the States General for a six-months’ extension. Eelkens’s company also rounded off its activities. The Witte Duyf left the North River in September 1623, and the yachts and sloops that remained were sold to the WIC. The New Netherland Company had fewer problems with the new Company, probably because Witsen and Godijn were directors of the Amsterdam chamber.94

The Establishment of the West India Company For a number of years in the period prior to 1621, Dutch merchants had been sailing to areas of the Atlantic other than New Netherland. To patria they carried sugar from Brazil, the Canary Islands, São Tomé, and Madeira, and salt from the Cape Verde Islands, the coast of Venezuela, and various islands in the Caribbean. Salt was

93 GAA, NA, inv. no. 200, fol. 625–626v (14 August 1620); Resolutiën der StatenGeneraal 1619–1620, 576 (29 August 1620; DRCHNY 1: 24–25). 94 DRNN, xii; Cau, Groot placaet-boeck 1: 577–580; Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal 1621–1622, 295 (28 September 1621; DRCHNY 1: 27, 28); GAA, NA, inv. no. 256, fol. 182v (21 May 1625), inv. no. 441, fol. 155 (30 July 1627); Hart, Prehistory, 38, 69.

38

chapter one

essential to the Dutch fishing industry. Dutch ships also sailed to the coast of West Africa, to obtain pepper, ivory, and gold. Even before the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609–1621) there had been plans to amalgamate the various companies, in the same way as had been done with the companies active in the East India trade. Willem Usselincx, one of the many merchants who had emigrated to the Northern Netherlands after the fall of Antwerp, was a particularly firm believer in a West India Company, and published various pamphlets in which he explained his ideas. In his eyes, a West India Company could provide a valuable contribution in the continuing war against Spain, but for Usselincx the colonization of overseas lands and the spread of the Reformed religion were equally important. He believed that agricultural colonies could provide patria with a variety of products, at the same time becoming markets for manufactured products from the Dutch Republic. Considerable emigration would be necessary to achieve this objective, and it remained to be seen whether inhabitants of the Netherlands would be eager to undertake the risks inherent in such a venture. In any case, the States General were somewhat skeptical about Usselincx’s plans. Furthermore, the formation of the WIC was hindered by the prospect of a truce with Spain, which would view such an organization as an immediate threat to its American colonies. The abandonment of plans for the formation of a trading company for the Atlantic areas was one of the concessions made by the States General.95 Almost immediately when hostilities with Spain were resumed after the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce, the States General issued the patent for the West India Company. The newborn Company was considerably different from the one Usselincx had envisioned. Colonization scarcely played a role in the patent, whereas privateering and trade, which in the eyes of the merchants offered better opportunities for profit, were principal objectives. But financiers in the Dutch Republic were not particularly enthusiastic, most likely because they perceived the West India Company, to a far greater extent than the East India Company, to be a privately financed

95 Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 13–26; Van den Boogaart, ‘De Nederlandse expansie in het Atlantische gebied’, 113–116; Ligtenberg, Willem Usselinx, 45–74; Jameson, Willem Usselinx, 22–81; Menkman, De West-Indische Compagnie, 30–31, 39–41; Klooster, The Dutch in the Americas, 7–8, 17–20.

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

39

weapon in the fight against Spain. The political situation in the Atlantic demanded a belligerent company. The most lucrative areas, not including New Netherland, had already been in the hands of Spain and Portugal since the beginning of the sixteenth century. To create an Atlantic empire, the Dutch Republic would have to wage war against them. For this reason trade and war were allies in the formation of the West India Company. It remained to be seen, however, whether this alliance would turn out to be a particularly fortunate combination. As long as the Company’s activities were limited to privateering and carrying out attacks on Spanish colonies, private and state interests concurred to a great extent. But the establishment of Dutch colonies, especially settlement colonies, was another matter.96 In its organization, the Company was subdivided into five chambers: Amsterdam, Zeeland, Maze, Noorderkwartier, and Stad en Lande. Its central administration, which was in charge of general policy, consisted of the Heren XIX [Lords Nineteen], in which Amsterdam had eight votes, Zeeland four, and each of the other chambers two. One vote was reserved for the States General, ensuring that the government’s interests were represented at the highest level within the Company.97 The presidency of the Heren XIX rotated between the chambers of Amsterdam and Zeeland. In principle, meetings were held in the place where the presiding chamber was established, but sometimes the States General called meetings of the Heren XIX in The Hague.98 Since most of the voyages to New Netherland were organized by Amsterdam merchants, New Netherland fell under the administration of the Amsterdam chamber, which had twenty directors. These were elected with a tenure of six years from the hoofdparticipanten [large shareholders], each of whom had to invest a minimum of six thousand guilders. Committees within each chamber were charged with specific executive duties, such as the management of

96

Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 26–34; Frijhoff, Wegen, 494. Cf. Frijhoff, Wegen, 494. That the States General had only one vote does not imply that only one representative was present. In 1638, the whole of the committee of the States General, nine man strong, was present at the meeting of the Heren XIX: Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.6 (28 February 1638–1 May 1638). 98 For example, with reference to the discussion on the opening of trade with Brazil in 1638: Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.6 (28 February 1638– 1 May 1638). 97

40

chapter one

the wharves, the equipping of the ships, and the sales of the cargoes brought in.99 The first problem for the infant Company was to raise start-up capital. This took considerably longer than had been the case for the VOC twenty years earlier. It was almost two years, in fact half way through 1623, before the Company had collected approximately seven million guilders and could embark on its activities. A major proportion of the initial capital came from cities with little or no experience of trading outside of Europe and which, to a certain extent, were inspired by religious motives, such as Utrecht, Deventer, Haarlem, and Leiden. Leiden was able to amass 269,800 guilders, of which a considerable portion came from Johannes de Laet, who personally invested 54,000 guilders. The significant investment from Leiden allowed it to appoint two directors in the Amsterdam chamber. Other cities that produced investments of more than one hundred thousand guilders also gained the right to appoint directors.100 A second problem for the WIC was the inclusion of the salt trade with Punta de Araya in the area covered by the patent. Initially, this area on the coast of Venezuela had been excluded from the monopoly, because merchants from Hoorn, Enkhuizen, and other cities in the Noorderkwartier had been involved in the salt trade on Punta de Araya, where a large natural salt pan produced sufficient volumes to fill many ships each year. They were keen to keep this trade outside the control of the WIC. But in 1622, the sluggish rate of applications for shares in the WIC forced the States General to include Punta de Araya in the monopoly after all. This, of course, caused considerable anger in the Noorderkwartier, the part of Holland north of the river IJ, where the city governments refused to promulgate the new patent. In the beginning of 1624 the Heren XIX therefore sent a delegation to the Noorderkwartier, commissioned to attempt to reconcile Hoorn and Enkhuizen with the amendment. In Hoorn, the delegates came across the privately owned ship

99 Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 31–33, 83; De Laet, Iaerlyck verhael, 1: (6)–(31) (VRBM, 86–135). 100 Van Winter, De Westindische Compagnie ter kamer Stad en Lande, 12; Israel, Dutch Primacy, 156–161; Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 33; Gemeentearchief Leiden, secretariearchief II, inv. no. 6701; Jacobs, ‘Johannes de Laet en de Nieuwe Wereld’, 110; De Laet, Iaerlyck verhael, 1: (32); Frijhoff, Wegen, 495; Holthuis, Frontierstad bij het scheiden der markt, 157–158.

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

41

Coninck David, destined for Virginia, a term used for both the English colony Virginia and for New Netherland in the early seventeenth century. The ship sailed under French commission and was partly financed from La Rochelle. The delegates requested the local magistrates to summon the captain, David Pietersz. de Vries. He denied that New Netherland was his destination; rather, he was planning to sail to France. The local authorities arrested him nonetheless, and placed his ship under embargo. Only after the intervention of the States General was the captain set free. It is probable that the ship was taken over by the WIC, but the incident made it abundantly clear to the Company that its shipping trade monopoly and its claim on New Netherland were not undisputed.101 As a result of the conflict over the salt trade and the slow rate of investment, the WIC got off to a slow start. It was not until 1623 that the private merchants brought back their last ships and their personnel from New Netherland or transferred them to the WIC. The first Company ship to reach the colony was the yacht the Mackreel. It sailed on 16 July 1623, together with the Duyf, which was intended to found a colony on the coast of Guyana. The Mackreel traded all winter on the North River and returned home in the summer of 1624.102 Although this first voyage under the auspices of the WIC was exclusively aimed at carrying out trading activities, the Company’s attitude to New Netherland quickly changed. As early as 3 November 1623, the Heren XIX determined to establish a small trading colony in the area. No grandiose ideas for large-scale colonization underlay this decision. The principal reason was to establish a firmer basis for the fur trade and to strengthen the Dutch claim on the territory. In 1622 the English ambassador in The Hague, Sir Dudley Carleton, had protested to the States General against the Dutch activities, referring to prior English claims to North America. When

101 De Vries, Korte Historiael, xviii– xxxi, 67–68; Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5751 I (ingekomen 1624) (29 March 1624; DRCHNY 1: 31), (30 March 1624; DRCHNY 1: 30), (4 April 1624; DRCHNY 1: 32); cf. Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 72; GAA, NA, inv. no. 631, fol. 65–66 (13 April 1624), fol. 56–57 (3 May 1624), fol. 80–80v (23 May 1624). 102 DRNN, xiii, xv; Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, April 1624, 11v (NNN, 75–76); Wieder, De stichting van New York, 10; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 70; Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, 36–37.

42

chapter one

the States General requested the Heren XIX for information, the WIC reacted by sending a memorandum elucidating their opinion about claims on newly discovered territories. For the WIC, the discovery of the area or the allocation thereof by a government were insufficient legal bases for possession. Only a claim supported by the actual taking possession of an area by populating it with at least fifty colonists was seen by the Company as valid. This reasoning made it necessary for the WIC to send a number of colonists to New Netherland.103 Owing to lack of data, the exact chain of events that led to the founding of New Amsterdam is uncertain. A small vanguard departed from Texel in January 1624 with the ship Eendracht under the captaincy of Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont, who had visited New Netherland earlier. The number of colonists on board the Eendracht is unknown, but it cannot have been more than a few dozen. Presumably, these colonists were divided over four locations: the Fresh River, the South River, Nooten Eylandt near Manhattan and the upper reaches of the North River, where Fort Orange was founded. No doubt the reason for the dispersion of the colonists was to lay claim to the whole area.104 A little more is known about the voyage of the ship Nieu Nederlandt, on which thirty Walloon families sailed to the colony in March 1624. The captain was Cornelis Jacobsz. May, another man with experience sailing the New Netherland route. When May returned to patria in October 1624, he was able to report to the directors that a second fort, Fort Wilhelmus, had been established, this time on the South River. A month earlier, on 23 September 1624, the WIC had decided to strengthen the colony by sending more colonists and a number of horses and cows. The Company dispatched various ships at the end of 1624 and in the first few months of 1625. A director of the colony was also appointed: Willem Verhulst, who had probably sailed to New Netherland earlier as supercargo on May’s ship.105

103 Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 69–73; Jacobs, ‘Hartford Treaty’; DRNN, xiv–xvi; Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal 1621–1622, 435–436, 477 (16 March 1622, 27 April 1622; DRCHNY 1: 27–28); DRCHNY 3: 6–8 (15 December 1621, 15 and 9 February 1622); cf. Schnurmann, Atlantische Welten, 83–84. 104 Zabriskie and Kenney, ‘The Founding of New Amsterdam’, 1: 15; Wieder, De stichting van New York, 13; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 80. 105 Peters, ‘Volunteers for the Wilderness’; Zabriskie and Kenney, ‘The Founding of New Amsterdam’, 1: 15, 2: 6.

‘a

blessèd country, where milk and honey flow’

43

The decision to strengthen the colony was made despite serious differences of opinion within the Amsterdam chamber over the policy concerning New Netherland. One faction within the committee for New Netherland saw good opportunities for an agricultural colony. Among the members of this faction, which was known as the colonization faction, were Kiliaen van Rensselaer, Samuel Godijn, and, possibly, Johannes de Laet. Other directors, called the trade faction, thought that the investment needed to establish an agricultural colony would be far too great. This faction preferred establishing only a small colony, sufficient to protect the trading interests. The decision of 23 September 1624 was a victory for the colonization faction, which would, however, soon have to make certain concessions. New instructions to Verhulst in April 1625 emphasized trade. The Amsterdam directors also ordered him to concentrate the colonists in a single settlement. This measure was probably inspired by the desire both to limit expenses and strengthen the defense. The determination of the exact location of the settlement was left to Verhulst, but one of the possible locations suggested was the southern tip of Manhattan. With these new instructions, the engineer and surveyor Krijn Fredericksz. was sent to the colony, to build a fort there.106 The instructions reached the colony in the summer of 1625, and efforts were presumably made to carry them out in the months that followed. However, it quickly became apparent in the colony that Verhulst had insufficient capacities to give adequate leadership to the budding settlement. Early in 1626 he was replaced by Pieter Minuit who, with the help of Secretary Isaac de Rasière, tried to sort matters out. In the course of the year 1626, the Dutch bought the island of Manhattan from the Indians for the sum of sixty guilders, presumably in the form of various trading commodities. The ship Wapen van Amsterdam arrived with this news in Amsterdam in early November 1626 and was met by Pieter Jansz. Schagen, a member of the States General, charged with the supervision of West India affairs. Schagen immediately reported back to the States General in

106 Zabriskie and Kenney, ‘The Founding of New Amsterdam’, 2: 5, 6; Wieder, De stichting van New York, 136–137, 149–159 (DRNN, 86–89, 132–169); Lyon, ‘The Transfer of Technology’, 337–339. For a possible, though not particularly convincing, identification of Krijn Fredericksz., see Westra, ‘Lost and Found: Crijn Fredericx’.

44

chapter one

The Hague, and in the nineteenth century this now-famous Schagen letter was discovered in the archives of the States General. Subsequently, at the exchange rate of the day, the sum paid to the Indians was converted to twenty-four dollars, heralding the birth of one of the most persistent misconceptions in the history of New Netherland.107 The history of New Netherland in its earliest years indicates that the principal motivation of the Dutch was the fur trade. For the private merchants who had formed the New Netherland Company, protecting their trade was the reason for their construction of a small fortification near Albany. Under the West India Company, this attitude changed only little. To provide a firm basis for the Dutch claims to the territory, a few dozen colonists were sent over in 1624, and the emergence of the colonization faction within the Amsterdam chamber ensured more investment in 1625. But for the time being the opposition of the trade faction hindered further expansion of the colony. In the years that followed, the conflict between these two factions was to have a fundamental influence on the development of New Netherland.

107 Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 83–84, 86–87; Gehring, ‘Peter Minuit’s Purchase of Manhattan Island’, 6; Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5751 II (ingekomen 1626) (5 November 1626; DRCHNY 1: 37); Zabriskie and Kenney, ‘The Founding of New Amsterdam’, 4: 12, 14, 5: 11–12, 16; Weslager, ‘Did Minuit Buy Manhattan Island from the Indians?’ and A Man and His Ship, supports the idea that Verhulst made the purchase.

CHAPTER TWO

‘THE PEOPLING OF SUCH EMPTY AND UNFURNISHED LANDS’1

The sea voyage to New Netherland was not to be undertaken lightly. The ships, which mostly departed from Amsterdam in April or May, were at sea for two to three months on average. For the would-be colonists, most of whom were unused to voyages at sea, life on the ship was anything but pleasurable. Furthermore, the cost of the journey could be quite considerable. In 1638 the West India Company, which then held the monopoly on shipping, set a price of one guilder per day in the kajuit [luxury cabin], twelve stivers per day in the hut [regular cabin], and eight stivers for accommodation between decks. In a society in which the common worker on average earned a guilder per day such travel expenses could be prohibitive. To promote the colonization of New Netherland, the Company from the 1650s advanced the cost of the voyage, which had become more expensive over the years, to some passengers who went over as freemen. Sometimes a fixed price was determined instead of a daily rate. In 1652, Jacob Steendam paid 120 guilders for accommodation for himself and his wife in the kajuit of the ship Hoff van Cleeff, but for this sum captain Adriaen Bloemmaert undertook to furnish them with food and drink, which suggests that in other cases the passengers had to provide their own rations. Those who could not afford the kajuit accommodation did not fare so well. Most of the passengers had to spend weeks in a confined space between decks, with little privacy or ventilation. If the weather was against them, extending the length of the voyage, shortages of water and food could worsen the already meager daily supplies.2

1 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.4, doc. 1, not paginated (fol. 4v) (10 June 1633; DRCHNY 1: 65); De Boer, ‘Memorie’, 355. 2 Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’, 57; Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 I, C. 646 (30 August 1638; DRCHNY 1: 114); GAA, NA, inv. no. 2279, III, fol. 73 (25 January 1652); Ernst, ‘Het Amsterdamse notarieel archief ’, 148.

46

chapter two

Ships destined for New Netherland generally went via the Caribbean, which was the easier route because of the prevailing winds and currents. The voyages, which on average lasted three months, were less risky than those to the East Indies, as the duration of the voyage and the length of time spent in the tropics were shorter. Even so, deaths occurred regularly. On the ship Meulen, heading for New Netherland in 1658, ten or eleven of the 108 passengers and crew died for lack of water. A further three died on arrival in New Amsterdam. It is impossible to assess the death rates on ships that sailed to New Netherland since in many cases it is unknown how many people they carried. The average death rate on ships of the East India Company was a little over 4 percent. The danger that the ship would be lost at sea was ever present, although the chance of this on a voyage to New Netherland was not great. Only a few ships perished on this route, and seldom was the result as dramatic as in the case of the ship Prinses, which during the return journey in 1647 ran ashore on the coast of Wales. Of the 107 passengers and crew only 21 survived the disaster.3

Motives for Emigration Why did people undertake the long and risky voyage to New Netherland, when they could have stayed safely at home instead? They had many reasons not to leave the Netherlands. In the first half of the seventeenth century the economy was booming, which drew many immigrants to Holland, for example from the German states that had been ravaged by the Thirty Years War, and from the southern Netherlands, where Catholicism was becoming the dominant religion. In addition, the Dutch Republic was relatively tolerant in matters of religion in comparison with the rest of Europe, which meant that, in contrast with England, religious persecution was rarely

3 NYSA, NYCM 18: 47 (7 October 1658; DP, 130), 11: 12 (7 April 1648; Corres. 1647–1653, 54); Bruijn, Gaastra and Schöffer, Dutch Asiatic Shipping, 161–167; GAA, NA, inv. no. 603, fol. 188v (30 March 1648); NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 2: 6 (Guide, no. 461); Frijhoff, Wegen, 794–795; NYHS, ships’ logs Gulden Bever, Gulden Otter, Hoop and Roseboom, 1660–1663 (Scott, ‘Voyages’); NSMA, VRBMs, 11 (25 September 1636–7 November 1637; VRBM, 355–389), 24 (30 July 1641–29 November 1641; VRBM, 580–603); Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’, 54–58.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

47

a motive to move to a colony. As early as 1633, the West India Company was aware that the economic situation in the Netherlands was not conducive to emigration, because, as its directors put it: the peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands, demands more people than our lands can supply; not so much for want of population, with which our provinces swarm, as because all those who will labor in any way here, can easily obtain support, and therefore, are disinclined to go far from home on an uncertain outcome.4

Adriaen van der Donck in 1655 expressed a slightly different view. He admitted that there had been many immigrants to the Dutch Republic from other countries for whom previously work had been available, for example in the army. But now little work could be found because of the recently concluded peace with Spain. It would therefore be useful, he argued, if a new Netherland could be founded abroad that could be populated by those unemployed in the Netherlands. Van der Donck was correct: the economic situation had changed, and this no doubt contributed to the extent of emigration to New Netherland in the 1650s. Another important factor was that the colonization of non-tropical countries was not very profitable. The wic’s policy in the first decades was oriented towards a minimum of colonization, sufficient to substantiate its claim on New Netherland. Later in the 1650s the Company tried to make immigration attractive, but by that time its scope for such measures was limited. In 1649 it was already burdened by a debt of some thirty-six million guilders.5 Historians have pointed to the favorable economic and religious situation in the Dutch Republic to explain why people did not emigrate. Nevertheless, over the course of its existence New Netherland grew from a small trading post of a few hundred inhabitants into, by Dutch standards, a considerable settlement colony of seven thousand to eight thousand colonists. The increase in numbers was not gradual, but took place principally in the last fifteen years, when the economic growth in patria had slowed. In 1664 the colony consisted

4 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.4, doc. 1, not paginated (fol. 4v) (10 June 1633; DRCHNY 1: 65); De Boer, ‘Memorie’, 355; Wabeke, Dutch Emigration, 14–17; Emmer, ‘Nederlandse handelaren, kolonisten en planters’, 12. 5 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 91 (Description, 121–122); De Vries and Van der Woude, Nederland 1500–1815, 476; Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 102.

48

chapter two

of two major settlements, the city of New Amsterdam with approximately twenty-five hundred inhabitants and Beverwijck with about thousand. The other colonists were spread out over two patroonships (Rensselaerswijck on the North River and the city-colony Nieuwer-Amstel [New Amstel]) on the South River, fifteen towns with a court of justice (Heemstede, Vlissingen, ’s-Gravensande, Breuckelen, Middelburgh, Amersfoort, Midwout, Oostdorp, Rustdorp, Haerlem, Boswijck, Wiltwijck, Bergen, New Utrecht, Staten Island), and several smaller settlements, such as Schenectady, Kinderhoek, Hurley, Claverack, Arnhem, Coxsackie, and Catskill.6 New Netherland’s population growth raises the question why the colonists made the voyage, and in particular why they chose New Netherland. Viable alternatives existed, such as the East Indies, or Brazil, where for a time the cultivation of sugar offered profitable opportunities. Individual motives for emigration to New Netherland are in general difficult to discover. In three instances, though, the sources throw some light on individual motives for emigration. First, Daniël van Gelder. In 1635, this citizen of Amsterdam, armed with a notarial document, approached the directors of the West India Company. He had heard from various people who had been to New Netherland that ‘the thorn-bush flowers in abundance and the strawberries are fertile for as long as six weeks’. He wanted to go to New Netherland to produce honey. In addition, he knew how to prepare beaver pelts, so he thought he could be of use to

6

Various estimates of the number of inhabitants of New Netherland have been made. Van den Boogaart, ‘Servant Migration’, gives a total of 6,030 in 1664, which in my opinion and that of other scholars is far too low. See, for example, Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 158 and Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 11. In the estimates made by both Van den Boogaart and Rink, little or no account has been taken of the natural growth of the population (Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 165; Van den Boogaart, ‘The Netherlands and New Netherland’, 14: ‘Natural growth was out of the question’.). This is a remarkable statement, as between 1639 and 1665 no fewer than 1,636 children were baptized in New Amsterdam (BDC 1: 9). In 1660–1664 the average number per year was 91.8. Following the method of Posthumus and using 30 as multiplication factor, the number of baptisms indicates a population size for New Amsterdam of 2754. As the composition of the population has considerable effect on the number of births and baptisms, I have adjusted the outcome down a bit. See Noordam, ‘Demografische ontwikkelingen’, 43–45, for population estimates of Leiden. For an overview of the population of New York up to the twentieth century, see Rosenwaike, Population History of New York City. For Beverwijck, see Venema, Beverwijck, 428–429.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

49

the wic. That Van Gelder approached the wic in 1635 is not surprising: in these years the Company was still the most important employer and few freemen were in the colony at the time. Daniël van Gelder clearly saw opportunities to prosper in New Netherland. However, whether he ever arrived in the New World is unknown. He is not mentioned in the early records of the colony.7 In the second example there is also a direct link with people who had personal experience of New Netherland. On 30 October 1664, Harmen Pietersz. Blockemaker and his wife Maritje Jans visited a notary to make a deposition in which the details were recorded of a conversation between their daughter Jannetje Blockx and her fiancé Lieven van Coppenol, a well-known Amsterdam calligrapher. The couple had had a relationship for a year and a half and were betrothed. Jannetje’s sister, Harmtje Blockx, had gone to New Netherland with her husband, and Jannetje remarked that she was perfectly prepared to sail thither also. Lieven was shocked: ‘You know what promise of marriage we have made to each other’, to which Jannetje replied: ‘That is true [. . .] but I did not think of that’. The reports Jannetje had received from her sister were apparently so positive that she had considered emigrating herself. Her fiancé, who was considerably older than she, did not share her enthusiasm, but her parents had their conversation recorded by a notary because Jannetje had already embarked upon proceedings to enforce the fulfillment of the promise of marriage. After years of litigation, Van Coppenol finally managed to free himself of his obligation. It is unlikely that Jannetje traveled alone to New Netherland, not least because the colony had then been in English hands for a couple of years.8 In the third set of circumstances it is certain that those involved actually made the crossing to the New World. In April 1660 the directors in Amsterdam received a request from the guardians of a young man named Boudewijn van Nieuwlandt to write to the director general in New Netherland. Boudewijn had embarked for New

7 GAA, NA, inv. no. 944, fol. 463 (11 April 1635); Ernst, ‘Het Amsterdamse notarieel archief ’, 148; Wieder, De stichting van New York, 176 (DRNN, 239, 275); MDC, 4 June 1644. 8 GAA, NA, inv. no. 2292 III, p. 51 (30 October 1664); Wijnman, ‘Lieven van Coppenol, schoolmeester-calligraaf ’, 162–167.

chapter two

50

Netherland on the same ship as Maria Besems, who was, according to Boudewijn’s guardians, a woman of easy virtue who had entrapped Boudewijn. The directors asked director general and council to examine whether Maria Besems was indeed a ‘dishonest person who is conducting her life there in that fashion’.9 If this was the case, she was to be sent back to the Dutch Republic. However, witnesses indicated that Maria had led a quiet and honest life during the voyage. It appeared more to be the case ‘that she had not debauched the young man, but the young man had debauched and deceived her’.10 Subsequent developments confirmed this. Maria Besems appeared before the court in New Amsterdam and produced a copy of the promise of marriage that Boudewijn van Nieuwlandt had given her. When asked what had happened to the original, she answered that, while they were on the ship, Boudewijn had taken it out of her trunk. Boudewijn admitted that he had stolen the betrothal agreement and torn it up. That did not dissolve the marriage promise, however, especially as she was pregnant and not prepared to let matters rest. She asked the New Amsterdam city court to place Boudewijn under bail, since it was expected that he would try to leave New Netherland. Boudewijn was not particularly willing to fulfill the conditions of bail, and in the autumn of 1660 took the opportunity of leaving the colony in secret for Virginia, in the company of yet another young woman. Maria, who in the meantime had given birth to a son to whom she pointedly gave his father’s name, still had the opportunity to recover at least part of the costs of the child’s maintenance. Boudewijn had left behind some of his possessions in the hands of the New Amsterdam merchant Gerrit van Tricht, who may have been related to him. After lengthy proceedings, in which Gerrit van Tricht put up considerable opposition, Maria Besems, with the assistance of notary Mattheus de Vos, took the opportunity of having the merchandise belonging to Boudewijn seized. A public sale of the goods followed, and Maria pocketed the proceeds triumphantly. She subsequently returned to the Netherlands.11

9

NYSA, NYCM 13: 84, p. 5 (16 April 1660), 86 (12 April 1660). NYSA, NYCM 13: 116, p. 15 (25 June 1660). 11 NYSA, NYCM 13: 85 (8 April 1660); NYMA, ODR 3, in various places, including pp. 391–393 for the judgment (21 December 1661; RNA 3: 427–429); NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 234, 235 and 238 (12 and 16 October 1662); GAA, DTB, inv. no. 482, p. 155 (1 July 1661) (banns for Boudewijn’s marriage to Annetje Aris 10

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

51

These three situations demonstrate how individual the reasons could be for going, or not going, to New Netherland. The individuals concerned all had specific links with the colony. Daniël van Gelder had been told of the opportunities there, Jannetje Blockx had a sister living there, and it is likely that Boudewijn van Nieuwlandt also had family members in the colony. In numerous other instances the immigrants had a link of some kind with New Netherland, in many cases a family connection. For many employment was the prime motivation. On the basis of employment, the stream of immigrants can be subdivided into a number of job categories: West India Company employees, in which there is a distinction between the military, the sailors, and the higherranking officials; merchants, either self-employed or as agents of trading houses; farmers and artisans, who traveled independently; and contract laborers, who were in the service of others. In addition, some came for other reasons, and these warrant separate attention: orphans, sent over from Amsterdam, and those for whom religious grounds may have played a role, for example the earlier-mentioned Walloons and the followers of Plockhoy and De Labadie. These categories overlapped to some extent: soldiers sometimes became farmers, sailors became craftsmen, and so on.

Soldiers Many of the men who joined the wic as soldier or as adelborst [cadet], two of the lowest ranks within the military branch of the Company, were recruited via zielverkopers [literally: sellers of souls], who provided them with food and a place to sleep until the appointed day of recruitment arrived. The zielverkopers, also called volkhouders [literally: keepers of people] or gasterijhouders [keepers of a hostel], were the most important suppliers of low-level personnel to either Company or the Admiralties. When these employers required sailors or soldiers, the guests of a zielverkoper were taken into service. The new

van Nieuw Amsterdam); Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland, 86–87; BDC 1: 58 (24 October 1660); GAA, NA, inv. no. 3492, fol. 167 (VII, doc. 6) (3 August 1671), inv. no. 2804, fol. 801 (29 August 1661); Maika, ‘Commerce and Community’, 117–118.

52

chapter two

recruits generally received two months’ pay on signing up, which they had to hand over immediately to the zielverkoper to clear outstanding debts for board and lodging. Usually the amount was not sufficient, and a transportbrief [note of assignment] had to be signed. This document gave the zielverkoper authority to collect part of the employee’s future pay from the Company or the Admiralty. A transportbrief was often referred to as a transportceel, and the Dutch word ceel [warrant] was corrupted to ziel [soul]. As the tavern-keepers often sold these documents to third parties at lower than their nominal value, they came to be known as zielverkopers.12 As a result of the practices of zielverkopers many of their hapless guests had little chance of actually choosing their destination. Rather, they had to take the first opportunity for work that presented itself, irrespective of whether the ship sailed to the East or to the West. In 1642, for example, Laurens Ackerman, a German soldier originating from Hamburg, departed for Brazil on the ship Utrecht in the service of the wic. In 1644 he was sent to Curaçao, from where he ended up in New Netherland. In 1647, he embarked for patria on the ill-fated Prinses. Laurens survived the shipwreck and returned to Amsterdam in November, where he authorized tavern-keeper Willem Watson to collect his pay from the Company. With the Prinses, however, the copies of the books of monthly wages from Curaçao and New Netherland also went down, and it was the policy of the wic only to pay wages after receiving confirmation from the colonies of the dutiful conduct of their employees. As a result, Laurens was once more compelled to go into debt, and when he departed at the end of 1647 as a sergeant for the East India Company he again had to sign a transportbrief.13 After stints in Brazil, Curaçao and New Netherland, Laurens sailed to the East. He had little opportunity to choose his destination. However, he was fortunate in that he had survived and, because of his experience, even gained promotion. Many others were not so lucky. The transportbrieven of soldiers who signed up in the service of the

12 Van Alphen, ‘The Female Side of Dutch Shipping’, 125–126; Van Alphen, ‘Zielverkopers’; Van Gelder, Het Oost-Indisch avontuur; Jacobs, ‘Soldiers of the Company’. 13 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1294, fol. 208 (6 December 1647), fol. 188v (7 November 1647), inv. no. 1341, fol. 75v (6 December 1647). See also NYSA, NYCM 2: 162a (2 August 1647; NYHM 2: 455).

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

53

Amsterdam chamber of the wic were usually recorded by notaries in the city. Many of these, including those of Laurens Ackerman, were dealt with by notary Hendrick Schaeff, who was also bookkeeper of the wic and often held session at the West India Company House on recruitment days. The amounts of money involved were tens of guilders, consisting of debts owed to zielverkopers resulting from victuals consumed, monies advanced, as well as for equipment for the journey. These were considerable sums of money for a soldier with a monthly pay of eight or nine guilders, or for an adelborst who received ten guilders per month. Director General Stuyvesant acknowledged that the soldiers’ pay was low, even though they had guard duty only one day out of three and could spend the rest of their time pursuing other vocations. In a letter to the Amsterdam directors he wrote that it was difficult for them to ‘stay afloat, especially for those who are burdened with wife and children’, which was not uncommon.14 The nationalities of the soldiers who arrived in New Netherland were varied. A third of them originated in the seven provinces that formed the Dutch Republic. As far as the other nationalities were concerned, the majority came from Germany. Numerous German men, either refugees or adventurers, emigrated to Amsterdam, the largest city of the Netherlands. However, good jobs were not easy to find there, especially for unskilled foreign laborers. Many soldiers originated from Scandinavia, France, and England. Of the 443 soldiers I have come across in various sources, the place of origin of 304 is known. While this is only 68 percent of the total, some conclusions can still be drawn. In many cases Frenchmen and Englishmen joined the wic via French and English zielverkopers who lived in Amsterdam. For German and Scandinavian soldiers the route is more difficult to establish, but it still points to international recruiting networks, which ensured that new arrivals in Amsterdam quickly found a place to sleep. In general, the countries of origin of the West India Company soldiers

14 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1373, reg. D, not paginated (12 May 1652), inv. no. 1329, fol. 119 (18 December 1657); Ernst, ‘Het Amsterdamse notarieel archief ’, 145; NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official list of New Netherland’, (undated, ca. 1650; Guide, no. 551); NYSA, NYCM 14: 74, pp. 2, 3 (5 September 1662), 13: 17, p. 2 (23 July 1659; DRCHNY 14: 439).

chapter two

54 Table 2.1

Origins of soldiers who served in New Netherland

Origin

N

%

Northern Netherlands Southern Netherlands German States Scandinavia England France Switzerland Others Not identified

99 37 108 23 18 2 5 9 3

32.6 12.2 35.5 7.6 5.9 0.7 1.6 3.0 1.0

Total

304

100

Source: database compiled from several New Netherland sources, including the Amsterdam notarial archives, various years, 1635–1674.

were no different from those of the East India Company, of which until about 1660 some 68 percent came from outside the Dutch Republic.15 The defense of the colony, both against the Indians and European powers, required a sizable garrison. As early as 1627, the colonists requested 40 soldiers to defend New Netherland against the English. In 1643 the garrison of Fort Amsterdam consisted of only 50 to 60 soldiers, which some colonists believed to be far too few in these years of war with the Indians. A year later the garrison of the fort consisted of 54 men: 40 soldiers, a gunner, a provost-marshal, three corporals, a commander, an ensign, two sergeants, a drummer, and four adelborsten. With the growth of the colony, the number of soldiers also increased. In the beginning of the 1650s, the Company employed 250 soldiers in New Netherland. The strength at Fort Casimir on the South River was in 1656 planned to be 60 men. The number of soldiers in the colony was continuously supplemented. In 1660 alone a total of 46 soldiers and adelborsten sailed to the colony on three ships. But these were fewer than Director General Petrus Stuyvesant would have liked. In January 1664 he requested, in vain,

15 For example, GAA, NA, inv. no. 1323, fol. 193 (30 June 1646), fol. 196v (5 July 1646), fol. 220 (19 July 1646). Gaastra, De geschiedenis van de VOC, 81.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

55

the Amsterdam directors to provide him with 300 to 400 soldiers. When New Netherland was taken later that year, 180 soldiers were stationed in New Amsterdam. With the garrisons at Fort Orange, on the South River, and in Wiltwijck, which in 1660 had a garrison of 70 men, a total of some 250 to 300 soldiers guarded New Netherland in 1664, which represented three to five per cent of the total population. The number of soldiers in New Netherland may have increased gradually in absolute terms, but their proportion in terms of the total population decreased. In comparison with the garrison at the Cape of Good Hope the number of soldiers in New Netherland was low, for which the wic’s difficult financial situation was to blame.16 Some of the wic soldiers stayed in New Netherland after completing their term of service. Jacob Leisler, born in Frankfurt, was one of them. In 1660 he stayed at the premises of Hendrick Hendricksz. Loen in Amsterdam. He went to New Netherland as adelborst and, partly as the result of family connections, moved up to be one of the most important merchants of New Amsterdam. He played a major role in the upheaval in New York after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Gijsbert Cornelisz. van Weesp who in 1636 joined the service of the wic as a soldier, was first sent to Brazil. In 1638 he went to Curaçao, and a year later he turned up in New Netherland, where he left the service of the Company to be a freeman. He probably stayed on Manhattan for a few years, after which he became an innkeeper in Rensselaerswijck in about 1644. Here he married Lijsbeth, the daughter of Cornelis Segersz. van Voorhout, a tenant on a farm

16 DRCHNY 1: 38 (16 November 1627). According to DRCHNY the original should be in Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5751, but I have been unable to find it there; Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5757 II, D. 754–755 (3 November 1643; DRCHNY 1: 139); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A, ‘Rapport ende advijs over de gelegentheijt van Nieu nederlant’ (15 December 1644; DRCHNY 1: 155–156); NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, overview of salaries in New Netherland (undated, late 1650s; Guide, no. 596); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 ‘Memorie van eenige poincten aende Ed. hoochachtbare heeren burgemeesteren’ (1 November 1656; DRCHNY 1: 641); NYSA, NYCM 13: 75, 88b, 106 (ca. 9 March 1660, 16 April 1660, ca. 24 April 1660; O’Callaghan, Documentary History 3: 56–57), 68 (5 February 1660; DRCHNY 13: 135); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.57 (29 October 1666; DRCHNY 2: 435, 440); NYMA, ODR 4, p. 453 (16 September 1664; RNA 5: 115–116); data on Cape of Good Hope are from a personal communication by Ad Biewenga, Free University of Amsterdam.

56

chapter two

on Castle Island. Gijsbert himself was also interested in farming and tried to run a farm. Unfortunately, shortly after hiring a farmhand in Amsterdam he died.17 Another example is Mattheus de Vos. He had earlier undertaken a voyage to New Netherland as a merchant. He returned to the colony in 1655, this time as a soldier, but was discharged in the same year at his own request because of his age and poor physical condition. He subsequently took up the less arduous job of notary. He is typical of those colonists for whom a certain number of years’ service as soldiers guaranteed a free passage to New Netherland. The West India Company directors reported explicitly that some of the soldiers intended to stay in the colony on completion of their service and take up their previous occupation. From the early 1650s the wic instituted a deliberate policy to encourage colonization by enlisting soldiers who would subsequently become colonists. The soldiers who went to New Netherland in the 1650s and 1660s were of a different kind from those of the 1630s and 1640s, as is also indicated by the fact that some brought over their wives and children. The soldiers of the 1630s and 1640s had considerably less choice as to their destination, and could just as easily end up in West Africa or Brazil as in New Netherland. The later soldiers knew for certain that their destination was New Netherland.18 Many soldiers who found themselves in New Netherland decided to settle there and take up another trade. However, it is not clear how many of them returned home after a number of years’ service. The efforts of the West India Company to persuade them to remain were not always successful. In 1661 the Amsterdam directors gave director general and council specific instructions to turn soldiers who were no longer needed in the colony after the end of the First Esopus War into colonists. They were to grant them a suitable parcel of

17

GAA, NA, inv. no. 1330, not paginated (21 April 1660), inv. no. 1303, fol. 124 (10 May 1653), inv. no. 1349, fol. 42v (25 April 1652); Voorhees, ‘Leisler’s pre-1689 Biography’; VRBM, 777n, 833–834; NYHM 1: 299–300 (28 September 1640); NYSA, NYCM 4: 111 (13 December 1641; NYHM 4: 132), 255 (7 June 1646; NYHM 4: 315); BDC 1: 13–14. 18 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1029, pp. 211–212 (10 May 1652); NYSA, NYCM 6: 204–205 (23 December 1655; CM 1655–1656, 172); MDC, 5 November 1656; NYSA, NYCM 11: 53, p. 5 (4 April 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 146), 11: 67b (9 April 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 176).

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

57

land, without holding them there against their will. But the soldiers were not enthusiastic, as the provincial government had to report to Amsterdam. The reaction of most of them was: ‘trades nor farming have we learned, the sword must provide our living, if not here, then we must seek our fortune elsewhere’.19

Sailors As with the soldiers, it is unknown how many sailors remained in New Netherland or how many returned to the motherland. From the 1640s onwards the majority of the sailors were no longer in the service of the Company. The wic had started a system of recognition fees, through which it granted permission to the captains of privately owned ships, on payment of a certain sum, to undertake a voyage to New Netherland. Partly because of the relatively short crossing, in comparison with the length of voyages to the East, the types of ships used in transatlantic shipping were similar to those used within Europe. On the basis of the sparse information that exists, it can be surmised that the procedures of recruiting the crews were also the same.20 This means that a distinction should be made between the seamen in the service of the West India Company and those in the service of the captains of privately owned ships. First, the Company’s seamen. For the early period, until about 1640 when the shipping activities of the wic began to decrease, wic seamen probably remained in the colony for some months, or occasionally years.21 But this is only partly true for the more specific maritime trades, such as able seaman, boatswain, and sail-maker. Although a number of small yachts and sloops in New Netherland required crews, the majority of the sailors that remained in the colony served as carpenters, coopers, surgeons, and the like. These were trades that could be exercised both on ships and on land in a newly founded colony. Consequently, the categories of sailors and other Company employees are difficult to distinguish from one another, and the

19 20 21

144.

NYSA, NYCM 14: 30, fol. 4 (21 July 1661; DRCHNY 13: 205). Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’, 61–72; Van Royen, Zeevarenden, 13–43. Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’; Ernst, ‘Het Amsterdamse notarieel archief ’,

58

chapter two

sources often provide insufficient information to determine whether a particular crewmember practiced his trade mainly at sea or on land in New Netherland. One example will bring this home clearly. In 1631 fourteen crewmembers of the wic ship Eendracht, which had recently returned from New Netherland, made a statement regarding the good behavior of their captain, Jan Jansz. Brouwer. Included in these fourteen were Jacob Elbertsz. Wissinck, who had been commies of the victuals, and David Leendertsz., ondercommies [ junior administrative official]. These are the only two whose trade clearly places them on land. The others were a surgeon, a steward, a carpenter, a gunner, a rope-maker, two rope-maker’s mates, an able seaman, a cook, and an ordinary seaman. Almost all of these functions could be found both on land and on ships. The steward, twenty-nine-year-old Cornelis Cornelisz., had been steward ‘on land’. The same applies to sixty-three-year-old cook Willem Lucasz. David Lefeber was captain of a sloop in New Netherland. Of the others, their job title provides no definite answer whether they carried out their work on a ship or on land. Others with a specific maritime function, such as boatswain’s mate or rope-maker’s mate, also spent longer periods on land. The twenty-three-year-old Roelof Carstensz. van Fleckerö [the Norwegian island of Flekkerøy], who in 1632 returned to Amsterdam as ordinary seaman, had lived for as long as five years in the colony. For the early period, it can be assumed that many sailors remained in the colony for longer or shorter periods and carried out several of the tasks at hand, regardless of whether it fitted their formal job description.22 Second, the crews of privately owned ships. Although a certain amount of research has been carried out on the crews of voc and Admiralty ships, relatively little is known about the seamen of the mercantile fleet in the seventeenth century. In many instances, the captain signed on the crewmembers, sometimes via an intermediary, for a single voyage. This often took place in Amsterdam, which in the seventeenth century boasted a good supply of seafaring folk, originating largely from the Noorderkwartier. Charles Boxer conjectures that two classes of sailors existed in the Netherlands, on the one hand the crews of voc, wic and naval ships, and on the other hand

22 GAA, NA, inv. no. 758, fol. 39 (22 January 1631), inv. no. 306, fol. 123v (24 February 1632), inv. no. 943, not paginated (6 November 1632).

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

59

the better paid crews on the shipping along the coasts of Europe. This distinction also existed in the shipping to New Netherland after private shipping was allowed, but little is known about the wages of the seamen who sailed on the New Netherland run. All in all, little material can be found on the crews of the ships sailing to New Netherland. However, a number of depositions by sailors of occurrences during the voyage is available, for instance on the behavior of certain people, on storms resulting in damage, and on smuggling. Only occasionally does specific information place them in New Netherland as colonists.23 Nevertheless, some of the sailors remained in the colony, both from Company vessels and from privately owned ships. For example, Abraham Willemsz. van Amsterdam in 1643 sailed out as able seaman on the Company ship Swoll. In 1647 he asked director general and council in New Netherland for permission to leave the service of the wic, since he had in the meantime married Aechtje Jans van Norden. He worked for a short period in New Amsterdam as a carpenter. On 12 November 1649 he was seriously injured in a duel, and died the next day. Another example is Govert Loockermans, who originated from Turnhout. He came to the colony as an assistant cook and was later taken into the service of Director Wouter van Twiller as a clerk. He did very well in New Netherland, and ultimately became an important merchant in New Amsterdam and schepen [magistrate] in the city government.24 Both Abraham Willemsz. and Govert Loockermans started at a low rank in the service of the wic. Of the highest in rank, the captains, some stayed in New Netherland, like Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift, who originated from Amsterdam. He was captain of the wic ship Groote Gerrit, and in 1647 was appointed equipagemeester [equipage master] in New Amsterdam, where, after leaving the service of the Company, he climbed to the rank of burgemeester.25 Other

23 Bruijn, Gelag, 4–5; Van Royen, Zeevarenden, 36–42; Boxer, Dutch Seaborne Empire, 57; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1125, fol. 356v (18 June 1658), inv. no. 2287, I, fol. 29 (12 February 1659). 24 NYSA, NYCM 4: 352 (22 November 1647; NYHM 4: 469), 393 (8 July 1648; NYHM 531), 404 (1 August 1648; NYHM 4: 549); MDC, 27 April 1647; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1298, fol. 205 (5 September 1650), inv. no. 2030, pp. 123–124 (11 September 1650). Cf. Wagman, ‘Liberty in New Amsterdam’, 118; Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Cort bericht ofte antwoorde op eenige poincten’ (29 November 1650; DRCHNY 1: 432). 25 NYSA, NYCM 4: 287 (27 May 1647; NYHM 4: 363, 364); NYPL, Bontemantel

60

chapter two

captains who settled in the colony were Adriaen Bloemmaert and David Pietersz. de Vries. Bloemmaert, born in Maassluis, was in the service of the wic as captain and as equipagemeester at Fort Elmina in West Africa. From the middle of the 1640s he started sailing the New Amsterdam run, where in about 1651 he and his wife Helena Jacobs Swanevelt went to live. In the 1650s he made a number of voyages to Amsterdam as a captain, and was also active as a merchant. In 1657 he was appointed schepen of New Amsterdam, but did not remain in office for long. In 1660 he returned to patria and settled in Breukelen near Utrecht, where he died several years later.26 David Pietersz. de Vries was born in La Rochelle, France, where his father was a merchant. He sailed as captain from his hometown of Hoorn to the Mediterranean and Newfoundland, among other places. In 1624 he crossed swords with the West India Company, which considered his proposed voyage to Virginia to be in breach of their charter. De Vries subsequently joined the service of the East India Company, for which he sailed to Batavia. After his return in 1630 he became involved in the plans of an Amsterdam consortium of merchants for a patroonship on the South River, to which he made a journey in 1632 and 1633. After the failure of this attempt at colonization he withdrew from the collaboration, but he continued to be interested in colonization. In 1634 he made a journey to Guyana in an unsuccessful attempt to found a colony on the Oyapoc River. During his return De Vries once more called in at New Netherland, where he laid a claim on Staten Island as a patroonship. From 1638 to 1643 he tried to establish an agricultural colony there, in partnership with Frederick de Vries, secretary of the city of Amsterdam and director of the wic, but problems with the Indians caused this project to fail. Disappointed, De Vries returned to Hoorn, where he arranged for the publication of his travel accounts in 1655. He died later that year.27

Collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official Promulgation of New Amsterdam as a Municipality’ (2 February 1653; Phelps Stokes, Iconography 4: 136). 26 GAA, NA, inv. no. 2290 II (61), p. 30 (3 October 1662); NYSA, NYCM 2: 128a and b (3 October 1644, 29 September 1644; NYHM 2: 256–259), 8: 441 (2 February 1657; Burghers of New Amsterdam, 13–14); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 136 (29 January 1657; RNA 2: 285); Van de Graaf, ‘Stadsbestuur van Nieuw-Amsterdam’, 135. 27 De Vries, Korte Historiael (partly translated in NNN, 181–234); McKew Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries. I thank Piet Boon of the Archiefdienst West-Friese

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

61

David Pietersz. de Vries is less typical of the captains than Adriaen Bloemmaert. As patroon of Staten Island, De Vries was directly concerned with colonization, and he virtually ceased to exercise his skills as a captain. In contrast, Adriaen Bloemmaert continued his voyages after settling in New Amsterdam, and he differed from other regular captains on the New Netherland run, such as Jan Jansz. Bestevaer and Jan Bergen, both from Graft, Pieter Jansz. Æmilius, and Jan Reyersz. van der Beest, in that they continued to live in the Dutch Republic. Men such as these captains are noticeable in the sources both because of their easily recognizable names and the many times they occur. They are easier to trace than sailors with unremarkable names, who swiftly disappear from the records. Probably some of them preferred the life of a colonist to that of a sailor. As the Company’s sailors were in general paid less than the crews of the privately owned ships, they may have been more inclined to become colonists. But after the abolition of the Company’s shipping monopoly most of the ships were privately owned, and as a consequence fewer colonists originated from the sailors than from the soldiers.

Company Employees Besides the soldiers and sailors in the service of the wic, the Company was master of many others in New Netherland. An overview from 1650 mentions those employed by the Company in that year: a director, a vice-director, a fiscael [high official, charged with upholding the rights of the wic], a councilor, a secretary, three commiezen, a supercargo, a barber, a foreman, a gerechtsbode [court usher], a slavemaster, a midwife, a voorlezer [reader of the church lessons] who also performed the duties of schoolmaster, and finally two ministers.28 Other functionaries are also found in the sources: clerks, surgeons, commies of the merchandise, of the victuals or of the store, receivers of the recognition fees, and equipagemeesters. In addition the Company employed various artisans, such as carpenters and masons.

Gemeenten for the information on the year of De Vries’s death (personal communication 19 October 2000). 28 NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official list of New Netherland’ (ca. 1650, Guide, no. 551).

62

chapter two

Within the heterogeneous group of Company employees a distinction can be made between higher and lower functionaries, a distinction that corresponds with the difference between administrative and executive duties. The lowest positions were those in which manual work was carried out by workers with special skills, such as carpenters and masons. When the function required the ability to read and write, a higher salary was paid. For the highest functions commercial and legal insight and administrative experience were required. However, little is known about the criteria the West India Company directors applied in the selection of their personnel. Although no general hiring rules are available, in some instances the words of the directors make clear what they thought of the men they sent to New Netherland. For instance, of Johan de Deckere, who went to the colony in 1655 as supercargo on the ship Swarte Arent, they wrote that his good qualities merit a higher and more powerful position, as besides the fact that he leads a good life and is well trained and experienced by practice, as he has faithfully served several years as attorney and notary in Schiedam [a city in the south of Holland, near Rotterdam], he is also a young man of sound judgment and has a capable and neat style of writing.29

For these reasons the directors were of the opinion that the director general would be able to employ him in some position. In the case of De Deckere, an exemplary life, good judgment, and tidy handwriting were not the only reasons that secured the high position of councilor and supervisor of finances for him. His uncle, Abraham de Deckere, was receiver general of the wic, and it is probable that he exercised some influence in the appointment of his nephew.30 It is also safe to assume that Dirck Looten, who in 1659 was sent to New Netherland as a Company clerk and who later became a commies there, to some extent thanked his family connections for his position. This ‘person of good family’ was very likely related to the Company director Charles Looten.31 Johannes Dijckman,

29

NYSA, NYCM 12: 17, p. 14 (23 November 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 46). Nat. Arch., SG, Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4846, fol. 24v (20 June 1652; DRCHNY 1: 480); ERA 1: 29n; NYSA, NYCM 13: 4 (undated, late 1659). 31 NYSA, NYCM 13: 9, p. 5 (25 April 1659; DRCHNY 14: 436), 9: 564 (28 March 1661); GAA, DTB, inv. no. 478, p. 36 (27 October 1657). 30

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

63

who in 1651 went to New Netherland as a bookkeeper and was subsequently commies at Fort Orange, started out as a clerk at the West India Company. In the case of Dijckman, the fact that he had been declared bankrupt in Amsterdam may have played a role in his departure for the colony.32 Although Dijckman is an exception, lower administrative functions in the wic were often used to allow the sons or sons-in-law of directors to gain experience overseas. Family relations also played a role in appointments for functions in the patroonships. Arent van Curler, who went to Rensselaerswijck as commies, was a relative of patroon Kiliaen van Rensselaer. Dirck van Hamel, secretary of Rensselaerswijck from 1655 to 1660, was a brother of Maria van Hamel, who was married to Jeremias de Laet, son of Johannes de Laet, director of the wic and shareholder in Rensselaerswijck. Also, a number of Van Hamels served the Company in Brazil. Anthony de Hooges, secretary of Rensselaerswijck from 1648 to 1655, was a son of Johan de Hooges, bookkeeper of the wic. These relations all evidence the existence of extensive transatlantic networks.33 In some cases employees climbed in the ranks of the Company because of their abilities rather than their family. For example, Petrus Stuyvesant, born in Peperga in Friesland in 1611 or 1612, started out as commies on the island of Fernando de Noronha off the coast of Brazil, after which in 1639 he went to Curaçao, where he was promoted to director. After losing his right leg while leading an attack on the Spanish-held island of Sint Maarten, he returned to the Netherlands to recuperate. He was subsequently appointed director general of New Netherland.34 Neither of his predecessors, Wouter van Twiller and Willem Kieft, had any experience in the administration of colonies when they were appointed. Van Twiller, a nephew of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, had been a clerk at the wic in Amsterdam. 32 NYSA, NYCM 11: 37, p. 2 (26 April 1651; Corres. 1647–1653, 123); NSMA, VRBMs, 35 (19 November 1629; VRBM, 157); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1300, fol. 233 (20 November 1651); Plomp, ‘Nieuw-Nederlanders en hun Europese achtergrond’, 145. 33 Boxer, Dutch Seaborne Empire, 57; De Vries, ‘De Van Rensselaer’s’, 200; Hoffman, ‘Armory. De Hulter—De Laet—Ebbingh’, 343; Breeden-Raedt, B 1; Boxer, Nederlanders in Brazilië, 202; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1659, fol. 102 (23 July 1641). 34 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1312, fol. 3 (3 January 1639); Kemperink, ‘Pieter Stuyvesant. Waar en wanneer werd hij geboren?’; Jensma, ‘Over de jeugd van Pieter Stuyvesant’; Gehring, ‘Petrus Stuyvesant’; Jacobs, ‘Like father, like son?’; Jacobs, ‘Een pant van ware vrintschap.’

64

chapter two

Kieft, who had worked as a merchant in France prior to his appointment as director of New Netherland also had family connections in the West India Company.35 David Pietersz. de Vries, who had adverse experiences with both Van Twiller and Kieft, condemned the wic’s policy on appointments: in the East Indies one does not appoint a commander of a fort, unless they are first experienced in the land, and they have knowledge of the person’s sufficiency, but here people are sent over whether they are competent or not.36

One may doubt whether De Vries was completely correct in this harsh judgment. He was right in observing that the New Netherland directors had little colonial experience. Adriaen van der Donck shared his negative view, opining that ‘their officers are selected more from favor and friendship than merit, which does not improve their affairs’.37 The word vriendschap [friendship] in the seventeenth century carried a strong connotation of family relations, rather than only of an affectionate relation between individuals, based on solidarity, practical assistance and moral support, the meaning it carries today. Family connections indeed were more important than colonial experience in the appointment of New Netherland directors. However, at the time of Van Twiller and Kieft, New Netherland was a small trading post, of minor importance when compared with other activities of the wic. An appointment as director of a small trading post was not an unusual early step in the career of a man from a merchant background.38 In general, the functionaries with the highest positions stayed in the service of the wic for a long time. On the other hand, lower functionaries at the level of commies and clerk often left the wic to make their living as freemen in the colony. Claes van Elslandt, born in Haarlem about 1601, was in the 1630s commies of the victuals and inspector of tobacco. In 1640 or 1641 he went back to patria, but he soon returned to the colony. In the years that followed, he earned

35 De Vries, Korte Historiael, 174, 178 (NNN, 186, 191); Breeden-Raedt, B 2v; Zandvliet, Mapping for Money, 283, n. 76. 36 De Vries, Korte Historiael, 252 (NNN, 215). 37 Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 44 (NNN, 348); Kooijmans, Vriendschap, 14–18. 38 Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

65

his living through a variety of jobs and owned a house in New Amsterdam and land on Manhattan Island and Long Island.39 It was not unusual for the wic to promote sailors or soldiers to the position of equipagemeester or commies. Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt, born in Wijk bij Duurstede in about 1615, came to New Netherland in 1637 as a soldier, and made rapid promotion to commies of the Company store. After leaving the service of the Company he worked his way up to become one of the wealthiest merchants in New Amsterdam and served three times as burgemeester.40 The higher Company employees remained faithful to the Company and became attached to living in New Netherland. Some of them stayed in the colony after it passed into English hands, and in some cases they held senior administrative positions. Cornelis van Ruyven was secretary of the colony from 1653 through 1664. He had come to the colony in the company of his brother Levinus, who became a clerk. In 1668, Governor Nicolls appointed him to the post of ‘collector of the customes’.41 Shortly after Johannes La Montagne went with his family to New Netherland in 1636 ‘to settle himself there for life’, he was appointed council member in New Amsterdam, until in 1656 he became vice-director at Fort Orange. In 1664 he pledged his allegiance to the English administration, but it is believed that he subsequently returned to the Dutch Republic, where he probably died in 1670. As his family had remained in New Netherland, his return to patria was presumably intended to be temporary.42 Petrus Stuyvesant also settled permanently in New Netherland. Four years after his arrival in New Netherland he bought a farm

39 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1333, fol. 81v (29 June 1640), inv. no. 1283, fol. 114, 114v (13 July 1641); NYSA, NYCM 4: 10 (3 June 1638; NYHM 4: 14), 56 (5 January 1640; NYHM 4: 68–69), 121 (10 April 1642; NYHM 4: 142), GG: 131 (1 February 1646; LP, 38), 82 (13 March 1647; LP, 51), 183 (13 March 1647; LP, 52), HH-2: 28 (17 June 1661; LP, 74). 40 GAA, NA, inv. no. 2956, p. 251 (3 January 1669), where his age is given as 54; Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A, ‘Cort bericht ofte antwoorde op eenige poincten’ (29 November 1650; DRCHNY 1: 431); NYSA, NYCM 3: 8 (31 August 1648; NYHM 3: 28, 29), 4: 100, 160 (12 September 1641, 19 February 1643; NYHM 4: 119, 185); appendix 3. 41 NYSA, NYCM 11: 84 (28 June 1653; Corres. 1647–1653, 218), 86 (24 July 1653; Corres. 1647–1653, 220); Christoph, Nicolls-Lovelace Papers, 78–80. 42 Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 14, fol. 178 (11 September 1636); NYSA, NYCM 4: 1 (8 April 1638; NYHM 4: 1), 8: 148–149, 227–229 (28 September 1656); DRCHNY 3: 75; Riker, Revised History of Harlem, 785.

66

chapter two

on Manhattan from the Company, known as the Director’s Bowery. After the surrender of the colony to the English, Stuyvesant went back to the Netherlands to defend himself against a number of charges, but he returned after a couple of years to New York, where he died in 1672.43 Things turned out differently for Johan de Deckere. Shortly after the surrender, the new English administration caught him in the act of smuggling powder and slaves, a misdemeanor to which a hint of rebellion was attached. He was immediately expelled from the colony and went to the Caribbean island of St. Kitts. De Deckere, his wife Margriet van Belcamp, and their children reached the Dutch Republic in 1665 on the ship of Admiral Michiel de Ruyter. In 1670 he was back in New Amsterdam to arrange some business, but whether he stayed or not is unclear.44 Employees of the Company who went to the colony to fulfill administrative positions stayed longer than the soldiers and sailors. A number of them arrived in the colony via family connections, to gain experience in lower positions such as clerk or commies. In general, the higher functionaries remained in the service of the wic for a long time and developed roots in the New World to such an extent that they were not inclined to return to the Netherlands after the English takeover.

Merchants At the end of the 1630s the States General put increasing pressure on the West India Company to give up parts of its commercial position in New Netherland. First to go was the monopoly on the fur trade. Whereas previously it had been prohibited for private individuals to buy beaver pelts from the Indians and ship them to the Dutch Republic, this was now permitted, albeit after payment of the required imposts. The shipping was also privatized: as a consequence,

43 NYSA, NYCM 11: 29b, p. 19 (21 March 1651; Corres. 1647–1653, 113), 3: 87b (12 March 1651; NYHM 3: 216). 44 BGE, 47 (30 September 1664 old style); BGE, 104 (5 October 1664 old style); GAA, NA, inv. no. 3658, p. 830 (4 April 1668), p. 930 (28 May 1668); NYMA, ORCC 5, p. 616 (27 September 1670; RNA 6: 256); Verhoog and Koelmans, De reis van Michiel Adriaanszoon de Ruyter in 1664–1665, 316–317.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

67

privately owned ships, on payment of a recognition fee and with a supervisory supercargo from the wic, sailed the New Netherland run. These changes offered valuable opportunities to private merchants, who eagerly took advantage of the new circumstances.45 Many minor merchants went independently to New Netherland with small consignments of merchandise, returning to the Netherlands within a short space of time. During their stay in the colony, usually lasting through the summer, they rented rooms in New Amsterdam or Beverwijck. These itinerant merchants were known as schotse [‘Scotch’] merchants.46 Because they had no permanent place of residence, they are often difficult to trace. One of the few ways of doing so is via the financing of their merchandise. Many of them made use of bodemerijen [bottomry bonds], drawn up in the presence of notaries in Amsterdam. This method of financing is also known as op halve winst [for half profit]. In this system, money was borrowed from a bottomry bond financier, with the ship or merchandise as security. The risk of the ship’s sinking, the avontuur van de zee [adventure of the sea], was borne by the financial backer. After the expiration of the bottomry, which could be either after a certain number of months or on the return to Amsterdam, the beneficiary of the bond had to repay the amount of the loan and interest. For New Netherland the interest varied between three and four per cent per month, with higher rates during the First Anglo-Dutch War.47 A bottomry bond provided not only the smaller merchants with an easy, albeit expensive, method of financing their ventures. Ships’ crews also took advantage of the system, as did colonists departing for New Netherland. The amount owed was sent back to Amsterdam in the form of goods, usually beaver pelts. This transaction did not always happen within the agreed period of time, and the backer was then compelled to give power of attorney to someone going to New Netherland to collect the money. An example is Claes Bordingh, a minor merchant from Bloemendaal. Before sailing to New Netherland

45 Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’, 24–26; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 136–137; Matson, Merchants & Empire, chapter one; Maika, ‘Commerce and Community’. 46 Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, entry schots (1): ‘representative of a firm on a ship or abroad, commies, factor, ledger, Scotchman’. 47 Hart, Geschrift en getal, 327–328; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 207–209; Gehlen, Notariële akten, 141–143; Maika, ‘Commerce and Community’, 83–89.

68

chapter two

in 1647, he together with Seger Theunisz. van Enkhuizen, had acquired six hundred guilders on bottomry from the Amsterdam merchant Olphert Dircksz. Claes Bordingh sent a number of beaver pelts back to Amsterdam, and Olphert Dircksz. gave a power of attorney to Govert Loockermans to collect the remainder. Apparently Loockermans was successful, since there is no indication that Bordingh was taken to court. Claes Bordingh settled permanently in New Netherland, where he became captain of a yacht and continued to trade. Although he became involved in several instances of arms smuggling, he was nonetheless regarded as a respected and prosperous citizen. In 1653 he owned a house on Paerlestraet [Pearl Street] in New Amsterdam, he was in the same year mentioned as one of the most eminent inhabitants of the city, and in 1657 he obtained small burgher right.48 Another minor merchant was Jan Laurensz. Appel van Graft, who first appears in the New Netherland sources in 1643. He probably came to the colony with his relative Willem Cornelisz. Coster to trade. However, Willem Coster was killed by the Wappinger Indians, after which Jan Laurensz. Appel was appointed guardian of his property. According to a notarial document, Appel was back in the Dutch Republic in 1646. Together with Pieter Jansz. Kool, Hendrick Jansz. Bakkerbene, Klaas Jansz., Gerrit Jansz., and Govert Aertsz., ‘all Scotch merchants’, Jan Laurensz. Appel had chartered the ship St. Jacob to sail to New Netherland. However, its captain, Haye Jansz. had still not sailed, although the cargo had been loaded for several months. The captain promised that he would set sail with the first ships. In this case, the ‘Scotch’ merchants, all from towns in the Noorderkwartier of Holland, such as Graft, Durgerdam, and Purmerend, together chartered a ship to carry themselves and their merchandise to New Netherland. They probably intended to sail back on the same ship after a summer of trading.49 Incidentally, the joint chartering of a 48 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1295, fol. 41v (16 March 1648), inv. no. 2214, fol. 364 (26 February 1663); NYSA, NYCM 3: 55 (11 August 1647; NYHM 3: 150), 76 (24 March 1651; NYHM 3: 223–224), 4: 393 (8 July 1648; NYHM 4: 531), 397 (13 July 1648; NYHM 4: 537), HH-1: 33 (17 May 1653; LP, 118), 36 (22 July 1653; LP, 119), 5: 145 (11 November 1653; NYHM 5: 80–81); NYMA, AMNA 1, p. 14 (9 April 1657; RNA 7: 151); Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 14, fol. 176v (8 September 1636). 49 NYSA, NYCM 2: 75 (8 October 1643; NYHM 2: 162–163); NYHM 2: 153–154 (7 August 1643; original missing); GAA, NA, inv. no. 734 B, fol. 80 (13 March 1646).

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

69

ship by a number of minor merchants was the exception rather than the rule, as this is the only instance that I have encountered. In 1647, Jan Laurensz. Appel voyaged once more to New Netherland, this time on the Prinses. After having spent the whole summer trading he left on the same ship for the Dutch Republic, surviving the shipwreck. In the following years he traveled a few more times to New Netherland, where he also acted as agent for the Amsterdam merchants Arnoldus and Jan van Hardenberg and Willem Hontom, for which they paid him seventy-five guilders per month. From New Amsterdam he transferred money to his wife Marritie Dircx, by whom he had several children. Marritie died in about 1654 and Appel then returned to Graft, probably to take care of his children. Although he still continued to ship goods to New Netherland, he remained in the Netherlands. He became weesvader [master of an orphanage] in Graft and there married Mary Coster.50 Appel rose from a minor ‘Scotch’ merchant to factor for a trading house. Others shared similar success, such as Evert Tesselaer, who, like Jan Laurensz. Appel, did not stay in New Netherland. Both grasped the opportunity of accumulating so much capital that they no longer needed to resort to the use of bottomry contracts. Most minor merchants were not able to achieve this. In some instances they worked together with a partner to spread the risks.51 A considerable difference existed between the minor and major merchants. Merchants who acted as agents for the large Amsterdam trading houses and who lived semi-permanently in the colony often worked their way up to becoming prominent, independent merchants and, as the result of their experience as factors, had good commercial contacts. Govert Loockermans, earlier an assistant cook and clerk in the service of the wic, was taken on by Seth and Gillis Verbrugge on behalf of their company, most probably on account of his previous experience in the colony, but his marriage to a member of the Verbrugge family may also have played a role. In 1641 he

50 GAA, NA, inv. no. 2186, fol. 208 (12 November 1647), inv. no. 1592 IV, fol. 86 (4 April 1648), inv. no. 1297, fol. 280–280v (13 December 1649), inv. no. 2278, IV, fol. 61–62 (9 November 1650), inv. no. 844, sub dato (29 April 1652), inv. no. 1104, fol. 108–109 (28 April 1653), inv. no. 1108, fol. 80v (24 April 1654), inv. no. 1133, fol. 52 (10 April 1660), inv. no. 1125, fol. 349–350 (17 June 1658); Van Deursen, Een dorp in de polder, 128, 184. 51 See, for example, GAA, NA, inv. no. 1295, fol. 41v (16 March 1648).

70

chapter two

returned to the Dutch Republic and married Adriaentje Jans in Amsterdam. Shortly afterwards he returned with his wife to New Netherland, where he acted as senior factor for the Verbrugges. In the 1640s and 1650s, in addition to Loockermans, the Verbrugges’ trading company had a number of agents in New Netherland, such as Johannes Pietersz. van Brugh, Johannes de Peijster, Joseph da Costa, François van Hooglant, and Storm Albertsz. van der Zee.52 Most of the people sent as factors to New Netherland originated from Amsterdam or Haarlem. The Verbrugges’ trading house was by far the most important in New Netherland. Besides this company, three other large trading houses played a role in the New Netherland trade. Gillis van Hoornbeeck and his associates employed Cornelis Steenwijck, Abraham Jansz. van Coesant, and Nicolaes Gouverneur as agents in the colony. Dirck and Abel de Wolff employed Gerrit Bancker and Harmen Vedder as factors. The third large trading house consisted of the Van Rensselaers, Van Twillers, Van Welys and Mommas. They sent, in succession, Gerrit Vastrick, Jan van Twiller, and Jan Bastiaensz. van Gutsenhoven to the colony, while Kiliaen van Rensselaer’s three sons, Jeremias, Jan Baptist, and Rijckert also represented the family’s interests there.53 Family ties linked most of these factors to their masters in Amsterdam. Johannes de Peijster, dispatched by the Verbrugges to New Netherland to assist Govert Loockermans, was described by Seth Verbrugge as ‘my wife’s uncle’s sister’s son, of good background’. He was ‘a good faithful servant’, and would be a valuable assistant in the store as he had worked for a long time in a silk shop. The custom of the merchants that traded in New Netherland was no different from normal seventeenth-century practice, in which busi-

52 Rau, ‘Loockermans’; NSMA, VRBMs, 24, fol. 6v (3 November 1641; VRBM, 597), 11, not paginated (2 November 1636; VRBM, 360); NYSA, NYCM 2: 1 (7 January 1642; NYHM 2: 1); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1341, fol. 25v (17 April 1647), inv. no. 1346, fol. 20–20v (16 March 1651), inv. no. 1113, fol. 22 (7 April 1655), inv. no. 1359, fol. 83 (12 June 1659), inv. no. 1363, fol. 73v–74 (22 April 1661). 53 Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 177 ff.; Jansen, ‘De Wolff ’, 136; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1595, fol. 424–425 (fol. 185–186v) (27 February 1657), inv. no. 2875, p. 662–663 (30 September 1662), inv. no. 2843, p. 511 (28 October 1666), inv. no. 1081, fol. 201–201v (13 August 1647), inv. no. 1093, fol. 200, 200v (18 February 1650), inv. no. 1140, fol. 365v and 366–367v (29 March 1662), inv. no. 1141, fol. 18–19 and 20–20v (6 and 7 April 1662).

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

71

ness relationships often had links through family connections.54 Many of the merchants did not intend to spend the rest of their lives in New Amsterdam. At the end of the 1640s Loockermans lived in the colony while his wife was still in the Netherlands. When he complained about this to the Verbrugges, the answer was: there is many a good man who, to gain further advancement, is absent from his wife for two, three, or even more years, one must strike while the iron is hot. Also, the time will pass quickly there and will soon be over.55

Although some factors ultimately returned to the Dutch Republic, quite a few remained in New Netherland. They started to trade for their own account and gradually formed in New Amsterdam a class of merchants independent of Amsterdam, which maintained intensive business contacts with their counterparts in Holland. This group formed the core of the burgemeesters and schepenen of New Amsterdam. In addition, a number of English merchants who had come from New England resided in New Amsterdam.56 A certain degree of tension existed between the major and the minor merchants. Because the minor merchants’ stay in New Netherland was short, their costs in the colony were relatively low, enabling them to offer their goods at lower prices. Different trading practices also caused irritation. In 1648 Govert Loockermans reported to Gillis Verbrugge that the ‘small traders and ‘Scotch’ [. . .] go inland with their goods, and so make themselves the slaves of the wilden, which is entirely contrary to nature’.57 He expected Stuyvesant to put an end to this swiftly. A couple of months later the director general and council issued an ordinance in which the itinerant traders, described as ‘spoilers of the trade’, were required to remain in the colony for a minimum period of three years.58 The directors in Amsterdam thought this an unjust measure, and reacted with a remark from which their abhorrence of using compulsory measures to gain colonists is clear:

54 NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 1: 2 (probably 9 May 1647; Guide, no. 455); Kooijmans, ‘De koopman’, 71–72; Kooijmans, ‘Risk and Reputation’, 31–32. 55 NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 3–2 (24 March 1648; Guide, no. 464). 56 On this, see Maika, ‘Commerce and Community’. 57 NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 3: 6 (27 May 1648; Guide, no. 468). 58 NYSA, NYCM 4: 416 (18 September 1648; NYHM 4: 564–565, LO, 101–102); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 13 (18 September 1648; RNA 1: 10).

72

chapter two in such tender beginnings of a slowly growing state, whose growth must be sought and furthered rather by encouraging and unlimited freedoms than by forced regulations, because to constrain people (who thereto have neither opportunity nor inclination) to own houses or land, is too repugnant, and to compel them to stay, is too servile and slavish.59

Instead, they suggested that the merchants in New Amsterdam be required to keep open store. Protests from Stuyvesant and the council were to no avail, but several years later another way was found to counter the activities of the itinerant traders. In 1657, in a petition to the director general and council, the burgemeesters and schepenen of New Amsterdam, including in that year Govert Loockermans and Johannes de Peijster, asked for the introduction of a system of burgher right. One of the motives put forward was that the itinerant merchants brought nothing but harm to the community. Small burgher right was a requirement for carrying on a business while in the colony; it would expire after an absence from the colony of four months. This condition excluded the itinerant, ‘Scotch’, merchants from small burgher right, as it prohibited their practice of limiting their stay in New Amsterdam to the summer months. In 1664, director general and council introduced similar measures against merchants who left Manhattan in the summer for Beverwijck.60

Farmers and Artisans Some ‘classic’ colonists made the choice, usually on the basis of a deliberate decision, to leave the Dutch Republic with their families to settle in New Netherland for life and take up the trade or profession they had practiced in Europe. In the last eight years of New Netherland family immigration formed the largest part of the new colonists, according to Oliver Rink.61 In the types of immigrants dealt

59 NYSA, NYCM 12: 1, p. 6 (12 March 1564; Corres. 1654–1658, 5), 9, p. 2 (30 July 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 25). 60 NYSA, NYCM 12: 36, p. 2 (13 March 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 83), 10–3: 187–189 (13 March 1664), 189–190 (20 March 1664), 191–192 (22 April 1664), 193–194 (22 April 1664; LO, 462); NYMA, ODR 2, pp. 124–125 (22 January 1657; RNA 2: 272–273), pp. 137–139 (30 January 1657; RNA 2: 286–287). 61 Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 168.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

73

with earlier, a number of the colonists came to New Netherland more or less by chance, and in many instances eventually returned to the Netherlands. However, it is likely that farmers who immigrated to New Netherland often intended to stay. The most important distinction between the farmers and artisans and other types of immigrants is that farmers and artisans were to a great extent neither in the service of the Company nor of a private individual, something they had in common with the minor merchants. As a result they are difficult to trace in the sources. In a number of cases a married couple may have made a will prior to their departure for the colony, but precious few of such documents describe in what capacity they went to New Netherland. The same problem crops up in the passenger lists drawn up by O’Callaghan, which make little or no mention of passengers’ occupations. The lists are based on a wic account book that recorded the advance of passage money. When someone traveled at his own expense, or when the passage of a contract laborer was paid by his master, they were unlikely to be included in the list. Rink, who made use of O’Callaghan’s lists and of details from the notarial archives of Amsterdam, could find only forty-seven farmers among the 1,032 passengers on thirty ships from 1657 to 1664. Other occupations are even more difficult to discover.62 Though farmers and artisans are difficult to trace, it may be assumed that, because of the availability of agricultural land, New Netherland attracted more of the former than of the latter. Prior to the decision of the wic to relinquish parts of its monopoly, only few vrijburgers [freemen] lived in New Netherland. The term is used occasionally in the sources prior to 1645 to indicate people who were not in the employ of the Company. Later, when Company employees were only a small minority of the total population, the term lost its distinctive meaning and went out of use. Of the early vrijburgers most were farmers. Most of them had not gone to the colony as freemen, but had stayed there after leaving the service of the Company. More exceptions occur after 1639. Jonas Bronck, a captain who had probably been born in Sweden in 1600, married Teuntje Jeuriaens

62 NYSA, NYCM 14: 83–123 (1654–1664; O’Callaghan, Documentary History 3: 52–63); Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 166–167.

74

chapter two

in 1638 in Amsterdam. A year later he had a one-quarter share to the value of 4,830 guilders in the equipage of the ship Brant van Troyen, which carried cattle and colonists to New Netherland. Bronck took a number of laborers and a female servant with him to the colony. In New Netherland he leased a maize and tobacco plantation on Manhattan to Pieter Andriesz. and Laurens Duyts. Bronck, however, lived on the farm called Emmaus to the north of Manhattan in the area that was to be named after him, the Bronx. He died a few years later, in 1643.63 Bronck had a considerable capital at his disposal for the execution of his plans. This was one of the most important preconditions for successful immigration, for the costs of the passage for family and personnel could amount to several hundred guilders. Then, land had to be obtained in New Netherland. Although new colonists could sometimes acquire existing farms by means of lease or purchase, most of them, without much expense, would have obtained land that had not yet been developed. Even in the case of potentially rich agricultural land, the colonists would have to take into account the fact that during the first few years, when the land had to be cleared of trees and undergrowth and a house built, their income would be meager. Adriaen van der Donck, who tried to stimulate immigration, optimistically claimed that as early as the second year the income would be sufficient to make the venture self-supporting. The third year would already yield profits. To set up his own establishment in New Netherland, the prospective farmer needed to have a minimum of two thousand guilders before making the crossing.64 Because few emigrants had such capital at their disposal, the direc-

63 There is some confusion about the origin of Jonas Bronck. Evjen, Scandinavian Immigrants, 167–181, is of the opinion that Bronck was the son of a Lutheran minister on the Faeroe Islands. The document registering his banns of marriage in Amsterdam (GAA, DTB, inv. no. 449, fol. 118 (18 June 1638)) lists ‘Coomstaij’ (possibly Kosta near Växjö in Småland in Sweden) as his place of origin, whereas in the contract about the Brant van Troyen ‘Smolach in Sweden’ is named (GAA, NA, inv. no. 1332, fol. 44 (30 April 1639)). Yet a number of Danish books are mentioned in the inventory of his possessions (NYSA, NYCM 2: 54 (6 May 1643; NYHM 2: 121)). Further: GAA, NA, inv. no. 1555a, pp. 583–585 (26 April 1639), pp. 591–593 (28 April 1639); NYHM 1: 196 (21 July 1639), 1: 215–216 (15 August 1639). 64 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 97 (Description, 129); Folkerts, ‘Drenthe and New Netherland’, 10.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

75

tors of the Amsterdam chamber tried to lower the financial barrier in a number of ways. In 1650 Adriaen van der Donck, Jacob Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven, and Jan Evertsz. Bout, with the financial support of the directors, planned to equip a flute ship of two hundred last [approximately four hundred tons], for two hundred passengers, of which half were free farmers and farm laborers, although it is unclear whether the plan went through.65 Another attempt by the Company to stimulate immigration occurred at the beginning of 1656 when the wic decided to provide free passage to ‘all artisans and farmers who can show that they will be able to provide there for themselves, their wives, and their children’.66 In announcing this decision to Stuyvesant and the council, the directors reported that they were trying ‘to promote the population and cultivation of New Netherland’. The provincial government had to make sure that if these people returned to patria they would pay for the double passage.67 Stuyvesant was pleased to see more colonists coming, as it strengthened the colony against English infiltration. However, he remarked that it was not always the most suitable people who came to New Netherland. According to him, the majority were people without a trade and therefore without work, of which some will later become a charge of the deaconry [. . .]. It would be better and more secure for the Company to recover her advances and more useful for the country, instead of such poor people, to send over farmers and farmhands, foreigners and refugees, who are used to labor and poverty.68

About half of the immigrants indeed originated from outside the Dutch Republic, as David Cohen has shown. However, it is my impression that this division does not apply in the same way to the farmers. A considerable number came from the less prosperous inland provinces of the Dutch Republic, Gelderland, Drenthe, and Overijssel. In 1662, for example, Willem Jansz., Harmen Jansz. with his wife and two children, Adriana Hendricks, all from Borculo, together with

65 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5762 I (ingekomen) (19 March 1650; DRCHNY 1: 379–380). 66 NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Extracts from the Register of the West India Company’ (9 March and 3 April 1656; Guide, nos. 569, 598). 67 NYSA, NYCM 12: 36, p. 8 (13 March 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 86–87). 68 NYSA, NYCM 13: 31, p. 6 (4 September 1659; DRCHNY 14: 444).

76

chapter two

Stoffel Smet van Ruurlo, sailed with the ship Trouw to New Netherland. Another incidence of group immigration occurred in 1661, when the Amsterdam directors wrote to Stuyvesant and the council about ‘a certain Huijch Barensen de Kleijn van Bets [Beesd] in Gelderland, baker, grocer, and farmer who by his enthusiasm had drawn from there about thirty-six souls and it appears [more] will follow’. They recommended that the provincial government help this man to the greatest possible extent.69 Group immigration may have occurred more often, but the sources do not make it easily recognizable, so that extensive research will be necessary to uncover it. Jan Folkerts’s research sheds some light on emigration from the southwestern corner of Drenthe. In 1660 a group of thirty-nine emigrants made the crossing on the ship Bonte Koe, followed two years later by a group of twenty-three from the same area. They had been preceded some ten years earlier by Gerrit Jacobsz. and Jan Strijcker, who went with their families from Ruinen in Drenthe to New Netherland. It is likely, as Folkerts argues, that the later groups had gained their information about the opportunities in the New World from them. Another factor may also have played a role in the decision to go to New Netherland. Most of the families from Drenthe settled in Midwout on Long Island. From 1654 on, the minister for Midwout, New Amersfoort, and Breuckelen was Johannes Polhemius, who had earlier served the wic in Brazil. Polhemius had been predikant in Gieten and Meppel in Drenthe until 1634, and it is conceivable that a number of the colonists from southwest Drenthe were already acquainted with him.70 For emigrating farmers, family and group connections played an important role in their choice of New Netherland, even if during the mid-1650s, the time at which the emigration into the colony was in full swing, they had few alternatives. Brazil was no longer in Dutch hands, and colonization of the Cape of Good Hope had just begun. The increasing pressure of taxation and the problem of the division of smaller farms between numbers of sons played a role as push factors, as Folkerts suggests. The problem of increasing taxa-

69 Cohen, ‘How Dutch were the Dutch of New Netherland?’; NYSA, NYCM 14: 56 (4 February 1662), 20 (9 May 1661). 70 Folkerts, ‘Drenthe and New Netherland’, 9; Folkerts, ‘Drentse emigratie’; Corwin, Manual, 662–663; Wijmer, Folkerts and Christoph, Through a Dutch Door.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

77

tion is mentioned in the petition of a number of Utrecht farmers to the West India Company in 1639: they requested permission to emigrate to New Netherland ‘seeing that the taxes on the lands are becoming more and more and that the farmer finds it hard to earn a living’.71 The number of farmers who repatriated after 1664 may have been smaller than among other types of immigrants, for whom the ownership of land was less of a tie to the colony. Further study could shed new light on this. In many ways, the emigrating behavior of independent farmers conforms to the classic type of family colonization. This was different for contract laborers.

Contract Laborers A number of colonists in New Netherland arrived as a result of a contract of service signed in the Dutch Republic. In general, these were unskilled, wage-earning laborers, such as general hands, farmhands, and maidservants. In a few cases contract laborers were hired for higher positions, such as foreman on a farm, surgeon or blacksmith, but these form only a small minority. The majority of the contract laborers took up their employment by signing a contract of service before a notary in Amsterdam. The contracts of 251 laborers are extant.72 Some have been lost, and it is also possible that contracts were signed in cities other than Amsterdam and have not been uncovered. Nonetheless, the Amsterdam contracts provide a good view of the terms under which the contract laborers went to New Netherland, and of their characteristics.

71 Kernkamp, ‘Brieven van Samuel Blommaert’, 173 (quotation); Folkerts, ‘Drenthe and New Netherland’, 10. 72 Hart, Geschrift en getal, 329; Van den Boogaart, ‘Servant Migration’. Hart mentions 175 contracts of service and 230 people, Van den Boogaart numbers 166 people. I have counted some 218 contracts involving contract laborers. Included are 188 contracts of service from prior to 1665, which involve 251 people in total. The difference from the counts made by Hart and Van den Boogaart can be explained by the period that was examined, the continuing indexation activities of the Gemeentearchief Amsterdam and the criteria applied. Some contracts of service concern merchants who went to the colony as factors. It is possible that Van den Boogaart did not include these contracts in his count. Otherwise, my findings do not differ from those of Hart and Van den Boogaart.

78

chapter two

Of the contract laborers almost 80 percent were male, a figure consistent with the nature of their employment. Of the fifty-one women or girls, twenty-three were taken into service as maidservants. The majority of the males were farmhands. Other tradesmen, such as tailors, shoemakers, bakers or brewers’ hands or carpenters, are less numerous. The lengths of the contract periods varied between three and six years, with three to four years being the most common. In general, the younger the laborer, the longer the contract period. On 20 March 1651, Johannes van Rensselaer took into service twelve males for Rensselaerswijck who sailed on the Gelderse Blom. In age they ranged between fourteen to forty years. Five youths between fourteen and nineteen years old had contracts for six years, four men aged between twenty-one and thirty-four years had contracts for three years. Their wages also depended on their age. Of the twelve males, the five youngest had initial rates of pay of 30 to 40 guilders per year, while the older males received 120 to 125 guilders.73 The wages of skilled artisans’ assistants were generally higher than those of unskilled farmhands, and they were subject to more rapid increases. An annual pay rise was included in the majority of the contracts. Workers were provided with board and lodging, and in most cases also with clothing. Their masters paid the passage money, but the contracts for maidservants specified that the girls had to repay the cost of their voyage if they married during the period of their contract. Employers had various ways to find laborers prepared to go to New Netherland. A number of the contract laborers were foreigners who had been attracted by the prosperity of Amsterdam and who subsequently were taken into service for the colonies, thus becoming in effect transmigrants. However, other recruitment patterns also existed. A considerable number of the contract laborers who went to New Netherland in the service of the Van Rensselaer and Van Twiller families originated in the neighborhood of Hilversum and Nijkerk, where these families had estates.74 In particular the Van

73

GAA, NA, inv. no. 1096, fol. 286–287v (20 March 1651). The origins of fifty-four of these seventy-two contract laborers are listed. Thirtytwo came from Garderbroek (1), Voorthuizen (1), Putten (1), Hilversum (4), Naarden (1), Nijkerk (5), Wekerom (1), Horst (1), Amersfoort (3), Bunschoten (4), De Bilt (1), Maartensdijk (2), Westbroek (2), Vreeland (1), Houten (2) and Huizen (2); Rink, ‘People of New Netherland’. 74

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

79

Rensselaers used their local contacts to recruit farmhands, although no details about the actual method are available. Besides these, Kiliaen van Rensselaer took into service a few people with previous experience of New Netherland, such as Jan Fransz. van Hoesem, who had been in the service of the wic as able seaman, and Hendrick Albertsz., who had worked as a baker in the colony. Another patroon, Adriaen van der Donck, largely passed over the region from which he himself originated. For his patroonship of Colendonck, the present Yonkers to the north of New York City, he recruited at least eighteen colonists between the years 1651 and 1653, and only three of these originated from the area of Breda, where he himself had been born.75 Another way of recruiting was to use intermediaries. If a colonist in New Netherland needed a laborer, he could request a family member in patria to make arrangements. On four occasions during the 1650s, Coenraet ten Eijck, master shoemaker in New Amsterdam, asked his brother-in-law Engel Uijlenberg, a knife seller in Amsterdam, to sign up a shoemaker’s assistant on his behalf. It was also possible to entrust recruitment to the ships’ captains who sailed the New Netherland run. In 1652, Adriaen Bloemmaert signed up three farmhands from Gelderland for Petrus Stuyvesant, who could make good use of their services on his newly acquired Director’s Bowery. Captain Willem Thomasz., who made several journeys to the colony in the 1650s, also recruited a number of farmhands on behalf of others. Their contracts included the passage on his ship.76 The signing of a contract in Amsterdam did not always mean that the contract laborer actually ended up in New Netherland. Jan Baptist van Rensselaer wrote to his brother Jeremias in New Netherland on 12 April 1663 that he had hired eight servants. But only three turned up on the appointed day.77 They had had second thoughts after contemplating the prospect of an arduous voyage and a hard life in the

75

GAA, NA, inv. no. 1054, fol. 60–65 (28 March 1639), inv. no. 2279 V, p. 24 (15 May 1652). 76 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1346, fol. 24v–25 (21 March 1651), inv. no. 1352, fol. 53v–54 (1 July 1654), inv. no. 1359, fol. 6 and 24 (6 and 28 January 1659), inv. no. 2279, V, pp. 4, 6–7 (2 and 4 May 1652); inv. no. 1343, fol. 7v (8 February 1649), fol. 9 (8 March 1649), fol. 11v (12 March 1649), fol. 24 (11 April 1649), inv. no. 1349, fol. 28 (27 March 1653), inv. no. 1352, fol. 80v (13 October 1654). 77 NYSL, VRMP, box, 49, folder 39 (12 April 1663; CJVR 317); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1145, fol. 14–15 (6 April 1663).

80

chapter two

colony. In 1659, Cornelis Steenwijck, back in Amsterdam for a short visit, took one Geertgen Dirx into service as a maidservant giving her an advance of sixty guilders. On reflection, Geertgen regretted her decision and now refused to accompany him. Steenwijck warned her via a notary to bring her goods to the lighter that lay ready to depart from the West India Company House. From there, her goods would be taken to Texel where they were to be put on board ship. As a precautionary measure, Steenwijck gave the Amsterdam merchant Abraham Grevenraet the authority to take legal steps on his behalf if Geertgen disobeyed. Steenwijck’s attempt to exert pressure did not have the expected result. The next day, Geertgen, accompanied by her two sisters, appeared in front of the house where Steenwijck and his wife were staying, cursing and swearing that attempts were being made to transport her to New Netherland against her will. These tactics, which brought the dispute into the public domain, so upset Steenwijck’s wife, Margaretha de Riemer, who was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, that she was literally unable to speak. It is likely that Steenwijck had to be satisfied by Geertgen’s repayment of her advance to avoid further commotion.78 Problems between servants and their masters occurred not only prior to their departure from the Netherlands, but also after their arrival in New Netherland. On 28 April 1639, in Amsterdam, Jonas Bronck took Clara Matthijs into service as maid for five years. Together with board and lodging, her contract stated that she would receive forty guilders per year. Before three months had passed, Bronck had to appear before the court in New Amsterdam with Gerrit Jansz. van Oldenburg, who wanted to marry Clara. Bronck demanded either that the contract be fulfilled or that he be awarded damages. The court ruled in Bronck’s favor, and he received an indemnity of 100 guilders.79 Contract laborers attempted to avoid fulfilling their obligations in other situations as well. Complaints about ill treatment by the master were usually sufficient reason for the court to annul a contract,

78 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1031, fol. 914 and 916 (6 February 1659), inv. no. 1580, fol. 13 (7 February 1659). On Steenwijck see also Hallam, ‘The Portrait of Cornelis Steenwyck’. 79 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1555a, pp. 591–593 (28 April 1639); NYSA, NYCM 4: 44 (21 July 1639; NYHM 4: 52); NYHM 1: 194–195 (21 July 1639).

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

81

although often one of the parties, usually the servant, had to pay. The disobedient behavior of a farmhand was rarely rewarded by the court with the annulment of his contract. In September 1651 the court at Rensselaerswijck sentenced the forty-two-year-old Adriaen Dircksz. van Bil to fourteen days’ imprisonment because he refused to serve out his contract. The Rensselaerswijck court viewed the disobedience of servants as a serious problem. Adriaen Dircksz. was punished to ensure ‘the maintenance of good order and justice and to curb the refractory spirit and intolerable insolence of the contracted servants’.80 Cornelis Melijn took a much more accommodating standpoint when he declared void the contracts made in Amsterdam with two of his employees. Their wives were too afraid to live on Staten Island with their husbands, because of the recent murders of colonists there by Indians.81 Jan Lucassen has noted that the working relationships between servant and master were considerably better in the Dutch Republic than in England. In many ways the servant was the master of his own labor, and he could not be sold off against his will into the service of another master. In America a corresponding difference existed between New Netherland and the English colonies. Nonetheless, it was also necessary in the Dutch colony to take measures against servants who walked out on their masters. Ordinances against this were promulgated in 1640, 1642, and 1643. The fine for harboring a runaway was initially 50 guilders, but it was raised to 150 guilders in 1648. Director general and council promulgated these ordinances with the approval of the Amsterdam directors, who agreed that they were necessary. However, in 1653 they urged director general and council to implement the measures in such a way as to give offence neither to masters nor to their servants.82 American historians have linked comparable ordinances in the English colonies with servants’ motivations for running away. An

80

NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 6 (81–88) (28 September 1651; MCR, 163–164). NYHM 1: 349–351 (15 August 1641). 82 Lucassen, ‘Labour and Early Modern Economic Development’, 382; Galenson, White Servitude; Smith, Colonists in Bondage; NYSA, NYCM 4: 73 (9 August 1640; NYHM 4: 88, LO, 24), 122 (13 April 1642; NYHM 4: 143, LO, 32), 169 (18 June 1643; NYHM 4: 196), 418 (6 October 1648; NYHM 4: 569, LO, 104), 16–1: 17b (6 October 1648; LWA, 20), 16–1: 3 (date uncertain; LWA, 5), 11: 83, p. 20 (6 June 1653; Corres. 1647–1653, 215–216). 81

82

chapter two

abundance of land and a shortage of workers drove up the price of free labor. This made it attractive for indentured servants in the English colonies to run away from their masters and offer themselves for employment elsewhere as free agents, thus increasing their income. This was not the case in New Netherland. The Dutch hands mostly had contracts of shorter duration than their English counterparts, enabling them to obtain a higher price for their labor when signing a new contract. Besides, they had adequate opportunities for obtaining the annulment of their contracts if they were ill treated by their masters. As a consequence, running away was a less obvious option for Dutch employees in New Netherland than for English colonial servants.83 As with other types of immigrants, how many contract laborers remained in the colony after the fulfillment of their contracts is not clear. If a farmhand saved assiduously, he could over time either become a tenant farmer, as did some of Kiliaen van Rensselaer’s contract laborers, set up his own farm on land provided by the government, or follow another trade. In 1639, Aert Willemsz. van Garderbroek was contracted as farm foreman by former Director Wouter van Twiller, who had just returned to the Dutch Republic, for his farm, the Commandeursbouwerij [Commander’s Bowery] on Manhattan. Aert Willemsz. and his wife received the considerable sum of two hundred guilders per year for overseeing the farm. After five or six years Aert abandoned farming to become a brewer, as in 1645 he owned his own house in New Amsterdam, and in 1655 he was identified as a brewer and was charged twenty guilders as a contribution towards the costs of the construction of defensive works around New Amsterdam. He probably died in 1659.84 Aert Willemsz. had already begun his career in the colony with a good salary and, after going into business on his own, managed to better his position to an even greater extent. Occasionally even farmhands after the expiration of their contract period established themselves as free farmers and were able to carve out a reasonable existence for themselves.

83

Galenson, White Servitude, 8. GAA, NA, inv. no. 1332, fol. 45 (9 May 1639), inv. no. 1064, fol. 8 (9 June 1642); Phelps Stokes, Iconography, 4: 187–188; NYSA, NYCM GG: 115 (5 September 1645; LP, 33); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 409 (15 October 1655; RNA 1: 374), ODR 2, p. 412 (2 December 1659; RNA 3: 83). 84

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

83

Orphans In 1628, the directors of the East India Company sent twenty orphans, thirteen boys and seven girls, from the orphanage in Delft on an East Indiaman to Asia, in an attempt to promote the growth of the European population there. Twenty-two years later the West India Company, with the same goal in mind, developed similar plans for New Netherland. In 1650 the Amsterdam directors proposed to the burgemeesters of Amsterdam that three hundred to four hundred boys and girls from ten to fifteen years of age be sent from the orphanages of the city to the colony. Of primary importance in this plan, as in later plans, was the children’s free will. If they did not wish to go, they did not have to go. If they would go, they were to be quartered with various people in New Netherland as apprentices or maids. The maximum period of service was to be six to seven years. After the expiration of their contract, the orphans had the choice of going into service once more or becoming free settlers in the colony. In the latter case, the director general would make land available to them free of charge, and they would receive a ten years’ exemption from tenths, the 10 percent tax on produce of the land. The plan, in fact, had a twofold goal: by sending orphans to the colony, the settlement of New Netherland would be advanced and the coffers of the city of Amsterdam would be relieved of the considerable cost of their maintenance. But the wic directors also had an ulterior motive for their proposal. The correspondence between the directors and the burgemeesters of Amsterdam shows that the former regarded the plan as a service in return for the burgemeesters’ support in defeating the proposals for changes in the administrative structure of New Netherland under review by the States General.85 The orphan plan was not put into action at this time. The Amsterdam directors informed the director general and council at the

85 Hallema, ‘Emigratie en tewerkstelling’, 206–207; DRCHNY 1: 364 (22 February 1650). According to the reference in DRCHNY 1: 362, this item should be in the ‘Loketkas of the States General; Rubric West Indische Company No. 30’. In Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A and B, however, I have been unable to locate this item; Johnson, ‘The Transportation of Vagrant Children’, 143–144; Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, 23, 34, 407; GAA, AB, inv. no. 540 (probably December 1649); Jacobs, ‘A Hitherto Unknown Letter of Adriaen van der Donck’.

84

chapter two

beginning of 1651 that it would cause too many problems, without stating the exact nature of these problems. However, the Amsterdam city government had already adopted these ideas. At the end of 1651 the vroedschap [city council] requested the burgemeesters to investigate whether the boys and girls, who were a burden on the aalmoezeniers [almoners] and also ‘other useless persons, who here are a burden and there are worth their fare’, could be sent to New Netherland. The vroedschap’s concern was to lower the aalmoezeniers’ expenses. The orphans of city burghers were taken into the burgerweeshuis, but foundlings and the orphans of the poor were boarded out to socalled houmoeders [surrogate mothers] at the expense of the aalmoezeniers. A separate orphanage for children in the care of the aalmoezeniers was not founded until the 1660s. If some of these children could be placed with masters in New Netherland instead of with houmoeders in Amsterdam, the aalmoezeniers would no longer have to bear the cost of their upkeep.86 With this in mind, all the children living at the expense of the aalmoezeniers were examined early in 1652 both as to their suitability to make the journey to New Netherland and their willingness to do so. The suitability referred to their age. The children had to be at least eight years old. Their health also played a role. Naturally, strong and healthy children were considered more eligible than weak and sickly children. The sources give the impression that the aalmoezeniers visited all the children at their places of residence and asked each child if he or she was prepared to go to New Netherland. This immediately raises the question what the children were told about the colony, a question to which, unfortunately, the sources provide no answers. If some of the children intimated that they were ‘very willing’ to go, it may be assumed that they were in possession of at least some information of a positive nature. However, if they based their reply only on information provided by the aalmoezeniers, one might ask how objective such information was. The type of education the children had received was of little importance. Most of the girls could sew, as in the case of the eighteen-

86 NYSA, NYCM 11: 29b, p. 17 (21 March 1651; Corres. 1647–1653, 112); GAA, AV, inv. no. 19, fol. 189v–199 (21 November 1651), fol. 210v, 210 (31 January 1652); Van de Pol, Amsterdams hoerdom, 205; Engels, Kinderen van Amsterdam, 31–33; Groenveld, Dekker and Willemse, Wezen en boefjes, 62–63.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

85

year-old Stijntje Thomas, or could be of help in housekeeping, as with Aeltje Jans, who was seventeen. However, some of the boys were apprenticed to gold wire drawers, such as Robert Gordon, who was fourteen, or to letter founders, such as sixteen-year-old Isaac Gerritsz., trades hardly in demand in the colony, although both boys were inclined to go. As it turned out, most of the children were not considered eligible: they were too young, did not want to go, still attended school, still had to serve out a number of years with a master, or preferred the trade they had already chosen. Of the hundreds of children that might have been sent, only a few dozen were deemed eligible. After the first round of visits in January 1652, the aalmoezeniers invited the selected children to come to their office and asked them whether they were really sure about their decision. A few had changed their minds, and the aalmoezeniers had to report to the burgemeesters that, for the most part, most children were unwilling to leave the Netherlands. Displeased with the whole plan, they added that dispatching the children to the colony would not be advantageous after all, since the directors wanted only children over fourteen years of age, which would make little difference to their expenses. The aalmoezeniers drew up a list of twelve boys and eleven girls, aged between thirteen and twenty-one, who were not learning their chosen trade well and who met all the requirements.87 For reasons not clear, the Amsterdam directors reported shortly afterwards to Stuyvesant and his council that the burgemeesters had offered to send one hundred and fifty boys and girls to the colony. Such a number is more likely to have originated from the financial aspirations of the Amsterdam city government than from a realistic assessment of the willingness on the part of the children to leave their motherland. Arrangements for transport were made with a number of ships’ captains, and the amount of land that would be made available to each child at the end of his or her service was also announced: twenty-five morgens. However, the plans now hit another snag. In the months before the outbreak of the First AngloDutch War in the middle of 1652, the English had captured a

87 GAA, aalmoezeniers’ archive, inv. no. 437 (undated), inv. no. 39, p. 17 (2 January 1652).

86

chapter two

number of Dutch ships, and the directors did not dare let the children embark for fear of putting them in harm’s way.88 In 1654, after the conclusion of this war, the Amsterdam directors renewed their attempts to carry out the orphan plan. Their records mention a figure of fifty children, for whom they were also to send over provisions. The task of placing the children with good masters was entrusted to the provincial government. The burgemeesters of Amsterdam came up with a lower number, however, twenty-seven or twenty-eight. The precise number of orphans who actually made the crossing on the ship Peereboom is not known, but as a house was rented to provide them with temporary accommodation in New Amsterdam, it must have been more than just a handful of children. A matron was employed to accompany the children on the voyage and to look after them in the early days of their stay in the colony.89 The name of only one of these orphans is known, the sixteenyear-old boy Hendrick Claesz. On 16 November 1654 predikant Johannes Megapolensis, schepen Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift, and elder and schepen Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt placed Hendrick in the service of Lodewijck Jongh, farmer at the deacons’ bowery in New Amsterdam. The contract stipulated that Jongh must give his new hand the opportunity to attend church on Sundays and, if Hendrick should so wish, to learn to read and write. If Hendrick behaved improperly, Jongh was not entitled to discharge him without the permission of his supervisors, nor could he let him go if he became ill. Jongh was not permitted to transfer the boy, without permission, into the service of another: in general, he was to be treated as ‘a free-born Dutchman’. Every three months, Jongh, accompanied by Hendrick, had to report to the supervisors to check his situation. Lodewijck Jongh was to provide Hendrick with good board and clothing, and at the end of his four-year period of service give him a final payment of at least sixty guilders. That amount was sufficient to pay for the return passage to the Dutch Republic, if he so desired.90 88

NYSA, NYCM 11: 53, fol. 2–2v (4 April 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 145–146). NYSA, NYCM 12: 4, fol. 8 (18 May 1654; Corres. 1654 –1658, 15–16), 7, pp. 3–4 (7 July 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 24), 5: 424 (9 November 1654; NYHM 5: 202), 6: 23–24 (23 March 1655; CM 1655–1656, 26); GAA, AB, inv. no. 60 (9 July 1654; DRCHNY 1: 556). 90 New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, contract on the upkeep of Hendrick Claesz. (6 November 1654; Guide, no. 635). 89

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

87

Although the contracts for the boarding out of the other children are not available, it may be assumed that theirs did not differ much from that of Hendrick Claesz. In any event, the wic directors were satisfied with the efforts to find suitable placements for the children, and in 1655 another number of children was dispatched. This group consisted of nine girls varying between thirteen and twenty-three years of age, and seven boys from twelve to seventeen. In 1659 another small group of six children followed. An unknown number of children were sent in 1658 to New Amstel, the city-colony of Amsterdam on the South River. Director Jacob Alrichs of New Amstel reported to the commissioners of the city-colony in Amsterdam that the orphans had arrived safely and had all been placed with good masters, the oldest for two years, the majority for three, and the youngest for four years. They were to earn twenty guilders per year. Alrichs added that he would be pleased when more children came over, but only if they were older than fifteen years and strong enough to work well. In 1662, the Amsterdam burgemeesters even contemplated establishing an almshouse in New Amstel for children from Amsterdam.91 The aalmoezeniers dispatched all the above children to New Netherland. Only a few orphans reached New Netherland in a different way. Jan Reijndertsz. Spits from the Amsterdam burgerweeshuis in 1659 and 1660 was in the service of the wic as a gunner in New Amsterdam. Because he had been taken into service in Amsterdam, his salary had also to be paid out there. In 1660 he requested the regents of the burgerweeshuis to collect his salary and deposit it with the orphan masters as provision for his old age.92 In other cases, orphans went to New Netherland on the same basis as regular contract laborers. In this way Metge Davits, an eighteen-year-old girl in the care of the aalmoezeniers, entered into the service of Johannes La Montagne

91 NYSA, NYCM 12: 22, pp. 2–3 (26 May 1655; Corres. 1654–1658, 58), 24 and 25 (27 May 1655; Corres. 1654–1658, 64–66), 13: 2 (20 February 1659; DRCHNY 14: 434); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 (10 October 1658; DRCHNY 2: 52), inv. no. 56 (2 September 1662); Singleton, Dutch New York, 151; Scott, ‘Orphan Children’. 92 NYSA, NYCM 9: 407–408 (9 September 1660), 14: 7 (probably 1659 or 1660). His request to the governors of the burgerweeshuis is contained in a letter, dated 5 October 1660, of which a card, from the Hart collection, is in the card index of the notarial archive. Although it contains a reference in the estate papers in the archive of the burgher orphanage, searches carried out by myself and members of the staff of the Gemeentearchief Amsterdam have not located the original.

88

chapter two

for three years as a maidservant. She received a considerably higher salary than the orphans mentioned earlier, no fewer than forty-eight guilders per year. Marritge Jochems, who had been recruited in Amsterdam for five years as a maidservant, found a position with Anna Hendricks, the wife of surgeon Jacob de Hinse at Fort Orange. For her first year Marritge received fifty guilders and for the following years sixty guilders per year.93 In summary, New Netherland was a more suitable place for orphans than the East Indies, if only because of the climate. The plans to utilize orphans to populate the colony were launched only after the colonial society had become sufficiently well established, so the orphans were not confronted with the trials of a pioneer settlement. Financial considerations in Amsterdam played an important role in the orphan plan, but the welfare of the children was not disregarded. Only children of good health and suitable age were sent over, and only those who wished to go of their own free will. The optimism of the Amsterdam directors and burgemeesters for the success of the plan was grossly exaggerated. In all, no more than one hundred orphans actually ended up in the colony. How many remained after their service ended is unknown, as in the case of many of the other types of immigrants.

Religiously Motivated Emigration Compared with emigration to New England, the emigration to New Netherland was rarely inspired by religious motives. Religion may have played a role in the case of the Walloon families who went over in 1624, but firm evidence is lacking. The same is true of the English families from Leiden and England who in 1620 volunteered as colonists (and were rejected) and who the following year received permission to settle Plymouth Plantation.94 After the early 1620s, for many years no signs of religiously inspired group immigration for New Netherland are evident. Religious motivations may have played

93 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1205, fol. 45 (4 March 1656), inv. no. 1206, fol. 159–159v (24 November 1657). 94 Peters, ‘Volunteers for the Wilderness’; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 74–75; Trap, ‘Een reis die niet doorging’.

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

89

a role in the case of individual colonists, especially for Protestant refugees from the southern Netherlands, who subsequently emigrated to New Netherland. But it does not seem to have been of major importance. Only in 1662 did religion begin to manifest itself as a motive for immigration, with the publication of two pamphlets: Kort Verhael van Nieuw-Nederlants Gelegenheit [Short Account of New Netherland’s Situation] and Kort en klaer ontwerp [Concise and Clear Design].95 As has recently been discovered, Franciscus van den Enden wrote the first treatise, a work describing New Netherland, based to a large extent on Van der Donck’s Beschryvinge. Van den Enden in this pamphlet unfolded the utopian model of a democratic and egalitarian society that he thought should be founded in New Netherland. The pamphlet gives a report of Van den Enden’s negotiations with the Amsterdam city government to establish such a colony on the South River, but the anticlerical tenor of Van den Enden’s ideas, of which his suggestion of banning ministers from the colony is an extreme example, made the plan unacceptable to the magistrates of Amsterdam. Van den Enden’s ideas for New Netherland never went beyond the drawing board.96 The ideas of pamphleteer Pieter Cornelisz. Plockhoy did become reality. Plockhoy’s ideas, as laid down in the Kort Verhael, were Baptistinspired, but he was at least as democratic and egalitarian in tone as Van den Enden. He had already made a vain attempt in 1657 to interest the English Protector Oliver Cromwell in his plans, and he put them forward again later in Amsterdam. Where Van den Enden’s ideas fell on deaf ears, Plockhoy achieved success. In May 1663 he left with a number of colonists for the South River where, under the authority of the city of Amsterdam, he established a small colony. During the English conquest of New Netherland a year later Plockhoy’s colony was destroyed, and the colonists were sold to Virginia as slaves.97 A later instance of religious immigration, in which New York appears in the margins, concerned the followers of Jean de Labadie.

95

[Van den Enden], Kort verhael; Plockhoy, Kort en klaer ontwerp. Van den Enden, Vrye politijke stellingen, wherein the introduction by W. Klever; Klever, ‘A New Source of Spinozism’. 97 Seguy, Utopie coopérative et oecuménisme; Harder and Harder, Plockhoy from Zurickzee; Quack, ‘Plockhoy’s sociale plannen’; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 2: 60–69. 96

90

chapter two

At the end of the 1670s this Pietist group, which at that time formed a small commune in Wieuwerd in Friesland, sent Jaspar Danckaerts and Peter Sluyter to New York to investigate the opportunities of settling there. They searched the area around New York and along the Delaware River to find a suitable location for a settlement. Although a number of the Labadists ultimately emigrated to North America, albeit not to New York but to Maryland, the journal of the travels of Danckaerts and Sluyter provides an interesting account of how the Dutch lived under the administration of the English. Interesting as this may be, the immigration of the Labadists remained as marginal a phenomenon as the earlier religious immigration.98

Conclusion A number of types of immigrants went directly from the Dutch Republic to New Netherland with the intention of settling there. In many cases, however, the colony was not the intended destination. Soldiers, sailors, and other Company employees arrived more or less by chance in New Netherland, by way of Brazil or Curaçao. In later years such coincidences became less frequent. For merchants, farmers, contract laborers, and orphans New Netherland as their destination was predetermined. Immigrants also arrived from New England, ‘both to have freedom of conscience and to escape from the unbearable government of New England’.99 Neither the extent of intercolonial migration is known, nor are the demarcations among the various types of immigrants distinct. It is known, though, that many who originally came to the colony as employees of the West India Company became free colonists in the course of time. Although in many instances quantitative data about the number of colonists who remained in the colony is lacking, it emerges that from the types of immigrants sailors were the least numerous, followed by the orphans. The higher Company employees and the

98 Van Berkum, De Labadie en de Labadisten; Saxby, The Quest for the New Jerusalem; James and Jameson, Journal of Jasper Danckaerts; Scott, Diary of our Second Trip from Holland to New Netherland. The originals of these travel journals are in the Brooklyn Historical Society. 99 Schulte Nordholt, ‘Nederlanders in Nieuw-Nederland’, 82 (O’Callaghan, Documentary History 4: 6; DRCHNY 1: 181; NNN, 272).

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

91

major merchants also constituted fairly small groups. The lower-ranking Company employees and the minor merchants were larger in number. Even more numerous were contract laborers and soldiers, but it is difficult to say what their ratio is to the number of ‘free’ colonists. Religious immigration was negligible, and in this New Netherland differed from New England. The recruitment patterns and motives for emigration of the various types of immigrants are diverse, and the percentage of returnees varied. Certainly among the merchants, but also among other immigrants such as soldiers or contract laborers with a service period of several years, repatriation was a normal feature. Nonetheless, few would have made the journey as frequently as Pieter Rijverdingh, who in 1701 stated that he had traded with New York for more than fifty years and had himself made about thirty trips to that place.100 Until 1664 a great deal of travel back and forth took place between the colony and the motherland; immigration was not a one-way stream of traffic. Shipping contacts continued even after the English takeover, although the extent of immigration from the Dutch Republic to the colony sharply declined. Closely linked with the extent of repatriation is the value placed on the free choice of the colonists. Not only with the soldiers and the itinerant merchants, who could not be kept in the colony against their wishes, but also in the case of the orphans, willingness was of the greatest importance. This factor played a major role in the directors’ policy and limited the Company’s ability to influence the growth of the colony. Advancing the cost of the passage, providing land free of charge and granting tax exemptions were the principal measures for encouraging settlement. The fact that the Company’s coffers were rarely full did not make matters any easier for the directors. The geographic origins of the colonists were various, and David Cohen states that only half of them came from the Dutch Republic.101 Several points need to be borne in mind, however, when considering Cohen’s figures, which are based on a collection of 904 colonists. Although this is a sizable number, it is not a representative random sample, and Cohen provides no indication on the number whose

100

GAA, NA, inv. no. 5670, pp. 1435–1436 (12 February 1701). Cohen, ‘How Dutch were the Dutch of New Netherland?’; Cohen, ‘Reflections on American Ethnicity’. 101

92

chapter two

origins cannot be traced. Further, Cohen provides a table of occupations, based on 177 people, but he does not establish any links between the colonists’ occupations and their geographical origins. The evidence is incomplete, but such a link is ascertainable. To a major extent, the soldiers originated in the German states, although after 1650 soldiers from the Netherlands were more numerous. A number of the sailors employed by the West India Company came from Scandinavia, while the majority of those on privately owned ships probably came from the Noorderkwartier. For comparison, until about 1660 approximately 35 percent of the East India Company sailors originated from outside the Dutch Republic.102 To a major extent, the lower-ranking Company employees did not come from the Dutch Republic, but their higher-ranking counterparts did originate principally from Holland. The minor merchants mainly came from the Noorderkwartier, while most of the major merchants were from Amsterdam and Haarlem. The farmers came mainly from the less prosperous eastern provinces of the Netherlands. For craftsmen, there is not sufficient information to make a realistic estimate. In the case of the contract laborers the same assumptions apply as for the farmers although a considerable number will also have been recruited via Amsterdam’s international labor market. Finally, the orphans came from Amsterdam. The population of New Netherland was indeed, as director general and council wrote in 1661, ‘a motley collection (few excepted) of various countries’, in which an echo can be heard of a 1614 complaint by Pieter Both, governor general of the East Indies, who described the personnel there as ‘mostly vagabonds and the scum of the fatherland’.103 Another important conclusion that can be drawn from the division of the stream of immigrants into the types mentioned above is that after 1640 a major proportion of the colonists ultimately came to New Netherland via a network of family and friends or acquaintances, as was also usual in the internal migration in the Dutch Republic.104 Immigration to Long Island from southwest Drenthe illustrates this. Such forms of emigration suggest that a certain mea-

102

Gaastra, De geschiedenis van de VOC, 81. NYSA, NYCM 14: 30, p. 6 (21 July 1661; DRCHNY 13: 205); Van Gelder, Het Oost-Indisch avontuur, 48. 104 Trompetter, ‘De migratie van Twente naar Amsterdam’. 103

‘the

peopling of such empty and unfurnished lands’

93

sure of social cohesion was transmitted by the settlers from the motherland to the colonial society. Prior to 1640, when the West India Company still firmly controlled immigration, such networks existed but were less important. Until 1650, the political and economic climate in the Dutch Republic was not conducive to emigration. Economic growth and religious tolerance kept the numbers of potential colonists low. It was only in the last fifteen years of the colony’s existence that the number of inhabitants of New Netherland increased, resulting in a population of between seven thousand and eight thousand in 1664. The administrative structure of New Netherland developed hand-inhand with the growth of the population.

CHAPTER THREE

‘THE EXERCISE OF JUSTICE AND GOVERNMENT’1

In the early years of New Netherland the establishment of separate authorities for administration and justice was not needed, neither in the Dutch Republic nor in New Netherland itself. The crews of the ships that frequented the area between 1611 and 1623 fell under the authority of the captain, and his powers to dispense retribution remained in force ashore. The founding of the West India Company changed this situation. The States General, which held sovereignty over the Dutch colonies, had given the Company extensive rights in its 1621 charter. The wic directors could appoint and replace governors and officers of justice and send out soldiers, all for the defense of the conquests, the maintenance of order and the furtherance of trade.2 Some restrictions applied. If the wic wished to appoint a governor general, the highest rank in the Dutch colonial system, his appointment and the description of his duties had to be approved by the States General first. By the same token, the higher-ranking Company officials, directors general, directors, commanders, and fiscaels usually received a letter of commission from the States General. But this practice evolved only after a number of years. In 1646 both Director General Stuyvesant and Fiscael Hendrick van Dijck received their commissions from the States General, but matters were rather less formal in 1637 when the decision was made to appoint Willem Kieft as director of New Netherland, replacing Wouter van Twiller. The new appointment by the Heren XIX was simply approved by the States General by a regular resolution. Just as with the voc, the higher officials of the wic had to pledge their loyalty not only to the Company but also to the States General. Moreover, the States General had a representative in the highest governing body of the West India Company, the Heren XIX. As it also had the power not

1

NSMA, VRBMs, 63 (5 September 1643; VRBM, 686). De Laet, Iaerlyck verhael, 1: (8) (VRBM, 91); La Bree, Rechterlijke organisatie, 17; Rijpperda Wiersma, Politie en justitie. 2

96

chapter three

to prolong the wic’s charter and because of the poor financial situation of the Company, which made it to some extent dependent on government subsidies, the States General on the whole could exert a considerable influence on the affairs of the wic.3 In New Netherland, the sovereignty of the States General was emphasized repeatedly in the opening words of ordinances and in the oath that the local magistrates had to take. In practice, however, the States General intervened in the day-to-day running of the colony only in exceptional circumstances. The West India Company had been entrusted with laying down colonial policy in the Dutch Atlantic, establishing a situation that displays similarities with that of the Generality Lands, the southern part of the Dutch Republic that had been conquered in the course of the Eighty Years War. Within the Company the Amsterdam chamber was charged with the administration of New Netherland, a result of the fact that the merchants who had traded to the area prior to 1621 came mainly from Amsterdam. The other chambers of the wic got involved with New Netherland only when the colony was discussed in meetings of the Heren XIX. A small number of directors in the Amsterdam chamber formed a committee for New Netherland and carried out the correspondence with the colony. It is not known when this committee was established, if indeed it was a formal committee at all. In the same way small groups of directors were responsible for other colonies, such as Curaçao, and for other matters such as equipage or recruitment. These committees made the required preparations for decisions that were then officially taken by the whole board of the chamber. The names of some of the members of the committee for New Netherland are known. In the early years these included Albert Coenraetsz. Burgh, Johannes de Laet, Samuel Godijn, and Kiliaen van Rensselaer. In later years various directors signed the letters to the director general and council. Appearing most frequently are the names Isaack van Beeck, Jacob Pergens, Eduard de Man, David van Baerle, Abraham Wilmerdonck, and Hans Bontemantel, all promi-

3 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5763 II (ingekomen 1652) (23 June 1645; DRCHNY 1: 494), commissieboeken, inv. no. 12272, fols. 201–202 (28 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 178), resolutions, inv. no. 3196, fol. 433 (2 September 1637; DRCHNY 1: 104); De Laet, Iaerlyck verhael, 1: (9), (14) (VRBM, 91–93, 147); Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 31–33, 97–102.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

97

nent Amsterdam regents with close contacts to the Amsterdam city government.4 In the colony itself the highest authority was the body of director general and council, as it was called after 1647. In the early years the title commander, a rank below that of director, was sometimes used for the highest-ranking functionary in New Netherland. After this period, for a long time the highest functionary of the wic in the colony was the director. Only after Stuyvesant was appointed in 1645 the title director general became commonly used, reflecting the fact that he was also in charge of Curaçao and the other Caribbean islands that the Dutch had taken possession of. Although the title governor also occurs in some sources, the rank of director general was lower than that of governor general, which was held for instance by Count Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen in the Dutch colony in Brazil. The lesser importance of New Netherland compared to Brazil is expressed in the form of address. The West India Company was not the sole authority in New Netherland. The Company handed over parts of the administration and justice to other organs that were created over the years, as a result of which the palette of administrative bodies became increasingly colorful. The Company had taken a first step in the devolution of powers in 1629 when it approved the plan for patroonships. This was followed by a period of transition, during which the wic experienced difficulties in adapting itself to the growth of the colony. Forms of local government gradually evolved, including that of New Amsterdam which, if only because of the size of its population, occupied an exceptional position. Finally, this chapter will cover at the end the period between 1664 and 1675, when the colony first fell under the control of the English, subsequently to revert into Dutch hands for a short period.

4 Van den Boogaart, ‘De Nederlandse expansie in het Atlantische gebied’, 116; Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 14, passim; Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 31; Jessurun, Kiliaen van Rensselaer, appendix 2; Wieder, De stichting van New York, 147 (DRNN, 129); O’Callaghan, The Register of New Netherland, 1–5.

98

chapter three A Trading Post on the North River

The dispatch of thirty Walloon families to New Netherland in 1624 prompted the wic to design a system of administration and justice for the colony. Little archival material from the early period of New Netherland remains, but three documents are extant that provide insight into the Company’s plans for New Netherland: the instructions of January and April 1625 for Willem Verhulst and the Provisionele Ordere [Provisional Regulations] of 30 March 1624, which contain the conditions under which the first colonists went to the colony. The Provisional Regulations is a remarkable document, a contract between colonists and Company, outlining the rights and duties of both. In its eagerness to substantiate its claim on New Netherland by taking actual possession, the West India Company in effect employed the Walloons to be settlers for six years, albeit without salary. Yet the colonists obtained many benefits. They received free passage, and free victuals and other necessities for two years. The Company promised to provide them with land and all required seeds and animals to set up farms, and they were allowed to trade with the Indians. In return, the wic expected them to be obedient, settle where they were ordered to, use the Dutch language in all public matters, and not to engage in any handicrafts that could compete with produce made in the Dutch Republic, a measure that reflects the contemporary thinking on the economic role of colonies. Also, they were sworn to secrecy on Company affairs. After the six years were up, the Walloon colonists would be free to sell their farms or retain them, as they desired. On the whole, the conditions laid down in the Provisional Regulations were liberal, although the fate of the Walloons would rest with the ability of the Company to fulfill its side of the agreement. Also, it would depend on whether two years of free victuals would give the colonists enough time to become self-sufficient.5 The first leaders of New Netherland were the captains arriving there, Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont and Cornelis Jacobsz. May respectively. Subsequently, Willem Verhulst was sent in 1625 as provisional

5 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 111–117 (DRNN, 2–19); Jessurun, Kiliaen van Rensselaer, appendix 2; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 76–79; Bachman, Peltries or Plantations, 77–81; Condon, New York Beginnings, 77–82.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

99

director to New Netherland in the rather low rank of commies. As director of the colony, Verhulst chaired the council which consisted of two officials of the wic and two Walloon colonists. The members were Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont, then vice-director, and Daniël van Krieckenbeeck, ondercommies of the merchandise, as well as François Vesaert and Jan Lampo, both colonists. Several months later the number of councilors was increased to nine through the inclusion of Joost van den Bogaert, Gerrit Fongersz., Pieter Minuit, and Krijn Fredericksz. In addition, the captains of the Company ships also held seats on the council during their stay in New Netherland. Verhulst was supposed to ‘deliberate and act upon all matters of importance’ with his councilors.6 With this stipulation the governmental responsibility was made collective, as was usual in the Dutch Republic and its overseas territories. This meant that the director could not act on his own authority or make important decisions without consulting the council, although as chief executive officer he could wield a substantial influence. Even a strong leader like Director General Stuyvesant was on occasion outvoted by the council. For example, in the appointment of a commies at Fort Orange in 1647, Stuyvesant voted for Michiel Jansz., but only Vice-Director Lubbert van Dincklagen agreed with him. The other four councilors voted for Carel van Bruggen, Stuyvesant’s second choice. Although in the early years a few of the Walloon colonists had a seat on the council, almost all of the councilors were in the employ of the Company. Thus, the West India Company maintained a firm hold on the administration of the colony.7 Director and council were responsible for all the administrative affairs of the colony, but they were expected to follow the orders from the fatherland. Only ‘after mature deliberation, and not without great and important reasons’ were they permitted to vary from the orders.8 In the promulgation of new laws or statutes, the officials in New Netherland were also under the control of the wic in patria. Ordinances had to be submitted to the Heren XIX and could be promulgated only after approval.9 In later years, ordinances made by

6

Wieder, De stichting van New York, 130 (DRNN, 64). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 134, 135, 137 (DRNN, 79, 82, 89); NYSA, NYCM 4: 347–348 (6 November 1647; NYHM 4: 460–461). 8 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 134 (DRNN, 79). 9 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 134, 144 (DRNN, 79, 114). 7

100

chapter three

the director general and council in matters requiring urgency were promulgated provisionally in anticipation of approval from the Netherlands. The ongoing correspondence reveals that transatlantic discussions could be intense, and although the directors in the fatherland did not appreciate an excess of objections from director general and council to their plans, they were sometimes inclined to lend an ear to their advice, based on their thorough local knowledge. Yet the wic directors always had the final say; they insisted on their position as the highest authority. On one occasion it had become apparent to them that the councilors there have arrogated the title of High Councilors, which we have not given them by commission or instruction. Your Honors will do well to abstain from this in future, being content with the status of each charge.10

The wic directors wanted to be kept informed of what happened in New Netherland, right down to the last detail. Copies of the resolution book of the director and council were to be sent to the Amsterdam chamber, and director and council were obliged to send an annual overview of all colonists, as well as an annual inventory of the horses and cattle. In addition, the directors in Amsterdam usually obtained oral information from the captains of ships and others in the Company’s service on their return home. But the main source of information was the direct correspondence between the directors at home and the highest authority in the colony. In the first years the contact was intermittent, but as the shipping increased in frequency, so did the exchange of letters. As with the correspondence between patria and the Dutch colonies in the East Indies, the correspondence falls into two categories: the generale missiven [general letters] to the director general and council and the particuliere missiven [personal letters], which were intended for the director general alone, and in which secret matters were discussed.11 Inventories, verbal reports, and correspondence allowed the directors only retrospective control. If only because of the distance from their masters in Amsterdam, the authorities in New Netherland often

10

NYSA, NYCM 12: 31, p. 3 (25 September 1655; Corres. 1654–1658, 77). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 164, 129, 141, 162 (DRNN, 184, 63, 102–105, 176); Jacobs, ‘Between Repression and Approval’, 56. 11

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

101

had to deal with matters as they saw fit, especially where relations with the Indians were concerned. The director in New Netherland had the authority to negotiate and make treaties with ‘foreign princes and potentates in that country’.12 This emanated from the second article of the Company’s monopoly, in which the States General vested this authority in the wic. The orders show that the relations with the Indians were of the utmost importance; efforts were to be made to prevent giving any form of offence to the Indians. Individual colonists committing felonies against the Indians were to be punished in a suitable manner, ‘in order that the Indianen may see that both in civil and criminal cases we do justice without regard to persons’.13 In the early years of the colony, when the colony contained only a few hundred inhabitants, such a degree of caution was necessary for its survival.14 An important administrative task allotted to director and council in the 1625 orders was the allocation of land, of which the proper regulation was a necessity in the relationship with the Indians. Verhulst was instructed that they must not be driven away by force or threats, but by good words be persuaded to leave, or be given something therefor to their satisfaction, or else be allowed to live among us.15

Of the land acquired from the Indians, Verhulst was ‘to give each [settler] family as much land as they can properly cultivate’.16 If necessary, lots were to be drawn for the parcels of land. At a later stage, private individuals were permitted to purchase land from the Indians, but such transactions had to be approved by director and council. Apart from the wish of the colonial government to maintain an overview of the exact ownership of land, such control could prevent the same plot of land being sold several times over, which happened when the difference between European and Indian conceptions of land ownership led to misunderstandings and conflicts. In case the colonists did not cultivate the land allocated to them within a specified period of time, the director and council had powers

12 13 14 15 16

De Laet, Iaerlyck verhael, 1: (8) (VRBM, 91). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 143 (DRNN, 110–113). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 112–113 (DRNN, 5). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 126 (DRNN, 51–52). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 123 (DRNN, 40).

102

chapter three

to reallocate this land to others. The same applied later to parcels of land in New Amsterdam that were designated for the building of houses. An example of this is the order given by director and council in 1646, by which a plot of land that for five years had been in the ownership of Laurens Cornelisz. was transferred to Sander Leendertsz. Land grants were not intended as objects of speculation, but for actual use.17 In the early period, the director and council exclusively exercised justice in the colony. The Provisional Regulations, as well as the instructions for Verhulst, refer to an artikelbrief [letter of articles and regulations pertaining to the behavior of Company servant], which laid down the regulations for the behavior of employees of the Company. These regulations also applied to the first colonists in New Netherland. No artikelbrieven from the wic from this early period have survived, but it is unlikely that the situation in the wic was different from that in the voc from whose instructions during the seventeenth century show that the punishment for offences was usually entrusted to the scheepsraad [ship’s council] or the brede raad [broad council]. The ship’s council was empowered to punish minor infringements, and it had the powers to deal with more serious cases if the ship was sailing alone. When ships sailed in convoy, the broad council would try cases of a more serious nature. Sitting on both the ship’s council and the broad council, in addition to the captain and other officers, were commercial functionaries who might be aboard, such as the opperkoopman [senior merchant]. Such a combination of positions is also evident in the council in New Netherland. Until shortly after 1647, and to the displeasure of the colonists, the captains continued to occupy positions on the council in New Netherland. In the settlement at the Cape of Good Hope, too, the captains played a role in the administration, albeit not so great as that in New Netherland.18

17 NYSL, SC 16676–89 (2 July 1646; Guide, no. 637); NYSA, NYCM GG: 43 (7 September 1641; LP, 13), 152 (2 July 1646; LP, 43), 16–1: 27–30 (1 July 1652; LWA, 29–31); Cronon, Changes in the Land, 54–81. 18 Barnouw, ‘The Settlement of New Netherland’, 249–250; Wieder, De stichting van New York, 112, 122 (DRNN, 2, 39); Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 1 (VRBM, 136); Frijhoff, Wegen, 583; Cau, Groot placaet-boeck 1: 625–654; Bruijn and Van Eyck van Heslinga, Muiterij, 19–20; La Bree, Rechterlijke organisatie, 15; Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 38 (NNN, 339); Bruijn, Gaastra and Schöffer, Dutch-Asiatic Shipping, 1: 110.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

103

Jurisprudence in the colony was based on the laws in force in the Dutch Republic. Article twenty of the Further Instructions for Verhulst reads: In the administration of justice, in matters concerning marriages, the settlement of estates, and contracts, the ordinances and customs of Holland and Zeeland and the common written law qualifying them shall be observed and obeyed in the first place; also, namely in cases of intestate estates, the placard issued by their Great Mightinesses the States of Holland in the year 1587, some copies of which are sent to him herewith.19

With this article the customary practices in use in civil law in the Netherlands were established for New Netherland, as well as the regulations concerning matrimony and inheritance. Printed copies of the Ordonnantie opt stuck vande Justitie [Ordinance on Matters of Civil Law] and the Ordonnantie van de Polityen [Ordinance on Civil Transactions] were sent to the colony together with the instructions for Verhulst. Both ordinances had been laid down by the States of Holland at the end of the sixteenth century.20 In addition to civil law, the administration of parts of criminal law also fell under the duties of the director and council. In some criminal cases, the council could be expanded to include several colonists. Just as in the promulgation of new laws, the authorities in the colony were subordinate to their masters. The instructions for Verhulst included the stipulation to send back to patria all adulterers and adulteresses, thieves, false witnesses, and useless persons among the Christians, likewise also the lazy persons who draw pay from the Company in order that they may be punished here according to their deserts.21

Any pardon granted by the director and council in New Netherland was subject to the approval of the authorities in the fatherland. This is a clear indication that at this early stage the authorities in the colony were not vested with high jurisdiction [i.e., the power to impose capital punishment], nor were they empowered to order corporal punishment. Such powers were awarded in 1629, with the

19 20 21

Wieder, De stichting van New York, 143 (DRNN, 113–114). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 17–35; Shattuck, ‘A Civil Society’, 23–29. Wieder, De stichting van New York, 122 (DRNN, 39).

104

chapter three

introduction of the Ordre van Regieringe soo in Policie als Justitie, in de plaetsen verovert ende te veroveren in West-Indien [Order of Administration, both in government and Justice, in the places conquered and to be conquered in West India]. In the same year the courts of patroonships were invested with high jurisdiction. Appeals against judgments of the patroonships’ courts could be lodged with the commander and council. The system of justice in force in the colony in the early period was a mixture of regular maritime law and the practice current in the Dutch Republic. Gradually, the latter prevailed. The only exception to this was the military law applicable to the wic soldiers in New Netherland which retained its own characteristics, such as the nature of punishments.22 This brief overview of the jurisdiction of the authorities in the colony gives rise to the question of the means available to the director and council to carry out their tasks. The administrative staff in New Netherland consisted of a number of officials. The most important of these were the secretary and the fiscael, two positions that had existed from the colony’s early years. Other positions, such as that of bookkeeper or receiver of the recognition fees, were created only after several years when, with the growth of the colony, the Company’s administrative staff was expanded. The position of secretary to the council was occupied initially by Ondercommies Gerrit Fongersz., later taken over by Isaac de Rasière. Besides keeping the minutes of the meetings of the director and council, the secretary also acted as notary in the colony. The instructions for Verhulst specified that ‘all wills, prenuptial agreements, contracts and other instruments’ were to be noted in writing by the secretary and executed by him and two members of the council.23 Although this last requirement soon fell into disuse, and two ordinary witnesses were considered sufficient, the secretary of New Netherland continued to fulfill his notarial duties during the entire existence of the colony. The importance of the notarial duties of the secretary began to dwindle only from 1650 on, when independent notaries came to the colony.24

22 Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 20 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 148); Schiltkamp, ‘On Common Ground’; Kunst, Recht, commercie en kolonialisme, 57–61. 23 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 144 (DRNN, 114). 24 Schiltkamp, De geschiedenis van het notariaat, 86–87, 130–133.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

105

The fiscael was also one of the councilors, and his specific task was to uphold the rights of the West India Company. These can be divided into two parts. First, he had to defend the rights of the Company both as an employer and as a commercial entity. In the case of improper behavior of Company employees, such as breaches of the artikelbrief or dereliction of duty, the fiscael was authorized to investigate and, when the severity of the case warranted a trial, to act as prosecutor before the director and council. The wic’s commercial monopoly allowed it to try cases of smuggling or interloping as well. Second, the Company had rights deriving from its role as government, which it exercised through the promulgation of ordinances and the collection of taxes, such as the tenths. Director and council could try any contravention of these governmental ordinances. Also, the Company possessed low, middle, and high criminal jurisdiction over New Netherland. After the first years, in which their role was limited, director and council in New Netherland were empowered to try anything from light crimes like fighting, insults, threats, and drawing knives, to more serious matters such as adultery, theft, blasphemy, and manslaughter. The fiscael acted as public prosecutor both in cases of the infringement of the ordinances and in criminal cases. As the local income of the West India Company was derived in part from these rights, the fiscael has sometimes been called a fiscal officer. While not incorrect, this description is incomplete.25 The instructions for the fiscael for the early period are not extant, but those given to Hendrick van Dijck, who was appointed in 1645 and went with Stuyvesant to the colony, are illuminating. In trials before the director general and council, the fiscael had to collect evidence and demand a sentence reflecting the seriousness of the crime. After the council had pronounced a verdict, it was the fiscael’s duty to execute the sentence. In addition to a fixed salary from the Company, Van Dijck received a portion of the fines and confiscations ordered by the director general and council. Although the size of this portion is not specified in Van Dijck’s orders, other sources show that he generally received a one-third share, which was in accordance with that received by schouten in the Dutch Republic. In the

25 Jacobs, ‘“To Favor This New and Growing City of New Amsterdam with a Court of Justice”’.

106

chapter three

Netherlands, the duties of public prosecutor in criminal cases were generally carried out by a schout or, in rural areas, by a baljuw [district magistrate]. For a couple of years in the 1650s, the fiscael in New Netherland was also schout of New Amsterdam, thus combining in one official two positions of different levels, with different judicial jurisdictions.26 As senior officials, the secretary and fiscael belonged to the group of council members who stood at the side of the director general. Other councilors, Johannes La Montagne for one, had no specific tasks, apart from giving their advice in meetings of the council. Not all council members had a vote. The secretary usually had no voting rights, nor did the fiscael when acting as public prosecutor in criminal cases. The instructions for Verhulst describe Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont as vice-director. Either the secretary or the fiscael presumably filled this position during the 1630s and 1640s. In the reorganization of the New Netherland government in the 1640s, the vice-directorate was made a separate position, to which Lubbertus van Dincklagen was appointed. After Van Dincklagen was ousted in 1651, the term vice-director was only used to indicate representatives of the director general at Fort Orange, the South River, or Curaçao. Often members of the council were allocated ad hoc tasks. Secretary Van Tienhoven, for instance, was instructed to investigate the intrusion of a group of English on Long Island in 1640. A number of years later, when he was fiscael, he was sent as an embassy to the governor of New Haven. Various examples of such assignments exist in the case of other councilors as well.27 Other functionaries could also be a member of the council, although this was more common in the early period than later. Jacob Elbertsz. Wissinck, commies of the victuals in the 1620s and 1630s, was a member, as was his successor Claes van Elslandt, but thereafter none of

26

Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5763 II (ingekomen 1652) (23 June 1645; DRCHNY 1: 494), (16 June 1652; DRCHNY 1: 504–509); Wieder, De stichting van New York, 139 (DRNN, 97); NYSA, NYCM 2: 93e (5 January 1644; NYHM 2: 187–188); Jacobs, ‘“To Favor This New and Growing City of New Amsterdam with a Court of Justice”’. 27 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 130 (DRNN, 64); Nat. Arch., SG, commissieboeken, inv. no. 12272, fols. 197–199v (7 July 1645; DRCHNY 1: 160–162), loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.49 (littra A) (13 May 1640; DRCHNY 2: 144–145); NYSA, NYCM 5: 242–245 (8 April 1654; NYHM 5: 129–130).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

107

the commiezen of the victuals, store, or merchandise held office as a council member. With the growth of the administrative staff a distinction was introduced between the council duties on policy on the one hand, and administrative and executive tasks such as those carried out by the commiezen, on the other hand. The responsibilities of the commies of the ‘outgoing and incoming goods’ included the collection of the imposts and recognition fees on the goods that were imported or exported. The tasks of the receiver of the recognition fee were at some moment separated from this function, as a result of which the commies supervised the marking and transport of the cargo chests, and the receiver dealt with the financial administration. The commies of the victuals was responsible for the management and administration of the provisions for the Company employees. The commies of the store had the task of running the store from which the Company sold the goods it imported. And the commies of the merchandise took care of the Company’s merchandise in the period while it continued to hold the monopoly on the fur trade. Lastly, the function of bookkeeper, which among other things involved keeping the salary books up to date, was separated from that of the secretary in the 1650s.28 A major difference from the composition of the personnel at voc factories in the East Indies is that in New Netherland few employees had the rank of koopman [merchant] or onderkoopman [ junior merchant]. In the East, the duties of such functionaries included that of arranging the purchase of local goods, such as spices. In New Netherland the responsibility for trading with the Indians was in 1626 on the shoulders of Isaac de Rasière, who was also secretary at the time.29 Although the administration of the colony was set up adequately by means of the instructions for Verhulst, problems soon arose, as a letter from Isaac de Rasière to the Amsterdam directors shows. De Rasière had arrived in New Netherland in July 1626 and discovered that the council had appointed Pieter Minuit as director.

28 NYSA, NYCM GG: 2–3 (15 July 1630; LP, 2), 8: 782 (26 March 1658), 11: 38 (26 April 1651; Corres. 1647–1653, 124), 37 (26 April 1651; Corres. 1647–1653, 123), 4: 10 (3 June 1638; NYHM 4: 13); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1283, fol. 114 (13 July 1641). 29 GAA, NA, inv. no. 757, fol. 365 (20 December 1630), inv. no. 758, fol. 39 (22 January 1631); cf. Frijhoff, Wegen, 580; Gaastra, De geschiedenis van de VOC, 92–95.

108

chapter three

Pieter or Pierre Minuit was born in 1594 in Wesel to which his Walloon refugee parents had fled. In 1615 and 1616 he worked as a diamond cutter and merchant in Utrecht, still trading with the German city Cleves, where his brother-in-law, Govert Raet, served as a contact.30 Under Minuit, proceedings had already been embarked upon against Verhulst, who had been discharged for mismanagement. Under his rule ‘the people here have become quite lawless, owing to the bad government hitherto prevailing’. They had, according to De Rasière, ‘heretofore been very harshly ruled by Verhulst, and that without any form of justice, but merely upon his own authority’, which had caused discontent among the employees of the wic and the colonists. As De Rasière wrote to his superiors in Amsterdam, it was necessary to administer some punishment with kindness, in order to keep them in check, to break them of their bad habits, and make them learn to understand their bounden duty and the respect they owe your Honors both in writing and in speaking.31

Another point De Rasière touched upon was the way decisions were made in the council. He felt that he, as secretary, should not have the right to vote ‘in trials, since it is a secretary’s duty to impartially take notes of all things and to be neutral in such matters’. On the other hand, he believed that ‘in matters of legislation and administration my vote and seat should come next to those of Minuyt’, making him in effect vice-commander. But the council withheld this position from him, which was even more galling for De Rasière because the position of secretary, which he combined with that of commies of the merchandise, cost him more time than he had anticipated, while he received scarcely any extra payment for it. Furthermore, Ondercommies Gerrit Fongersz., who was his sworn enemy, did have a vote in the council and was thus considered De Rasière’s superior, much to his annoyance.32 Such conflicts about the rights and responsibilities of various

30 Utrechts Archief, transporten en plechten, pp. 189–192 (21 September 1615); Archief West-Friese Gemeenten, NA Hoorn, inv. no. 2070, fols. 253–253v, fols. 251–251v (19 January 1616); GAA, NA, inv. no. 694 reg. 52 (not paginated) (21 July 1632); Weslager, A Man and His Ship, 14–16. 31 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 165 (DRNN, 187). 32 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 165–167 (DRNN, 187–199).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

109

functionaries were to be expected in an administrative structure that still suffered a degree of ambiguity. Similar problems also occurred in the Dutch Republic, but an extra problem for New Netherland was that it was not possible for the directors in Amsterdam to act swiftly when anything went wrong in their overseas colony. In such a situation much depended on the leadership of a few prominent men on the ground, but the capabilities of the early directors of New Netherland left a great deal to be desired. Like Verhulst, his successor, Pieter Minuit, also had difficulties in maintaining his authority. He came into conflict with mill builder François Vesaert, for instance, about the quality of his mills and the supplies of provisions.33 Minuit got on equally bad with Secretary Jan van Remunde. Sijmen Dircksz. Pos wrote disdainfully to Kiliaen van Rensselaer about the consequences: They let the trade slip sweetly away and do not exert themselves to increase it either by sloops or otherwise, but are very diligent in bringing exorbitant suits and charges against one another and in neglecting the interests and business of their lords.34

The conflict forced the directors to replace the entire administration in New Netherland, and in 1632 Minuit and Van Remunde were recalled. Wouter van Twiller, who succeeded Minuit, also lacked the qualities necessary to gain the united backing of the colonists and Company employees. He found it necessary to remove Fiscael Lubbert van Dincklagen from office and lock him up within a year of the latter’s appointment in 1634. According to the letter of Van Twiller and his councilors to patria, Van Dincklagen had on 20 October 1634 ‘delivered a protest in the council, by which the aforementioned councilors have been extremely injured in their persons, honor, and quality’. What the content of this protest was, is not clear, but in answer to the question whether he was referring to all the members of the council or only a few, Van Dincklagen had replied that he meant all of them. Subsequently, director and council tried to obtain legal evidence by subjecting Van Dincklagen to a written interrogation, but he refused to give any answer, since it was his

33 GAA, NA, inv. no. 943, not paginated (25 June 1632), fol. 583 (17 July 1632), fol. 656 (3 November 1632), not paginated (6 November 1632). 34 NSMA, VRBMs, 2 (16 September 1630; VRBM, 169).

110

chapter three

wish to have the matters dealt with by the directors in patria. Ultimately, Van Dincklagen managed to get away to the fatherland and tried there to gain satisfaction via the wic directors and the States General.35 Director Wouter van Twiller’s reputation has suffered great damage at the hands of David Pietersz. de Vries, in whose Korte Historiael the director is spared little criticism. In particular, the description of an incident in 1633 is often cited as an example of Van Twiller’s incompetence. In April of that year an English ship arrived in the North River. On board was the Dutch merchant Jacob Jacobsz. Eelkens who, during the time of the New Netherland Company, had also sailed to New Netherland, but who had not been taken into the service of the wic. Instead, according to De Vries, the directors preferred ‘incompetent men like this commander [Van Twiller] whom they made from a clerk into a commander and with whom they played their game’.36 Van Twiller, who at that time had been in the colony only a few months, invited Eelkens and some of his men to a meal at the fort where, to Eelkens’s surprise, some Company officials got drunk and began to quarrel. The English ship lay before the fort for a few days prior to an intended journey up the North River to Fort Orange to trade there with the Indians, although Eelkens had been warned that he had no right to do so. De Vries provides a colorful description of what happened next: then commander Wouter van Twiller gathered all his people before his door, had a keg of wine brought out, had a glass filled, and called that those who held the Prince of Orange and himself in esteem, would do likewise, and assist him against the violation the Englishman was committing, who was already out of sight and sailing up the river. And the people all began to laugh at him, as they knew well how to finish a keg of wine, even if there had been another six kegs of wine.37

Later that day De Vries confronted Van Twiller, telling him that the English ship had no commission to sail up the river. De Vries avowed that he would never have allowed it do so, but would rather

35 Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 14, fol. 83v (29 October 1635), inv. no. 50, doc. 32 (20 August 1635); GAA, NA, inv. no. 856, fol. 174 (18 December 1635), inv. no. 917, fol. 309v (1 December 1635), fols. 331–334v (18 December 1635); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 21v–22, 86v (20 July 1632, 25 September 1636; VRBM, 217–218, 320). 36 De Vries, Korte Historiael, 174 (NNN, 187); Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’. 37 De Vries, Korte Historiael, 175 (NNN, 188).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

111

have chased the ship away with his guns. He had had previous experience with the English in the East Indies and had learned that you should give them tit for tat, ‘for they are so haughty of nature, that they think everything belonged to them’. Had it been left to De Vries, he would have sent the wic ship Soutbergh after the English ship to seize it. Soon afterwards, De Vries departed for the Netherlands, and failed to record that Van Twiller had indeed given orders to pursue the English ship and chase it away. Further, Van Twiller and his council reported to the wic directors that he had never treated Eelkens with hostility, but merely that the latter had shown him papers that did not adequately represent a commission to sail up the North River. The owners of the ship later submitted a claim for damages against the wic via the Dutch Ambassador in London.38 In reading De Vries’s Korte Historiael it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he blackens the reputation of others to improve his own. The incompetence of which he accused the Directors Van Twiller and Kieft was a convenient excuse for the failure of De Vries’s own projects there. Thwarted ambition also played a role. De Vries applied to the Amsterdam directors to take over Van Twiller’s position as director himself, but was turned down. Because few sources are available for the 1630s, the picture painted by De Vries has rooted itself firmly in the historiography of that period. Other information indicates that Van Twiller was not a particularly strong director, and he also drank rather more than was good for him.39 In the early period, three aspects of the administrative history of New Netherland clearly come to the fore. First, the administrative form was rather rudimentary. It displayed similarities with the way authority was exercised both on ships and on trading posts of the East India Company, following a general Dutch pattern, rather than specific circumstances prevalent in North America. As the administrative staff gradually expanded, a more distinct demarcation among the various administrative functions evolved. Second, the legislative

38 De Vries, Korte Historiael, 175 (NNN, 188); Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 50, doc. 32 (20 August 1635), SG, lias Engeland, inv. no. 5893 I, 69–80 (1 November 1633 and 27 May 1634; DRCHNY 1: 71–81). 39 Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 14, fol. 215 (4 December 1636), fol. 216 (8 December 1636); Frijhoff, Wegen, 672; Kenney, Stubborn for Liberty, 39; NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 57, 58v (23 April 1634; VRBM, 269, 271); Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’.

112

chapter three

system of the Dutch Republic was adopted right from the earliest beginnings of the colonization of New Netherland. And third, neither experienced administrators nor the wic directors themselves were inclined to spend a number of years of their lives in self-imposed colonial exile. None of the early directors of the colony possessed sufficient character and independence to keep a cool head and steer a steady course in a far-off place to which a ship bearing instructions from the fatherland sailed only a few times each year. As a result, to maintain their position they resorted to authoritarian methods, which did not sit well with the colonists. One of the consequences was that a number of the original Walloon colonists, having served out their time in the colony, returned to Europe. The conflicts between directors and settlers did not contribute to the construction of a well-balanced administration in New Netherland in its early years.

Patroonships Incompetent first directors was not the only, and possibly not even the most important, factor in the colonization of New Netherland. The conflict between a trade faction and a colonization faction within the Amsterdam chamber also played a role. Unanticipated high costs had made several wic directors doubt the profitability of the early attempts at colonization. The income from the fur trade was insufficient to cover the costs of colonization, and some of the directors came to the conclusion that it would be better to invest sparingly in New Netherland, carrying on the fur trade at the lowest possible cost with the goal of gaining at least some profit. Protecting the Company’s monopoly on the fur trade was therefore necessary. Of course, the drawback to this short-term policy would be that the colony would not have enough manpower to defend itself against attacks by the Indians or by European nations, especially England. On the other hand, if investments were kept to a minimum, any financial losses would be small, whereas profits from the fur trade would continue to come in during the years that the colony was in Dutch hands. A consequence of this policy would be that New Netherland would consist merely of a couple of small forts manned by a few dozen people stationed there to trade with the Indians. The colonization faction in the Amsterdam chamber took a different

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

113

view. Attempts at colonization and the establishment of agriculture in New Netherland would indeed imply making major investments. But when the colony became self-sufficient, the need for investments would diminish and profits would then roll in. This policy would yield strategic benefits to the Dutch Republic, for New Netherland could take over the role of Scandinavia and the area around the Baltic Sea as a producer of grain and timber, thus eliminating the Dutch dependence on those resources. Within the Dutch Atlantic world, grain from New Netherland could be exported to other colonies within the area of the Company’s charter, such as Curaçao and Brazil, taking away the need for expensive shipments of provisions from patria. But, the colonization faction warned, this policy would require a large number of colonists, and only by abolishing the Company monopoly on the fur trade would colonists in sufficient numbers be attracted to emigrate.40 A compromise was reached when the two factions in the Amsterdam chamber agreed on a set of Vryheden ende Exemptien [Freedoms and Exemptions], which were approved by the Heren XIX on 7 June 1629. In this compromise, the trade faction achieved its goal of retaining the wic’s monopoly on the fur trade, and the colonization faction obtained the opportunity to promote, at its own expense, colonization. In a way it was the privatization of colonization. A similar system had been introduced earlier in a few islands in the Caribbean. The Freedoms and Exemptions mark the introduction of the patroonship system to New Netherland. Patroons in New Netherland were those participants in the wic that were prepared to declare that they would, within four years, establish a colony of at least fifty people of above fifteen years of age. A quarter of the colonists was to be present within the first year. The choice of location was subject to a number of restrictions. The wic would retain for itself the island of Manhattan, which was to serve as the staple for the transport of goods. A patroonship was allowed to extend over four miles along the coast or river, or two miles in the case of both sides of the river, ‘and as far inland as the situation of the occupants will permit’.41 The New Netherland patroons, all directors of the Amsterdam

40 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 41–44, 46–53v (25 November 1633; VRBM, 235–250). 41 Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 5 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 138).

114

chapter three

chamber, were not granted the property of the land outright. Rather, they were obliged to buy from the Indians the land within the limits of their patroonships. According to article six of the Freedoms and Exemptions, patroons gained specific rights to: own and possess and hold from the Company as a perpetual fief of inheritance, all the land lying within the aforesaid limits, together with the fruits, plants, minerals, rivers, and springs thereof, and the high, middle, and low jurisdiction, rights of fishing, fowling, and grinding, to the exclusion of all others.42

Some historians have labeled the patroonship system feudal, but in fact patroons were given privileges similar to holders of heerlijke rechten [manorial rights] in the Dutch Republic, receiving jurisdiction and administration over parts of New Netherland in loan from the overlord, in this case the West India Company. The jurisdiction in civil cases was limited: judgments of the patroons’ courts with fines exceeding fifty guilders could be appealed to the commander and council. This stipulation did not prevent Van Rensselaer from including in contracts with his employees that they were not permitted to appeal against judgments of the court of Rensselaerswijck. The patroons were allowed to have their colonists and goods transported in wic ships, for a fee. If no ships were available, the patroons could dispatch ships of their own. They were also given the right to sail and trade along the entire coast of North America, although the Company retained its monopoly on the fur trade in New Netherland, except in areas where it did not have a trading post. There the patroons could freely trade in pelts, although they had to pay an impost of one guilder on each pelt obtained. They also had to pay imposts on other imported or exported goods. The patroons’ colonists were granted ten years exemption from taxes. The wic retained the responsibility of protecting the colonists against all enemies, local and foreign.43

42

Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 6 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 140). Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 20 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 148); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 121 (29 May 1640; VRBM, 476); Fabius, ‘Het leenstelsel van de West-Indische Compagnie’; Van Grol, De grondpolitiek in het West-Indisch domein; Bachman, Peltries or Plantations, 97–109; Rink, ‘Company Management and Private Trade’; Rink, ‘Before the English’, 32–36; Nissenson, The Patroon’s Domain; Jacobs, ‘Dutch Proprietary Manors in America’; Jacobs, ‘Johannes de Laet en de Nieuwe Wereld’, 113 and note 29. 43

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

115

In retrospect, the approval of the patroonship system in 1629 was the high point of the colonization faction. Over the course of the next years, most of its adherents lost their seat in the Amsterdam chamber, failing to win reappointment when their six-year terms ended. Consequently, the influence of the colonization faction diminished. But in 1629 there was little sign of imminent decline. Several members of the colonization faction set up a patroonship, or a ‘colony’ as it is termed in the seventeenth-century manuscripts. Michiel Pauw, son of the influential Amsterdam burgemeester Reinier Pauw and younger brother of Raadpensionaris [grand pensionary] Adriaen Pauw, reserved two parcels of land, the first on the Fresh River and the second on the west side of the North River, opposite Manhattan, where he planned to establish the colony of Pavonia. Samuel Godijn registered an area on the west bank of the South River, where he envisioned founding the colony Swanendael. Albert Coenraetsz. Burgh was also interested in the South River, but he chose the east bank. Samuel Blommaert preferred the Fresh River, while Kiliaen van Rensselaer undertook to establish the colony Rensselaerswijck near Fort Orange along both banks of the North River.44 In October 1630, patroons Godijn, Burgh, Blommaert, and Van Rensselaer decided to join forces to spread the risks. The form of collaboration bore a strong resemblance to the commonly used form of a partenrederij [part-ownership], often used in capital-intensive investments, such as ships and mills. But as in this case it concerned manorial rights granted to named individuals, the legal rights of the participants were rather complicated. Each of the patroons held a two-fifths share in the patroonship that was registered under his name and received a one-fifth share in each of the other three patroonships. The administration of each patroonship remained in the hands of the patroon in whose name that colony was registered, although it remained unclear whether this was an inalienable right.45 Fortune did not smile on the patroonships. Neither Burgh nor Blommaert brought their plans to fruition. Godijn’s colony Swanendael on the South River attracted several shareholders, including David

44 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 9–10 (13 January 1629–10 January 1630; VRBM, 154–158). 45 NSMA, VRBMs, 37 (1 February 1630; VRBM, 164–165), letter book, fols. 6v–9 (1 October 1630; VRBM, 171–175).

116

chapter three

Pietersz. de Vries. A small colony was founded in 1630, with a small fort and a few dozen colonists who, among other activities, were to engage in whaling. However, in 1632 the shareholders in the Netherlands received the report that our fort had been overrun by the Wilde, the people killed, thirtytwo men, who were outside the fort on the field to do their work.46

None of the colonists survived. Michiel Pauw seems to have established Pavonia without outside investors. Although this patroonship, managed by Cornelis van Vorst, existed longer than some of the other ventures, it was not a success. In 1635 Pauw sold his patroonship rights back to the West India Company.47 Only one of the patroonships, Rensselaerswijck, was to be blessed with a longer existence. Kiliaen van Rensselaer was the only patroon who persevered, despite his high initial costs and meager yields. Although he experienced opposition from the Amsterdam chamber, where in the early 1630s the trade faction had gained the upper hand, he did all he could to build up his colony, albeit gradually. He bought land from the Indians, sent cattle over to the colony, and hired contract laborers. He also established administrative and judicial systems in the patroonship. The Freedoms and Exemptions had provided Van Rensselaer with the power to appoint magistrates in his territory and to establish a kleine bank van justitie [small bench of justice]. He made use of this prerogative in 1632 by appointing Rutger Hendricksz. van Soest as schout, also known, as in the Dutch Republic, as officier, short for officier van justitie [officer of justice]. He was to be sworn in by Wouter van Twiller, who would soon arrive in New Netherland. In turn, Hendricksz. was instructed to swear in the five schepenen of the small bench of justice. In addition to their judicial duties, the court also had the authority to appoint guardians of the property of deceased persons. The schout, as director of the patroonship, was in charge of the

46 De Vries, Korte Historiael, 147–148; NSMA, VRBMs, 37 (1 February 1630; VRBM, 164–165), letter book, fol. 81 (24 May 1635; VRBM, 314); Weslager, ‘Who Survived the Indian Massacre at Swanendael?’. 47 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 80v–81 (24 May 1635; VRBM, 314–316), fol. 121 (29 May 1640; VRBM, 475).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

117

day-to-day management of Rensselaerswijck. In his capacity as representative of the patroon, the schout had the duty of ensuring that the colonists in Rensselaerswijck adhered to the conditions of the Freedoms and Exemptions, six printed copies of which were sent to the colony. Although the patroon had the right to engage in the fur trade in places where the West India Company did not have a commies, Van Rensselaer forbade most of his colonists to do the same.48 Rutger Hendricksz. refused his appointment, however, probably because he had already decided to leave New Netherland. When Van Rensselaer was notified of this, he appointed Jacob Albertsz. Planck as schout for a period of three years. Again, Van Twiller was instructed to swear him in. Planck was ordered to select at least three schepenen, swear them in, and establish the court. To ensure proper procedure, Van Rensselaer gave him three books: ‘Ars notariatus, Damhouwer int Crimineel, and further, praxcos Civilis, ofte maniere van Procederen’ [The Art of the Notariate, Damhouder on Criminal Proceedings; Civil Practice, or the way of Litigation], with the remark that the court in Amsterdam generally followed De Damhouder.49 Van Rensselaer was not satisfied with Planck’s services, and in 1637 his contract was not renewed. An interim period followed in which three representatives of the patroon, Arent van Curler, Pieter Cornelisz. van Monnickendam, and Cornelis Teunisz. van Breuckelen, assisted by four council members of their choice, took care of the administration and the execution of justice in Rensselaerswijck. In 1641 Adriaen van der Donck, trained as lawyer at the University of Leiden, was appointed as the new officer. His period of office also lasted only three years. Subsequently, Nicolaes Coorn deputized for a while, until the arrival in 1648 of Brant Aertsz. van Slichtenhorst, a native of Nijkerk. The latter held the position of schout and director of Rensselaerswijck until 1652. From that year until the abolition of the patroonship’s court by the English administration in 1665, the function of schout was in the hands of Gerrit Swart, while sons of

48 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 13–14 (1 July 1632; VRBM, 201–203), fol. 17–19 (20 July 1632; VRBM, 208–212); Jessurun, Kiliaen van Rensselaer, appendix 8. 49 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 70v, 71v (27 April 1634; VRBM, 292, 294); Jacques Thuys, Ars notariatus, dat is: konste en stijl van notarischap (Amsterdam 1628); Joost de Damhouder, Practycke in criminele saecken (Rotterdam 1628) and his Practycke in civile saeken (’s-Gravenhage 1626). Of these works several Latin and Dutch prints from the sixteenth and seventeenth century are known.

118

chapter three

Kiliaen van Rensselaer took charge of the management of Rensselaerswijck: Jan Baptist (1651–1658), Jeremias (1654–1655, 1656–1674†), Rijckert (1664–1670), and Nicolaes (1674–1678†). The eldest son Johannes, who inherited the title of patroon, occupied himself with the family’s properties in the Nijkerk area and like his father never went to America. Neither did any of Kiliaen’s four daughters.50 The fact that Dutch judicial handbooks were sent over is an indication that the court at Rensselaerswijck was set up in the same way as courts in the Dutch Republic. The minutes of the Rensselaerswijck court contained both administrative matters concerning the patroonship and criminal and civil cases. The bench consisted at first of four men, and later of five. Two of these represented the patroon, and were known as gecommitteerden [commissioners]. The other members of the bench were referred to as raden, raetspersonen, gerechtspersonen, or rechtsvrienden. They were appointed by the director, but represented the inhabitants of Rensselaerswijck.51 During its whole existence, Rensselaerswijck was bedeviled by conflicts. First, disagreement arose over the shareholders’ authority over the administration. The foundering of the colonies of the other three participants in the combination resulted in Burgh, Blommaert, and Godijn retaining only their one-fifth share in Rensselaerswijck. The participants, led by Johannes de Laet, who had taken over Burgh’s share, opined that the directorship and the manorial rights were not the sole prerogative of Van Rensselaer but of them all, as in a ambachtsheerlijkheid [manor] in the Dutch Republic. That the patroonship was in the name of Van Rensselaer was in their opinion purely for the purposes of the inheritance of the manorial rights. Van Rensselaer disagreed, and the conflict dragged on from 1640 until 1650, when the States General decided in favor of the participants.52 Of more importance was the second conflict, this with the West India Company, which initially Van Rensselaer did not fight alone, but in collaboration with the other patroons. Soon after the approval of the Freedoms and Exemptions the trade faction had taken over the

50 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 32–35 (4 March 1634; VRBM, 250–254), fols. 65–65v (23 April 1634; VRBM, 281), fols. 165–165v (4 August 1639; VRBM, 459); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1054, fols. 90–90v (30 July 1639); MCR, 8–11; CJVR 5–7; Van der Wall, ‘Prophecy and Profit’. 51 MCR, 16. 52 Jacobs, ‘Johannes de Laet en de Nieuwe Wereld’, 113–116.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

119

power in the Amsterdam chamber, and tried to hamper the patroons in a variety of ways. Its most important weapon was the interpretation of the clause of the Freedoms and Exemptions that concerned the fur trade. According to article fifteen, the patroons were allowed to carry out trade ‘all along the coast of New Netherland and places circumjacent’, except for the fur trade, ‘which trade the Company reserves to itself alone. But the same is allowed to happen where the Company has no commies’. However, a recognition fee of one guilder per skin had to be paid for the peltries obtained there.53 The conflict rested on two aspects of this article. First, according to the patroons, ‘the coast of New Netherland and places circumjacent’ did not apply to the trade in the hinterlands or in the areas that fell under a patroonship. In the patroons’ opinion, no recognition fee should be paid on the beaver pelts obtained in these places. The second point concerned the places where the wic did not have a commies or another agent in charge of the fur trade. In the view of the patroons, this should be interpreted as the places where the wic did not have a commies at the time of the promulgation of the Freedoms and Exemptions in 1629. Since that time the Company had positioned commiezen at several places, but that fact, they maintained, should be of absolutely no consequence to the rights of the patroons to trade in beaver pelt in those places.54 This interpretation was, of course, unacceptable to the West India Company, which issued ordinances stipulating that no private colonist was allowed to trade in furs. It did not improve the relationship between the Company and the patroons when the Company dispatched commiezen to areas that fell under the auspices of the patroons. The matter was brought before the Heren XIX at the end of 1633, with little success, whereupon it was decided to resort to the States General for arbitration. The matter was examined by a committee of the States General in June 1634, but no final verdict was forthcoming. Instead, the States General gave the Company and the patroons twelve days to reach a compromise.55

53

Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 15 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 144–146). DRCHNY 1: 87 (21 June 1634). The reference in DRCHNY indicates that this document is in Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.6. However, I have been unable to locate it there. 55 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5753 II (18 March 1634; DRCHNY 1: 68), (13 May and 10 June 1634; DRCHNY 1: 69, 71); Nat. Arch., SG, resolutions, inv. no. 54

120

chapter three

It is probable that such a compromise provided a temporary resolution of the conflict. An obvious solution was for the wic to buy out the patroons. On 21 July 1634 Kiliaen van Rensselaer reported this to Johannes de Laet, and added that the combined patroons would be prepared to accept such a course of action if they were to receive a reasonable price. He would ask six-thousand Flemish pounds (thirty-six thousand guilders) for Rensselaerswijck, which was quite a large sum, and the West India Company probably thought it excessive and refused to pay. Pavonia and Swanendael were sold to the wic, but Rensselaerswijck remained a patroonship and went on to experience a number of further conflicts with the wic.56 Because the conflict between the patroons and the wic centered around the fur trade, some historians have suggested that the profit from peltries was the patroons’ main interest from the beginning. But if this was the motivation of the patroons of Swanendael and Pavonia, then it is difficult to understand why they sold their rights back to the wic. If, merely as a formality, they had fulfilled the conditions for patroonship, there would have been good opportunities to carry on an illegal trade in furs, smuggling the pelts back home. The specific instructions from Kiliaen van Rensselaer to his colonists, which explicitly forbade fur trading, make it clear that agriculture was far more important to him, although he viewed the fur trade as a substantial source of additional income.57 After the other patroonships had been bought out, the relationship between the Company and Van Rensselaer enjoyed a few rather more peaceful years. The two parties even worked together on occasion, although such collaboration was not always carried out in the most cordial spirit. Tension reigned once more when new plans were developed for the creation of new patroonships in New Netherland. When Van Rensselaer heard that a set of new Freedoms and Exemptions

59, fols. 403v–404 (13 May 1634; DRCHNY 1: 69), fol. 436 (22 May 1634; DRCHNY 1: 70), fol. 482v (10 June 1634; DRCHNY 1: 70), fols. 499–499v (15 June 1634; DRCHNY 1: 82), fols. 516v–517 (20 June 1634; DRCHNY 1: 82), fol. 518 (21 June 1634; DRCHNY 1: 83), fols. 529v–530 (24 June 1634; DRCHNY 1: 91); DRCHNY 1: 87 (21 June 1634; see above). 56 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 80 (21 July 1634; VRBM, 312), fol. 81 (24 May 1635; VRBM, 314). 57 Condon, New York Beginnings, 124–125; DRCHNY 13: iii; Folkerts, ‘Kiliaen van Rensselaer’, 299.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

121

was considerably less liberal than those of 1629, he attempted to have his rights assured. He contacted Gerrit van Arnhem, a member of the committee of the States General that was to approve the new arrangements, and warned the directors that he would defend his rights. An initial concept of the new Freedoms and Exemptions from the pen of Johannes de Laet was rejected in 1638, not because it encroached upon Van Rensselaer’s rights, but because it provided too little stimulus for the growth of the colony’s population.58 A subsequent proposal met with the approval of the States General in 1640, principally because the wic was now prepared to make the important concession of relinquishing its monopoly on the fur trade and replacing it with a system through which private merchants received permission to trade after payment of a recognition fee.59 Other differences between the 1629 and the 1640 versions of the Freedoms and Exemptions are evident as well. In the new version, the tenths were explicitly the prerogative of the Company. As this had not been the case in the earlier version, Van Rensselaer assumed that the new stipulation did not apply to him. Yet the Company had tried to word the opening lines of the new regulations in such a manner that they were to apply not only to the patroons establishing colonies in the future, but also to those who had already done so. They had attempted to conceal this from Van Rensselaer until the approval was a fait accompli. According to Van Rensselaer, this was ‘a shameful distortion and a poisonous Italian trick’.60 This clause was not included in the final version, as Kiliaen van Rensselaer was successful in having the formulation of the Freedoms and Exemptions

58 DRCHNY 1: 96–100 (undated, circa 1634). The reference in DRCHNY gives rise to the assumption that this document is in Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5752, 5753, 5754, 5755 or 5756. I have, however, been unable to locate it therein. 59 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 II (ingekomen 1640) C. 1047 ff. (19 July 1640; DRCHNY 1: 119–123). There is no evidence that this proposal was ever formally approved by the States General, but from the subsequent course of events it may be concluded that it was. The relinquishment of the monopoly on the fur trade thus took place implicitly, it was simply not mentioned again in the new version. Cf. Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 134–137. NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 116v–117v (29 October 1639; VRBM, 463–465), fols. 137v–138 (29 January 1641; VRBM, 524–527); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1055, fols. 51v–52 (27 October 1639); Klooster, ‘Failing to Square the Circle’. 60 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 117 (29 October 1639; VRBM, 464), fol. 127v (25 June 1640; VRBM, 500); Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 II (ingekomen 1640) C. 1047 ff. (19 July 1640; DRCHNY 1: 123).

122

chapter three

altered in such a way that his rights remained intact. The approved version included an explicit remark about the rights that had been granted earlier: The Company reserves for itself all large and small tenths, all strands, all waifs, the right of mintage, highways, erecting forts, making war and peace, together with all wildernesses, founding of cities, towns and churches, retaining the supreme authority, sovereignty, and supremacy, the interpretation of all obscurity which may arise out of this grant with such understanding, however, that nothing herein contained shall alter or diminish what has been granted heretofore to the patroons in regard to high, middle, and low jurisdiction.61

This phrase formed the basis for Van Rensselaer’s opinion that the Company’s levy of tenths had no bearing on his patroonship. However, his assumption that the right to tenths was linked with high jurisdiction was mistaken, as later attempts of the Company to impose tenths would show. The new Freedoms and Exemptions, which were republished in 1650 with slight alterations, attracted several new patroons, such as Godard van Reede, heer van Nederhorst [lord of Nederhorst]. This Utrecht nobleman was the representative of his province in the States General, and as such was later involved in the negotiations at Münster that led to the end of the Eighty Years War. In 1641, in cooperation with Cornelis Melijn, he began a patroonship on Staten Island. Van Reede acted as financier, while Melijn took care of business matters in New Netherland. After the death of Van Reede, the patroonship was taken over in 1650 by another representative to the States General, Hendrick van der Capellen tot Rijssel, a nobleman from Gelderland. Under the local supervision of Adriaen Post, the colony on Staten Island was expanded to a total of about ninety souls and eleven farms, until attacks by Indians in 1655 ruined it. Fifteen colonists were killed, and the rest fled to Manhattan. Renewed attempts to build up the colony were not successful.62

61 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 II (ingekomen 1640) C. 1052 and C. 1052v (19 July 1640; DRCHNY 1: 123). 62 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Vrijheden ende Exemptiën’ (24 May 1650; DRCHNY 1: 401–405), inv. no. 12564.42 (10 April 1656; DRCHNY 1: 638), akteboeken, inv. no. 12310, fols. 31–33 (10 April 1653; DRCHNY 1: 528); Faber and De Bruin, ‘Tegen de vrede’; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1621, pak 3, fol. 4 (6 May 1641), inv. no. 1334, fol. 2 (3 July 1640); Kupp and Hart, ‘The Early

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

123

In addition to Van Reede and Van der Capellen, some gentlemen of slightly less noble birth were interested in patroonships. Adriaen van der Donck in 1646 began a small colony on land the Indians called Nepperhaem north of Manhattan in present-day Yonkers. Van der Donck renamed it Colendonck, after himself. After his premature death in 1655 the patroonship was not continued. In 1641, another patroon, Meyndert Meyndertsz. van Keeren delegated Johannes Winckelman to select a good parcel of land for him. That was to be the area known as Achter Kol, between the North River and the Hackensack River. Here a small colony was established, which was destroyed by the Indians in 1643. The Utrecht magistrate Cornelis van Werckhoven in 1651 reserved parcels of land near the Nevesinck and Tappan in his name. He later decided against these areas and bought land on Long Island where New Utrecht was to be established. After Van Werckhoven’s death in 1655 his heirs dispatched the surveyor Jacques Corteljou to New Netherland to look after matters on their behalf. Although Van Werckhoven’s lands were designated as a patroonship, no indications exist that the rights appertaining to a patroonship were actually exercised. It is possible that the rights lapsed on Van Werckhoven’s death and his heirs inherited only the ownership of the land.63 The patroonship of Van Reede and Van der Capellen on Staten Island was the only one of the second-generation patroonships that blossomed to any extent. None of the other projects was a success. Partly as the result of the conflicts about Rensselaerswijck, the West India Company had had enough of this sort of experiment. After the death of Van der Capellen in 1659, his heirs decided to sell back the patroonship to the wic for three thousand guilders. The

Cornelis Melyn’; Huntington Library, San Marino, HM 838, contracts between Van der Capellen and Melijn (25 May and 4 June 1650; Guide, no. 5); NYSA, NYCM 11: 47 (March 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 137). 63 Nat. Arch., SG, Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4846, fol. 19r (26 April 1652; DRCHNY 1: 470), akteboeken, inv. no. 12309, fols. 401v–402v (26 April 1652; DRCHNY 1: 470); NYSA, NYCM 2: 85–86 (30 October 1643; NYHM 2: 170–171), 11: 48a and b (7 November 1651; Corres. 1647–1653, 137–138), 74a and b (22 November and 11 December 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 186–187), 11: 75 (13 December 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 189), 8: 424–425 (16 January 1657; DRCHNY 14: 382), 12: 39, p. 3 (14 June 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 95); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1501, fol. 84 (20 July 1641); O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 2: 286–287, 550–551.

124

chapter three

same year the Company decided not to grant any further rights for patroonships.64 Despite all the attempts at patroonships inspired by the new Freedoms and Exemptions, only Rensselaerswijck survived, and its relations with the Company were not good. In 1647 Brant Aertsz. van Slichtenhorst was appointed to the directorship of Rensselaerswijck. He was soon to encounter problems with Director General Stuyvesant, who arrived the same year. In April 1648 Stuyvesant proclaimed a day of prayer, and sent a copy of the proclamation to Van Slichtenhorst, but the latter, taking the opinion that such a proclamation in Rensselaerswijck was an encroachment on the authority of the patroon, protested vehemently. This was the overture to a conflict that was to last for several years and to acquire a bitter and violent nature.65 Van Slichtenhorst displayed a high degree of inflexibility in watching over what he considered to be the rights of the patroonship, and in Stuyvesant he found an opponent who was equally intractable, if not more so. These characteristics are displayed in the following events. It was customary for the inhabitants of Fort Orange, mostly Company soldiers, to collect firewood and building materials outside the walls of the fort. Van Slichtenhorst, of the opinion that the area outside the fort belonged to Rensselaerswijck, opposed this practice. In turn, director general and council considered the policy implemented by the patroonship to permit the inhabitants of Rensselaerswijck to build their houses in the shadow of the walls of Fort Orange to be a contravention of the rights of the Company. At the end of 1648 director general and council, at the request of Stuyvesant, ordered Carel van Bruggen, commies of Fort Orange, to have all houses within gunshot of the fort demolished. It is unlikely that this order was executed. Even so, Van Slichtenhorst continued his baiting of the provincial government. Early in 1652 the director general felt it necessary to take tougher measures, after ensuring he had the support of the directors in Amsterdam. In two ordinances he

64 GAA, NA, inv. no. 2614 B, pp. 1157–1158 (1 November 1660); NYSA, NYCM 13: 42 (9 October 1659; DRCHNY 13: 121). 65 NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder 6 (26 April 1648; MCR, 30); Gehring, ‘Petrus Stuyvesant’; Jacobs, ‘Dutch Proprietary Manors in America’; Venema, Beverwijck, 48–53.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

125

gave the Company employees and the free burghers of Fort Orange the right to collect wood in the forests around the fort, and declared the area within two hundred and fifty Rijnland rods of the fort (941.85 meters or 1030.47 yards) under the jurisdiction of the wic.66 The new commies at Fort Orange, Johannes Dijckman, accompanied by three soldiers, ‘who were fully armed, namely, with their side arms, two carrying muskets with lighted fuses and one carrying a snaphaen [snaphance, a type of flintlock]’, then went to the court at Rensselaerswijck and requested permission to proclaim the ordinances there. Van Slichtenhorst refused and demanded from Dijckman a copy of the order from the States General and the Company upon which the ordinances were based. Two weeks later Dijckman repeated his request, and again Van Slichtenhorst refused, this time in terms that illustrate his stubbornness: in no wise, as long as I have a drop of blood in my body, or you show me first an authorization from their High Mightinesses and our lords and masters.67

Belligerent talk, but with a hint of blustering, as Van Slichtenhorst had few means for adequate defense at his disposal. His adversary had the command over a number of soldiers, and was also someone who was not known for his mild manner, as illustrated by an incident some weeks earlier. On New Year’s Eve, probably on Dijckman’s instructions, soldiers had thrown burning fuses onto the thatched roof of Van Slichtenhorst’s house, so that it appeared as if the whole of the front of the house was on fire. The following day Van Slichtenhorst’s son Gerrit was accosted by the soldiers, who suddenly grabbed him by the hair and at the same time struck him on his head so that he fell down and in the presence of the aforesaid Dijckman not only beat him black and blue, but dragged him through the mud and mire [. . .]. And he, Dijckman, encouraged his soldiers in their evil work, while they thus inhumanly treated the director’s son and his children, by calling out aloud: ‘Beat him now and may the devil take him!’68

66 NYSA, NYCM 5: 4–8 (27 and 29 January 1652; NYHM 5: 2–5), 4: 413 (10 September 1648; NYHM 4: 559), 420–421 (2 November 1648; NYHM 4: 572–575). 67 NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 9 (22 February 1652; MCR, 188), folder 8 and 9 (8 and 29 February 1652; MCR, 184–185, 189). 68 NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 9 (29 February 1652; MCR, 189–190).

126

chapter three

Dijckman’s next step in the subjugation of Rensselaerswijck was the placing of boundary posts to mark the area that fell under the jurisdiction of the fort. Van Slichtenhorst had the posts removed. Upon this, Dijckman dispatched Sergeant Daniël Litscho and fourteen soldiers to Van Slichtenhorst with the order that the flag of the patroonship be hauled down. Van Slichtenhorst of course demanded upon whose authority this was supposed to take place. Litscho would have nothing to do with such demands, and had his soldiers haul the flag down.69 Such theatrical behavior affected the symbols of authority, which were of course important, but it was not sufficient to decide the conflict. Ultimately, Dijckman had Van Slichtenhorst arrested at the beginning of April 1652, probably on the orders of the director general and council, and had him transported to New Amsterdam, where he was jailed for sixteen months. In his absence, the court of Fort Orange and Beverwijck, as the town under the jurisdiction of the West India Company was named, was installed in the wic fort. In this way Rensselaerswijck lost its most important settlement. Of course, years of fruitless litigation ensued in the Dutch Republic, but events were mooted by the English takeover of the colony in 1664. Ten years after, when the colony fell into English hands for a second time, the Company’s directors declared that the owners of Rensselaerswijck had the right of jurisdiction over Beverwijck. But this declaration was only for form, to assist the Van Rensselaers in maintaining their rights under the rule of the English. If the colony were ever to have become Dutch again, the directors’ declaration would become invalid.70 Patroonships were in the hands of private individuals, but the city of Amsterdam also attempted to found a colony within New Netherland. Although few historians have called this venture a patroonship, the way it was imbedded into the governmental structure of New Netherland shows great similarity to the private patroonships. In 1655 the Swedish colony on the South River was conquered by an expedition under the leadership of Stuyvesant. The warship Waegh,

69 NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 10 (19 and 22 March 1652, 1 April 1652; MCR, 194–195, 198–199). 70 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1096, fols. 366–367 (7 April 1651), inv. no. 3218, fols. 342–342v (2 April 1674), fol. 340 (2 April 1674); Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5769 (2 April 1674; DRCHNY 2: 558).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

127

which had been hired from the city of Amsterdam, took part in this operation. To protect the conquered area both from renewed attempts at colonization by the Swedes and from the English in Maryland, it was necessary to quickly provide it with settlers. To do so, the Amsterdam chamber once again turned for help to the city of Amsterdam, which recognized the advantages of establishing its own colony, which would eventually become New Amstel, on the South River. It anticipated importing grains and timber suitable for masts, for example, to make it less dependent on imports from the Baltic area. The outbreak of war between Sweden and Denmark in 1655, which threatened the passage of Dutch ships through the Sound, also played a role in the city’s decision to colonize the future New Amstel. Furthermore, because the Swedes had their hands full with this war, they were unlikely to send a relief force to the South River. An incentive for the Company in this venture was that, in this way, its debt for the hiring of the Waegh could be repaid.71 In February and March of 1656 negotiations took place between the Company and the city. Without doubt, these were made easier by the fact that one of the Company’s directors, Hans Bontemantel, was also a member of the committee that was appointed by the vroedschap of Amsterdam to conduct the negotiations. A provisional plan was produced that contained a number of important points concerning the system of administration and justice.72 Most important among them was that the wic would render to the city of Amsterdam the high, middle, and low jurisdiction, which the city would retain ‘in the form of a fief, successively appointing to that end a person on whom the fief shall be conferred on payment of certain manorial dues’, a construction in accordance with those of the earlier patroonships and with those of rural manors owned by cities.73 Further, the city stipulated that in matters of

71

GAA, AV, inv. no. 21, fols. 76v–77 (3 March 1656; DRCHNY 1: 614); Hart, ‘The City-Colony of New Amstel’; Hart, ‘De stadskolonie Nieuwer-Amstel’; Weslager, Dutch Explorers. 72 NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, letter from the directors of the WIC to the deputies of the City of Amsterdam (15 February 1656; Guide, no. 568); GAA, AV, inv. no. 21, fol. 68 (12 February 1656; DRCHNY 1: 609), fols. 76v–77 (3 March 1656; DRCHNY 1: 614), AB, inv. no. 541 (16 March 1656; DRCHNY 1: 615). 73 GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 ‘Concepte conditien dewelcke gepresenteert souden

128

chapter three

government and justice the new colony should be organized in the same way as the province of Holland. The chamber agreed, with the proviso, that as far as inheritance law was concerned, ‘the practice and custom of the city of Amsterdam’ should be followed, rather than the somewhat different law practiced in the southern part of Holland. A schout should be appointed, who was to be given the same instruction as his counterpart in Amsterdam. The city wanted its representatives to appoint the schout, but the Amsterdam chamber contended that such appointments were the prerogative of the Company, in the name of the States General, which held sovereignty. The administration should consist of three burgemeesters to be chosen by the burghers. Additionally there would be five or seven schepenen, either to be chosen or nominated by the burghers. Amsterdam believed that representatives of the city could then make the appointment from the nominees, but the Amsterdam chamber preferred appointment to be the prerogative of the director general and council. If the population of the city-colony grew to two hundred families or more, a vroedschap of twenty-one men would be chosen by the burghers, which would have jurisdiction over all administrative matters. The Amsterdam chamber, which did not want to grant quite so much power to the colonists, suggested that the vroedschap be allowed to nominate both its own members and the schepenen, but that the right of appointment remain in the hands of the director general and council. As far as the administration of justice was concerned, judgments by the schepenen in excess of one hundred guilders could be the subject of appeal to the director general and council. Criminal cases should also be tried by the schepenen, again with the right of appeal to the director general and council. In many ways, the minor point of disagreement between the Company and the city of Amsterdam arose from the question of which authority was to be in a superior position in the structure of New Netherland government. The procedures of appointment thus in many ways had both a symbolic and a practical significance. In the final agreement, the difference of opinion concerning the rights of appointment was solved by means of a somewhat cumbersome compromise. Both the schout and the schepenen would connen werden aende geene, die als coloniers gesonden souden worden na Nieu Nederlandt’ (12 July 1656; DRCHNY 1: 619–625), AV, inv. no. 21, fol. 113 and 121v (4 and 12 July 1656; DRCHNY 1: 618).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

129

be appointed in the name of their High Mightinesses and the West India Company, by the commissioners of Amsterdam, who, for this purpose shall give authority to the director by a power of attorney.74

So, it was resolved that the director general in New Amsterdam would make the actual appointment, but the official authority to do so would be in the hands of the delegates in Amsterdam. The city-colony that was to become New Amstel never attained a size sufficient for the appointment of burgemeesters, schepenen, or a vroedschap. However, the arrangements laid down for future growth show clearly the lines along which the administration of a colony should develop, at least in the opinion of the regents in Amsterdam. What is notable is that the rights concerning the appointment of burgemeesters were vested in the hands of the burghers, contrary to the way in which this was arranged in New Amsterdam, as will be outlined later. This was also the case in Amsterdam, where the rights to make appointments traditionally lay in the hands of the oudraad [literally: old council], consisting of burgemeesters, schepenen, former burgemeesters, and former schepenen. Also, many cities in Holland had acquired the right of election only in 1650 with the start of the First Stadholderless Period. Previously, the stadholder had appointed the city magistrates.75 After the agreement between the Amsterdam chamber and the city of Amsterdam was approved by the Heren XIX and the States General, the preparations could commence. A garrison of sixty men was to be established at Fort Casimir, the cost of which would amount to more than eleven thousand guilders per year. To cut costs, it was decided to dispatch sixty to seventy farmers from Jülich as colonists, who could double as soldiers in times of emergency. Clothing and supplies were purchased for one hundred and fifty colonists for one year. Together with the costs of equipping a ship, the total costs amounted to almost twenty-five thousand guilders. After all the preparations, the ship Prins Maurits left Amsterdam in December 1656, carrying 112 colonists. Among them was Jacob

74 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5766 (ingekomen 1656) ‘Concepte conditien dewelcke gepresenteert souden connen werden aen de gene, die als coloniers gesonden souden werden nae Nieu Nederlandt’, points 13 and 15 (12 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 631–632). 75 Bontemantel, De regeeringe van Amsterdam, 1: 91.

130

chapter three

Alrichs, the director of New Amstel, as the colony was to be known. A further fifty-five colonists sailed on three other ships.76 The enterprise was dogged with setbacks from the outset. In March 1657 the Prins Maurits ran aground near Long Island. Although no casualties occurred and the bulk of the cargo was saved, the accident made the task of transporting all the colonists and equipment from New Amsterdam to the South River more difficult. Jacob Alrichs, an experienced campaigner, who had many years served the West India Company in Brazil, knew it would be difficult: It is a new beginning here, in which all or many circumstances are fragile and beset with many hardships, yet up until now everything has been well and kept in good order, which [we] will try to continue with every possible effort.77

But it was to be more difficult than he could have imagined. In the winter of 1657–1658 it became clear that New Amstel would be obliged to bring in additional provisions from New Amsterdam since its stocks were insufficient. Then, in the summer of 1658 an epidemic broke out among the colonists, with a toll of more than one hundred victims. On top of all this, winter set in early with extreme severity. It seemed that the summer of 1659 was going to be kinder to New Amstel, but before long new problems appeared on the horizon. The promised supplies from the Netherlands arrived either too late or not at all, the colonists began to get uneasy and the danger of an attack by the English from Virginia increased. The result was that many of the colonists had had enough, and left New Amstel.78 76

Nat. Arch., SG, Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4846, fol. 219v (1 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 626), fol. 220 (10 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 628), fols. 220v–221 (12 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 636), fols. 221–221v (16 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 637), outgoing letters, inv. no. 11944, fol. 139 (1 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 627), fols. 141v–142 (10 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 628), LWI, inv. no. 5766 (ingekomen 1656) (7, 10, 16 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 627–628, 629), LWI, inv. no. 5766 (ingekomen 1656) ‘Concepte conditien dewelcke gepresenteert souden connen werden aen de gene, die als coloniers gesonden souden werden nae Nieu Nederlandt’ (12 August 1656; DRCHNY 1: 630–636); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 ‘Memorie van eenige poincten aende Ed. hoochachtbare heeren burgemeesteren’ (1 November 1656; DRCHNY 1: 641), ‘Lijste van natte en drooge vivres gerequireert voor 100 koppen voor een jaer’ (8 November 1656; DRCHNY 1: 643–645); GAA, AV, inv. no. 21, fols. 151–152 (4 November 1656; DRCHNY 1: 642–643); NYSA, NYCM 18: 25 (12 March 1657; DP, 97–98). 77 GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 (13 August 1657; DRCHNY 2: 20). 78 NYSA, NYCM 18: 25 (12 March 1657; DP, 97–98), 26 (20 March 1657; DP, 99), 27 (22 March 1657; DP, 99–100), 35 (29 October 1657; DP, 112–113), 36 (14

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

131

It is not surprising that, after all these misfortunes, the vroedschap in Amsterdam reached the conclusion that the costs of the colony outweighed the revenue it produced. No further benefits could be expected, and it was decided to sell the colony back to the wic. As the city had already borrowed 132,000 guilders to finance the colony, the decision was no surprise. However, Amsterdam quickly found that it could not dispose of New Amstel quite so easily, for the wic was not inclined to dig into its depleted coffers to relieve the city of its burden. Negotiations with the Company followed, in which the city voiced major objections to the earlier arrangements. Not only did Amsterdam want to obtain the right to appoint the schout and schepenen, which it believed itself entitled to on the grounds of the transferal of high, middle, and low jurisdiction, but it also wanted to increase considerably the limit for the right of appeal to the director general and council in civil cases, and to abolish that right completely in criminal cases. In addition, the city wanted the area covered by the city-colony to include a part of the South River that was still under the jurisdiction of the Company. The Amsterdam delegates believed that increasing the authority of its officials in New Amstel was the only way in which the damaging battle between the authorities in New Amsterdam and the officials in the city-colony could be brought to a close. Only if these wishes were agreed to was Amsterdam prepared to continue its efforts to establish a colony at the South River.79 The Company acquiesced quickly, because it realized that the South River would otherwise become depopulated, setting the scene for intrusions by the English from Virginia and Maryland. The city once more embarked upon a program of major investments and contracted numerous colonists, including the group of followers of Pieter

November 1657; DP, 114–115), 37 (20 November 1657; DP, 115–116), 44 (8 May 1658; DP, 126–127), 50 (24 January 1659; DP, 134–145), 52 (24 March 1659; DP, 136–137), 13: 31, 1v (4 September 1659; DRCHNY 12: 249); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 (16 August 1659; DRCHNY 2: 68–71), (13 April 1657; DRCHNY 2: 4–8). 79 GAA, AV, inv. no. 22, fol. 161v (30 September 1659; DRCHNY 2: 78), inv. no. 23, fols. 100–100v (6 January 1661; DRCHNY 2: 165), fols. 132–136v (9 May 1661; DRCHNY 2: 167–170); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 ‘Penningen ontfangen voor reeckeninge vande colonie wegens de stadt Amsterdam opgerecht in Nieunederlandt’ (18 November 1659; DRCHNY 2: 101–102), (undated, probably 6 January 1661; DRCHNY 2: 165–166); GAA, groot memoriaal, inv. no. 5, fol. 51 (18 August 1661; DRCHNY 2: 171–173); NYSA, NYCM 14: 36 and 37 (9 November 1661; DRCHNY 2: 173–175).

132

chapter three

Cornelisz. Plockhoy. Although the population of New Amstel now increased, the increases came too late to prevent the English takeover. Yet New Amstel was the only place in New Netherland where in 1664 any resistance to the English was offered.80 In summary, the system of patroonships was not the infallible method of populating the colony envisaged by the colonization faction in the 1630s. The friction between the Company’s holding on to the monopoly on the fur trade on the one hand and the rights that the patroons believed to be theirs on the other created a conflict that was not conducive to the colonization of New Netherland. Furthermore, the patroonships were plagued by attacks by the Indians, as in the case of Swanendael and Achter Kol. Problems with the Indians were also a major cause of the foundering of the secondgeneration patroonships. Rensselaerswijck was spared thanks partly to its good relations with the Indians and partly to the efforts of patroon Kiliaen van Rensselaer to invest in the future of his colony by furnishing it with people and cattle. Additionally, Van Rensselaer established for Rensselaerswijck an administration that resembled that of manors in the rural areas of the Netherlands. In New Amstel the proposed form of administration displayed similarities to the practices customary in the Dutch Republic, although in this case more to those of the urban areas, with Amsterdam as the main model.

The West India Company in Another Role The administrative and judicial system of New Netherland in its early years displayed many similarities to that of the Dutch colonies in the East Indies and to that followed aboard ships. The power was in the hands of the West India Company, which many historians have taken to be an essentially commercial entity. However, with the introduction of the patroonship system, the Company had already given up part of its rights, although it retained the monopoly on the fur trade and on shipping. The new Freedoms and Exemptions of 1640 changed this. The wic lost the fur trade, and commercial matters subsequently played only a marginal role in its activities. After 1640

80 NYSA, NYCM 14: 36 and 37 (9 November 1661; DRCHNY 2: 173–175), 19: 83 (8 February 1663; DP, 327–333); Hart, ‘De stadskolonie Nieuwer-Amstel’, 92.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

133

the Company became an administrative organ, fulfilling the role of government. It simply ceased to function as a commercial institution in New Netherland.81 The directors and their local employees had difficulty in adapting to the new role of the wic, especially as the number of colonists with a material interest in the colony grew in size. After the abolition of the wic monopoly on the fur trade, many wic employees had resolved to make a permanent living in New Netherland rather than just spend the contracted number of years there, as Company employees usually did. They became free colonists and formed a group that, as it grew in size, began to develop a sense of local community and identity. This development was strengthened by the conflicts with the Indians that had been brought about by Director Kieft and that threatened the interests of the colonists. The resulting antithesis between Company and colonists was a constant factor in the existence of New Netherland, and it played a key role in the administrative development of the colony, particularly in the 1640s and early 1650s. The problems with the Indians began in 1639. On 15 September 1639, director and council agreed to a resolution that would prove disastrous: As the Company has to bear great expenses, both in building fortifications and in the upkeep of soldiers and sailors, we have therefore resolved to demand from the Indianen around here (whom we have until now protected from their enemies) some contributie [contribution], like pelts, maize, and sewan, and if there is any nation which is unwilling to agree in friendship to contribute, [we] will seek to bring them to this by the most justified means.82

The use of the word ‘contribution’, and not ‘taxation’, as it has sometimes been translated, is significant. It was not uncommon in the Netherlands that in times of war involuntary levies, called contributions, were imposed on the population of adjoining territories, as a form of protection against the pillage and fire-raising carried out by the other warring party.83 The idea that formed the basis of

81

This is also pointed out by Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 136. NYSA, NYCM 4: 49 (15 September 1639; NYHM 4: 60). 83 Groenveld, ‘Den huijsman wordt er heel verermt’, 57–60; Kappelhof, De belastingheffing in de Meijerij van Den Bosch, 316–321; Gutmann, War and Rural Life, 41–46; Holthuis, Frontierstad bij het scheiden der markt, 60–61. 82

134

chapter three

the proposed imposition of such a levy on the Indians was that the wic incurred major expense in the construction of forts and the maintenance of a military presence. As Kieft and his council argued, the Indians in New Netherland enjoyed the benefits thereof through the protection provided against neighboring groups, and therefore it was reasonable that they should make some contribution toward this. Subsequently it became painfully clear that it was a completely incorrect assessment, both of the willingness of the Indians to pay and of the balance of power between the Indians and colonists. A deposition made later, when the dire consequences of the policy had become clear, indicates what some of the Dutch thought the views of the Indians on the matter were. The Indians had said to Kieft’s deputies that the governor with his [men] were but a handful of people and they wildens lived far apart from each other, so that before they could alert the governor of an attack and trouble inflicted on them by their enemies, they would already be wiped away and killed, adding to this that they had from ancestor to ancestor lived there and it was their fatherland, it being against all law, reason and fairness that they should give such a contribution to those to whom they were not at all allied by any laws or natural reasons.84

David Pietersz. de Vries reports another version of the Indian point of view: the sackima [i.e., Kieft] who was now at the fort [. . .] must be a very kale backer [mean fellow, down-and-outer] who came here to live on their land, and they had not called him here, and he now intended to force them to give their corn for free.85

The refusal of Indian groups to pay was one of the causes of the deteriorating relations, which eventually led to war. The first military action of Kieft and his council was directed against the Raritan Indians who, among other things, had attacked a sloop with a crew of three and were also blamed for killing pigs on Staten Island. The Raritans refused to make reparations, so fifty soldiers and twenty sailors under the command of Secretary Van Tienhoven were sent out in July 1640 to attack them, destroy their harvest, and take as

84 85

GAA, NA, inv. no. 1628 B, not paginated (28 July 1643). De Vries, Korte Historiael, 246 (NNN, 209).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

135

many prisoners as they could, unless they were prepared to agree to a settlement and pay damages. Van Tienhoven’s men were more set on plunder and murder than was their leader, who tried in vain to dissuade them from attacking the Indians. The expedition turned into a bloodbath.86 As the result of this and similar actions, tensions between the colonists and some of the Indian groups quickly escalated. Hostilities back and forth ensued, in which the retaliatory actions of the Indians were answered by the punitive expeditions, not always successful, of the colonists. An incident in August 1641 was of particular importance for the development of the administration in New Netherland. That month, Claes Cornelisz. Swits, an elderly farmer on Manhattan, was murdered by a young Indian of the Wecquaesgeek community. Kieft called all the heads of families together in the fort to discuss countermeasures, and at this meeting, twelve men were appointed to advise the director further. The Twaalf Man [Twelve Men] was the first of three advisory bodies to be created by the wic authorities in the colony. The Twelve Men expressed the opinion that reprisals against the Indians for the murder of Swits should not be undertaken until the right opportunity presented itself.87 If Kieft thought that the Twelve Men would limit themselves to giving advice on this matter, he was mistaken. In January 1642 the Twelve Men approached the director with a petition. In addition to a few other matters, they directed their attention to the administrative situation in the colony. First, they requested the director to staff the council of New Netherland as completely as possible, ‘the more so as in the fatherland the council in a small town consists of five to seven schepens’. This shows the colonists’ frame of reference: they wanted a government according to the administrative practices in the Dutch Republic. They also requested the director and council to discontinue the trial of criminal cases without a quorum of at least five council members present, their motivation being that ‘the

86 NYSA, NYCM 4: 72 (16 July 1640; NYHM 4: 87); De Vries, Korte Historiael, 245–246 (NNN, 208); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Rapport ende advijs over de gelegentheijt van Nieu nederlant’ (15 December 1644; DRCHNY 1: 150). 87 NYSA, NYCM 4: 98 (23 August 1641; NYHM 4: 117), 104–105 (1 November 1641; NYHM 4: 124); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 (29 August 1641; DRCHNY 1: 414).

136

chapter three

common man talks a lot about this’. Criminal judgments would be more readily accepted if consideration were given to such formalities. The Twelve Men further wanted the director and council to appoint four colonists who would be given access to council meetings, ‘so that the land may not be burdened without calling together the twelve’. In general, Kieft was not unwilling to acquiesce to the requests as they had been worded in this petition, although he rejected the last point: Concerning the Twelve Men, we are not aware that they have received further powers of the commonalty than only to give their advice on the murder committed on the late Claes Swit.88

This remark indicates that the members of the Twelve Men derived their position and influence from the fact that they acted as spokespersons for the community as a whole to advise the director on one specific issue, the murder on Swits and possible retaliation. They had not been awarded any privileges by a higher authority, such as the right to meet on their own initiative, or to give advice without having been asked for it. Both in the way it was set up and in the extent of its rights, the council of Twelve Men, as did the two later advisory bodies, the Acht Man [Eight Men] and the Negen Man [Nine Men], displayed similarities with administrative practice in villages and towns in the eastern part of the Netherlands. However, no evidence exists that they were derived directly therefrom. It is more likely that their somewhat primitive form emanated from the conceptions of both the Company and the colonists on how the relationship between the government and the population should be arranged at that crucial moment.89 In January 1642 the Twelve Men advised director and council that in their opinion the time had now come to undertake reprisals against the Indians for the murder of Swits.90 Several weeks later

88 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt ende de proceduren tegen Cornelis Melijn ende den aencleve van dien’, letter N (21 January 1642; DRCHNY 1: 201–203). 89 Heringa, Geschiedenis van Drenthe, 210–214, 398–399; Streng, ‘Stemme in staat’, 95–119; Koenigsberger, Monarchies, States Generals and Parliaments, 44, 245, 301. 90 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 (21 January 1642; DRCHNY 1: 415–416).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

137

Kieft thanked them for their services and discharged them. Thenceforth, they were not allowed to convene any further meetings: the same Twelve Men shall from now on meet no further, as this tends to a dangerous consequence and is to the great disadvantage both to the country and to our authority. Therefore we hereby forbid them to call in any way a gathering or meeting without our express order, under penalty of being punished as disobedient.91

The earlier unwelcome interference by the Twelve Men in administrative matters was undoubtedly a consideration of Kieft in deciding to disband them. However, after some time developments in the colony’s relations with the Indians forced him to reconsider his decision. Hostilities took place throughout the whole of 1642, culminating in the occurrences of February 1643, when Kieft allowed a number of colonists and soldiers to launch a surprise attack on a group of Indians in Pavonia, as the area where Michiel Pauw had founded his patroonship was still called. This shameless slaughter, which cost the lives of about eighty Indians, was sufficient reason for many Indian groups in the vicinity of Manhattan to set fire to houses, kill cattle, and murder colonists continually throughout the summer of 1643. It was September before Kieft decided to ask the advice of the population once more. At a meeting of forty-six burghers, eight of them were elected to consult with the director and council. One of the first actions undertaken by the Eight Men was to ask the director and council for permission to expel from their number Jan Jansz. Damen, who in February 1643 had been one of the instigators of the murder of the Indians, and to elect Jan Evertsz. Bout instead. Damen protested against his expulsion in vain. The Eight Men further advised that the war with the hostile Indian groups be resumed, but that the Indians on Long Island be left alone provided they refrained from hostile activities. Unlike the Twelve Men, the Eight Men were also given executive powers: on behalf of the free burghers they were permitted to recruit as many soldiers as possible. But meeting at their own initiative was not one of their prerogatives: every Saturday afternoon the Eight Men had to attend the meeting of

91 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt’, letter N (8 February 1642; DRCHNY 1: 203).

138

chapter three

director and council to give further advice. If at least five of them were present, ‘whatever shall be resolved or planned by them shall be held valid’.92 All good intentions, but there are few indications that they were adhered to. When on 17 October 1643 the decision was made to launch an attack on the Wechquaesgeek Indians, only three of the eight, Cornelis Melijn, Thomas Hall, and Isaack Allerton, were present. And like the Twelve Men, the Eight Men also exceeded their authority by writing letters and memorials to the higher powers in patria without the approval and probably even without the knowledge of Kieft and his council. Their letter of 24 October 1643 to the Heren XIX was harmless enough, containing only a description of the unfavorable situation and a request for help. About a week later they sent a similar letter to the States General. Herein, they again complained that we poor inhabitants of New Netherland have been persecuted here in the spring by these bose heijdenen, ende barbarische wilden [evil heathens and barbaric Indians] by fire and sword, daily men and women have been cruelly murdered in our houses and on the field, the small children in their parents’ arms and before their doors clubbed to death with axes and mallets.93

However, the dramatic tones in which the colony’s situation was described had little effect. The States General passed the letter on to the wic for advice. In its answer, the Amsterdam chamber made it clear that ‘the Company has come into such inability and discredit, that, without considerable subsidies from the land it is no longer able to supply any distant places’ and continued with the recommendation of their plan for a merger of the West India Company with the East India Company.94 Nevertheless, the wic did dispatch some reinforcements to New Netherland. By this time, it was already April 1644, and a half-year had passed since New Netherland had first cried for help. During these six months, the colonists had gained

92

NYSA, NYCM 4: 176 (15 September 1643; NYHM 4: 203). Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5757 II, D. 754–755 (3 November 1643; DRCHNY 1: 139–140). 94 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5757 II, D. 802–803 (23 April 1644; DRCHNY 1: 141–142); Jacobs, ‘Johannes de Laet en de Nieuwe Wereld’, 112; Den Heijer, ‘Plannen voor samenvoeging van VOC en WIC’. 93

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

139

some victories over the Indians, but they had been accompanied by monstrous cruelty. In spite of the brutality, a cessation of hostilities with a few Indian groups had been achieved. Even so, some of the colonists were greatly dissatisfied by Kieft’s administration, whose action they believed had plunged the colony into unnecessary wars.95 The Eight Men again decided to turn to the wic. At the end of 1644 they sent a letter to the Amsterdam directors in which they thanked them for their help, but then directed their attention to Kieft’s disastrous administration. They alleged that everything that had been built up over many years in New Netherland was ‘all together through a thoughtless bellicosity laid in ashes’.96 In addition, they were highly dissatisfied with the way in which Kieft dealt with them. From 4 November 1643 to 18 June 1644 he had not once called them together. Nor had he behaved towards them as he should: for as soon as they but opened the mouth to propose something that would serve (in their opinion) the commonwealth, the director treated them with many scoffing and biting words, and they were sometimes called together, without being asked a single word without sarcasm and scorn, returning as wise as they had come.97

The Eight Men ended their letter with an impassioned plea to the wic directors for a new form of administration: for this is impossible, that as long as no other order is devised here and the land is not occupied with new regents and more inhabitants, who would then settle in the most suitable places in the form of villages or hamlets, and from whom any bailjou [baljuw] or schout and scheepen is chosen, who may send their delegates and issue their vote along the director and councilors on matters of state, so that in future the whole state of the country cannot be placed in peril again through a single man’s discretion.98

95 NYSA, NYCM 4: 179 (17 October 1643; NYHM 4: 207); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt’, letter B (24 October 1643; DRCHNY 1: 190–191), Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4845, fol. 115 (5 April 1644; DRCHNY 1: 140–141). 96 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt’, letter Q (28 October 1644; DRCHNY 1: 210). 97 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt’, letter Q (28 October 1644; DRCHNY 1: 212). 98 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt’, letter Q (28 October 1644; DRCHNY 1: 213).

140

chapter three

The Eight Men made their intention clear with this letter, and it was not lost on Kieft, who regarded its anti-authoritarian tone as evidence of their rebelliousness against his legal authority. More important, their plea was directed to the wrong body. The Amsterdam chamber was little inclined to reform the administration of New Netherland or to recall Kieft. In contrast, the States General in The Hague were far more sympathetic, and wanted in particular action taken ‘about the excess of the cruel shedding of blood committed against the wilden’ so that, ‘the punishment of blood that may be unlawfully shed may be averted from these lands’. At the same time that this letter was written by the Eight Men, the representatives of the States General, including Hendrick van der Capellen, in a meeting of the Heren XIX, forced the wic to take measures. The Company’s Chamber of Accounts was to examine all documents relating to New Netherland and to compile a report with recommendations for improvement. Furthermore, Kieft was to be recalled to account for his actions, and Lubbert van Dincklagen, who had earlier been in New Netherland in the position of fiscael, was to be sent there as temporary replacement. The directors of the Amsterdam chamber protested, but their opposition fell on deaf ears.99 In December 1644, the Chamber of Accounts produced its report, in which it first confirmed the necessity to recall Kieft, ‘because the wilde are not in any way to be pacified [. . .] before the director is removed from there, calling daily for Wouter, Wouter, meaning Wouter van Twiller’. Second, the report recommended that the council consist of three men: the director, the vice-director, and the fiscael. These three officers should deal with all matters concerning administration and justice, but in criminal cases the fiscael, who at that time still performed the duties of local public prosecutor, would be replaced by the highest military official in the colony, and two representatives of the burghers would also take a seat in the council. Third, the report recommended that a meeting of representatives of the patroonships should be held every six months to advise the director and council about all matters on hand. This idea was based on article twenty-eight of the 1629 Freedoms and Exemptions, which referred to two representatives per patroonship, who would annually send a

99 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5757 II, D.936 (15 December 1644; DRCHNY 1: 148–149); Kunst, Recht, commercie en kolonialisme, 77–78.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

141

report to the director and council, but it contained no mention of a six-monthly meeting. This recommendation from the Chamber of Accounts laid the basis for the landdag [provincial convention or diet], not only with representatives of the patroonships (in practice only Rensselaerswijck), but also of all villages that in the years to come were to gain their own courts.100 The States General discussed the report at the end of December 1644, but it was to be some time before action was taken, probably because the wic objected to Van Dincklagen, whom they knew as a recalcitrant man. It was not until May 1645 that Petrus Stuyvesant was appointed director. But the wic was not completely rid of Van Dincklagen: he was appointed vice-director. The instructions laid down for Stuyvesant and his council in July 1645 were compiled by the Heren XIX in accordance with the recommendations of the Chamber of Accounts, although on some points they were more specific. For example, the two additional members of the council brought in for criminal cases were to be residents of the place where the crime had been committed. The innovative introduction of the landdag was, however, no longer mentioned in the instructions.101 The execution of the instructions was this time delayed by internal conflicts within the wic. The other chambers, in particular that of Zeeland, were not inclined to finance the reforms in New Netherland of which the appointment of Stuyvesant was a part. It took the Heren XIX some time to convince the other chambers that, if they did not provide a contribution, they would no longer have any say over New Netherland.102 The result was that New Netherland came to be even more under the administration of the Amsterdam chamber than had previously been the case. Another delaying factor was that the States General procrastinated in issuing the letters of commission. Finally,

100 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Rapport ende advijs over de gelegentheijt van Nieu nederlant’ (15 December 1644; DRCHNY 1: 153–154); Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 28 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 151–153). 101 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5757 II, D.927–936 (28 December 1644; DRCHNY 1: 148), inv. no. 5763 II (ingekomen 1652) (28 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 492), (10 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 492), (5 May 1645; DRCHNY 1: 492–494); Nat. Arch., SG, commissieboeken, inv. no. 12272, fols. 197–199v (7 July 1645; DRCHNY 1: 160–162). 102 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.17 (minutes of the meeting of the Heren XIX, 9 September –16 October 1645) (12 and 13 October 1645; DRCHNY 1: 164–165). See also NYSA, NYCM 11: 14, p. 5 (27 January 1649; Corres. 1647–1653, 65) about the financial consequences hereof.

142

chapter three

on 28 July 1646, Stuyvesant and Van Dincklagen were sworn in at the meeting of the States General, to depart for New Netherland in August in the wic ships Prinses and Groote Gerrit. Due to a stop at Curaçao, the new director general did not arrive in New Amsterdam until May 1647.103 A major task awaited Stuyvesant. He had to find a balance between establishing good relations with the colonists on the one hand and maintaining the authority of the West India Company on the other. During his first years in New Netherland, the conscientious Stuyvesant inclined towards the latter, as was to be expected of a newly-arrived director general, at the time only thirty-five years old. Stuyvesant became enmeshed in the conflict between Kieft and the population almost as soon as he arrived. Undoubtedly, Kieft anticipated that things would be difficult for him after his return to patria, and he wanted to be well prepared. So, in an attempt to gather evidence, he asked the new director general and council for permission to subject some of the Eight Men to a written interrogation. Two of them, Jochem Pietersz. Kuijter and Cornelis Melijn, reacted by petitioning for permission to question the members of the old council. This impertinence was too much for Stuyvesant to swallow. On his instigation, proceedings before director general and council were brought against Kuijter and Melijn. The charges contained various points, of which the most important was that, through various falsehoods in the letter of 28 October 1644 from the Eight Men to the Amsterdam chamber, they had libeled Director Kieft. According to the charges, the reason that not all of their members were subjected to similar accusations was that Melijn and Kuijter were the main instigators of the wrongdoing. Some of them were illiterate and were not acquainted with the details of the letter.104 The council responded to all the points mentioned in the charges. All members agreed with the sentence of banishment, but it is interesting to see that in his consideration of the case Stuyvesant was

103 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5758 II (ingekomen 1646), E. 416 (13 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 175), E. 418 (24 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 175–176), E. 420 (26 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 176); Nat. Arch., SG, Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4845, fol. 207 (13 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 175), fols. 207v, 208 (24 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 176), fol. 208 (26 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 177), fol. 208 (28 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 177), commissieboeken, inv. no. 12272, fols. 201–202 (28 July 1646; DRCHNY 1: 178). 104 NYSA, NYCM 4: 288 (27 May 1647; NYHM 4: 364), 291–295 (14 June 1647; NYHM 4: 370–377), 306–310 (16 July 1647; NYHM 4: 394–402).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

143

markedly more specific than the others. He found Melijn guilty of crimes under læsæ majestatis, supporting this by quoting from a number of different authorities, not only the Bible but also works on jurisprudence and of classical authors. Ultimately, Melijn was sentenced to seven years banishment and fined three hundred guilders: one-third for the poor, one-third for the fiscael, and one-third for the church.105 By this action, Stuyvesant had shown that he was a faithful Company man, and that he knew the law. After having demonstrated what he considered to be unacceptable behavior, he then tried to indicate to the population what they were allowed to do. Eight days after Melijn, Kuijter, Kieft and various other people that had played a role in the conflicts of the preceding years had left for patria on the Prinses, Stuyvesant and his council established the Nine Men. The instructions from director general and council had made no mention of the way in which the population was to be granted a voice. The establishment of the Nine Men was the idea of Stuyvesant and his council, and perhaps even of Stuyvesant personally. He may have looked upon it as a new beginning: a new director had arrived, the troublemakers were gone, scores had been settled, and the slate had been wiped clean.106 But practical considerations were of greater importance as he took up office. The fort required repairs, and a school, a church, piling on the riverbanks, a pier, and various other constructions had to be undertaken for the common good of the colony. The help and advice of the population were needed. Since it would have been impossible to achieve unanimity among such a large number of people, the burghers were asked to draw up a list of eighteen nominees, of whom the director general and council would appoint nine. As was the case for earlier advisory bodies, these gemeentsmannen or gemeijnsluijden [councilors of the community] were not entitled to meet at their own initiative, but had to wait until called together by the director general and council, ‘as is customary in our fatherland and elsewhere’.107 They were to offer their advice in matters only when

105 NYSA, NYCM 4: 310–315 (16 July 1647; NYHM 4: 402–411), 321–323 (25 July 1647; NYHM 4: 419–422). 106 Nat. Arch., SG, commissieboeken, inv. no. 12272, fols. 197–199v (7 July 1645; DRCHNY 1: 160–162); NYSA, NYCM 4: 328–329 (26 August 1647; NYHM 4: 428–430). 107 NYSA, NYCM 4: 329 (26 August 1647; NYHM 4: 430).

144

chapter three

requested. In this respect the rules governing the Nine Men differ little from that of their predecessors. What was new was the composition: three men from among the merchants, three from the burghers, and three from the farmers. Also new was that three of the Nine Men, one from each of the groups, were to join the council every Thursday to deal with cases of civil law. Finally, succession was regulated. Every year, six members would step down. The director general and council would select their successors from a list of twelve nominees. It was not necessary to assemble the whole community to create this list of nominees, which from 1648 was to take place annually on 31 December. The last stipulation introduced the principle of nomination of a double number, as was also customary in the Dutch Republic.108 Although no court records are available, it is clear that the Nine Men played a role in the administration of civil law. They also gave advice on some of the matters mentioned above. But again, as with their predecessors, they went further than had been the intention of director general and council. In February 1648 they met without the knowledge of director general and council to draft a petition, the text of which is unknown. Director general and council lent their approval to the contents of the petition, but they warned them that in future they should adhere to their instructions not to meet without permission, and not to make any decisions without the presence of a representative of director general and council. Above all, in any future petitions they should show more respect, ‘that is, that they must not [presume] to dictate to the director and council what they ought to [do]’.109 Most likely this petition related to the plan of 1648 to send a deputation to the States General, with the objective of gaining assistance against the continual intrusions from surrounding English colonies. According to Adriaen van der Donck, who may already have been one of the members of the Nine Men, Stuyvesant was initially not against this idea and supported it. But when it became

108 NYSA, NYCM 5: 19 (12 February 1652; NYHM 5: 13), 4: 334–335 (25 September 1647; NYHM 4: 438–441); NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 2: 7a (21 December 1647; Guide, no. 462). 109 NYSA, NYCM 4: 361–362 (18 February 1648; NYHM 4: 482), 350–351 (14 November 1647; NYHM 4: 466–467).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

145

clear to them that the director general wanted to have a major say about the content of the petition, their enthusiasm waned. Collaboration with Stuyvesant would make any form of criticism of the wic impossible. Nonetheless, after some delay the Nine Men decided to send a delegation to the States General, and requested Stuyvesant’s permission to call the whole community together. It is likely that they intended this to be a meeting of the population of New Amsterdam and not to involve the English towns. The director general tried to influence the orders to the delegation and made a number of proposals that, in the eyes of the Nine Men ‘did not at all agree with our intention and were in our opinion impractical’.110 It is probable that Stuyvesant preferred a meeting in the form of a landdag, at which the English would also be present. As director general of the province he could not agree to a general landdag from which part of the population was excluded. The result of this difference of opinion was that Stuyvesant refused permission for a meeting of the population of New Amsterdam. This was no problem for the Nine Men: so we went and spoke to the commonalty house to house. From this time on, the General burned with fury [. . .], although we did not know but that we had followed his order herein.111

This hypocritical attitude was as little helpful to relations as was Stuyvesant’s fury. The situation came to a head in March 1649, when it was discovered that Van der Donck had secretly drawn up a remonstrance for the States General. Stuyvesant was furious and immediately had Van der Donck locked up.112 These were trying times for the director general who was also involved in other conflicts. In the council he was in continual struggle with Vice-Director Van Dincklagen, who was beginning to show the same kind of formalistic intransigence that had put him on a collision course with Van Twiller and Bogardus a decade earlier. Furthermore, Cornelis Melijn had returned from the Dutch Republic earlier that year. He had complained to the States General, and had gained the right to appeal against the sentence of banishment issued from New Netherland. During the period of the appeal he was

110

Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 45 (NNN, 349). Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 46 (NNN, 350). 112 NYSA, NYCM 4: 426 (4 March 1649; NYHM 4: 580–581), 425 (21 February 1649; NYHM 4: 580). 111

146

chapter three

permitted to return to New Netherland, and he was granted safe conduct by the States General. Back in the colony he continued doggedly to make life difficult for Stuyvesant. On 8 March 1649, when the landdag was held in the church in the fort, Melijn even went so far as to deliver to Stuyvesant in full view of the assembled public a letter from the States General in which the director general was ordered either to return personally to patria to defend the sentence passed on Kuijter and Melijn or to send a representative.113 It was in this climate that Van der Donck was jailed. The charges against him included libeling some of the Company officials in New Netherland in his letter to the States General. Because the director general and council’s minutes have not survived, the further course of the case against Van der Donck is not known with any certainty. He was eventually freed, whereupon he, together with Jacob Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven, and Jan Evertsz. Bout, traveled to the Dutch Republic in the summer of 1649 as a delegation from the Nine Men to ask the States General to intervene. The request, submitted on 13 October 1649, consisted of three parts. First, it contained a call for help of the States General in the furtherance of the growth of the population in the colony. Second, the Nine Men asked for ‘a competent civil government, such as your High Mightinesses will deem advisable to apply to this province, having something in common with the laudable government of our fatherland’. Third, the request contained the wish for a solution to the border problems with the English.114 One of the supporting documents tendered to the States General was the Vertoogh van Nieu-Nederlandt [Representation of New Netherland], written by Van der Donck and published in 1650. This document

113 Nat. Arch., SG, Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4845, fol. 401v (28 April 1648; DRCHNY 1: 249), fol. 402 (30 April 1648; DRCHNY 1: 252), fol. 403 (6 May 1648; DRCHNY 1: 252), fol. 511 (2 December 1649; DRCHNY 1: 324); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 (28 April 1648; DRCHNY 1: 249), (6 May 1648; DRCHNY 1: 351), (19 May 1648; DRCHNY 1: 351–352), (8 March 1649; DRCHNY 1: 352–353); Nat. Arch., SG, akteboeken, inv. no. 12308, fols. 274r–276, fol. 274 (28 April 1648; DRCHNY 1: 250), fols. 277–277v (6 May 1648; DRCHNY 1: 253); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1301, fol. 25v (14 February 1652); NYSA, NYCM 3: 31 (30 March 1649; NYHM 3: 85–86), 4: 428 (8 March 1649; NYHM 4: 584); La Bree, Rechterlijke organisatie, 82. 114 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Naerdere aenwijsinghe ende observatien’ (26 July 1649; DRCHNY 1: 262–270), ‘Groot Machtighe Hooghe en Mooghende Souveraijnen’ (26 July 1649; DRCHNY 1: 258).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

147

laid the blame for the poor situation in the colony squarely at the feet of the West India Company. In Van der Donck’s opinion, the wic had pursued the wrong policy from the outset, by concentrating more on its own profits than on the well-being of New Netherland and by causing manifold wrongs. The Vertoogh made much of the faults of both the directors in Amsterdam and of Kieft. Nor did Stuyvesant escape Van der Donck’s vitriolic pen: Stuyvesant ‘has been incomparably more diligent and bitter in finding personal lawsuits against his innocent enemies than his predecessor has ever been’.115 And the way in which Stuyvesant dealt with legal cases warranted no mercy in Van der Donck’s eyes: he therefore often also puts his advice in writing, and that so broadly and ample that it covers several pages, and then he says besides: Monsieur, this is my advice, if anyone has something against, let him speak.116

Stuyvesant’s written recommendations were of such a length that virtually no one was able to comment immediately, but if that did occur, then His Honor at once bursts into rage, and makes such gestures that it is awful, yes, he often abuses the councilors for this and that with ugly words, which would fit better in the fish market than in the council.117

Van der Donck’s personal animosity to Stuyvesant was amply clear in his diatribe. In the other documents the attacks were less personal, with the West India Company the main target. The alleged tyrannical administration by the Company was denounced in language that in some instances was far from subtle. Clearly the objective of all these charges was to have the States General discharge the Company from its administration of New Netherland and take it upon themselves. It was such a drastic suggestion that at the very least the Nine Men created the impression of rebellion against the legal authority.118 The West India Company thus found itself under a serious attack.

115

Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 33 (NNN, 332), 25 (NNN, 320). Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 37 (NNN, 337). 117 Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 37 (NNN, 337–338). 118 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Naerdere aenwijsinghe ende observatien’ (26 July 1649; DRCHNY 1: 262–270, for example there 264). 116

148

chapter three

Its situation was not improved when in early 1650 the States General received the documents that Melijn, with the support of Van der Donck and others, had assembled in New Netherland for the appeal against his sentence. Stuyvesant had also approached the States General. In eloquent words he condemned Melijn’s behavior, ending with the remark that the circumstances and his duty compelled him to remain in New Netherland. He sent over the colony’s secretary, Cornelis van Tienhoven, to provide the High and Mighty Gentlemen with all the information they required.119 From October 1649 until April 1650 a committee for West Indian Affairs of the States General occupied themselves in The Hague with all these matters. The parties consisted of the delegation from the Nine Men, the directors of the Amsterdam chamber, and Cornelis Melijn and Cornelis van Tienhoven. At the same time several other people who believed they were the victims of injustice at the hand of Stuyvesant also turned to the States General. It was also in this period that the issue between Kiliaen van Rensselaer’s heirs and the other participants in Rensselaerswijck raised its head. The committee of the States General had not only the affairs of New Netherland in its portfolio, but was also concerned with the considerably more important matters in Brazil, and some time elapsed before the appeal to them produced any result.120 The report of the committee of the States General came out in April 1650 and was very critical of the West India Company. The directors of the Amsterdam chamber were blamed for the fact that ‘the good proposals and offers made to ensure the boundaries and the population of the lands are neglected or thwarted’. Despite this criticism, the committee did not go so far as to suggest that New Netherland be placed under the direct authority of the States General. The report of April 1650 contained some far-reaching recommendations regarding the administration of New Netherland, and it echoed certain recommendations that had been made in 1644 by West India Company’s Chamber of Accounts. The plans of 1650 were more drastic in giving the colonists a direct say in government. The council in New Netherland should consist, it read, of the director, 119 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 (8 February 1650; DRCHNY 1: 348–359), inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Recht Edele Hoogh ende Moogende heeren’ (10 August 1649; DRCHNY 1: 321–324). 120 Boxer, Nederlanders in Brazilië, 262–265.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

149

a vice-director, a council member jointly appointed by the States General and the wic, and two council members selected from the colonists. These two members of the council should be nominated in a double number at a meeting of the representatives of the patroons and the burghers in New Amsterdam, and each should hold his seat for a period of four years. Additionally, the position of advocaat-fiscael was to be established. This official was to have both a seat and a vote in the council, as long as the deliberations concerned matters that did not affect his function. A ‘civil government’ was to be established for New Amsterdam, consisting of a schout, two burgemeesters and five schepenen. A new, revised version of the Freedoms and Exemptions had to be drawn up. And to top it all, Stuyvesant should be recalled to account for himself. Until all these changes were carried out, for which a period of three years was mentioned, the Nine Men were to remain in office and have jurisdiction over civil cases.121 The directors of the Amsterdam chamber were greatly displeased by being blamed for the poor state of the colony, and they protested vehemently against these radical plans. In their eyes little need existed to change the administration of New Netherland. Nevertheless, they were prepared to include two colonists in the existing council, and these were to be appointed by the wic from a triple number nominated by the burghers. The Amsterdam directors viewed the recall of Stuyvesant as completely unnecessary. They were prepared to accept the recall of Vice-Director Van Dincklagen if the States General considered that Secretary Van Tienhoven, who was already present, was unable to provide them with sufficient information.122 The protests of the Amsterdam chamber could not prevent two members of the delegation from the Nine Men, Jacob Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven and Jan Evertsz. Bout, from returning to New Netherland with a copy of the new but still provisional, regulation. There they acquainted Stuyvesant with its contents, but to the displeasure of the Nine Men the director general was not prepared to implement the reforms until he had received notification from his superiors of their ratification by the States General. The result was

121 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Provisionele ordre over de regieringe, conservatie ende populatie van Nieu Nederlant’ (11 April 1650; DRCHNY 1: 387–391). 122 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A (11 April 1650; DRCHNY 1: 391–395).

150

chapter three

that during 1650 and 1651 the Nine Men dispatched a series of letters of complaint to the States General and to Adriaen van der Donck, who had remained in the Netherlands.123 It was to be some time before the States General made a definitive decision. One reason for this was that Alexander van der Capellen, the chairman of the committee for West Indian Affairs and a strong supporter of reforms in New Netherland, played a major role in the conflict between Stadholder Willem II and the States of Holland. The controversy led to an attempt by the stadholder to take Amsterdam by force, but his death from the plague later in 1650 defused the possibility of civil war. As a result of the fall of his master, Alexander van de Capellen lost most of his influence. In the meantime the Amsterdam chamber employed delaying tactics, in the hope that the radical plans for administrative reform would die a quiet death. The decision was also delayed by the States General’s resolve to make a thorough examination of who was responsible for the wars with the Indians. In the meantime, Van der Donck was urging, in vain, for swift action. Only in February 1652 did the States General send the provisional regulation for the administration of New Netherland to the various chambers of the Company with a request for advice. The Amsterdam chamber was aggrieved. Not only had they already expressed their opinion in May 1650, but also they were surprised at the reappearance of this plan ‘that so long ago had been considered dismissed’. They requested that the plan be deferred until the States General had been fully informed of the situation in the colony. The other chambers could provide no information about this, since the administration of the area was fully in the hands of the Amsterdam chamber.124 The claim by the Amsterdam chamber did not prevent some of the other chambers from expressing their opinion on the matter. Nor were the States General impressed by the response of the Amsterdam chamber, and in April 1652 they ordered Stuyvesant to

123 Nat. Arch., SG, incoming letters, inv. no. 11118, fols. 660–661v (13 September 1650; DRCHNY 1: 420–421), loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.36 (16 February 1652; DRCHNY 1: 444–457). 124 Nat. Arch., SG, Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4845, fol. 627r (14 January 1651; DRCHNY 1: 433), outgoing letters, inv. no. 11940, fol. 40–40v (16 February 1652; DRCHNY 1: 462), incoming letters, inv. no. 11120, sub dato 24 February 1652 (23 February 1652; DRCHNY 1: 462); Jacobs, ‘A Hitherto Unknown Letter of Adriaen van der Donck’.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

151

return. The Amsterdam chamber was informed of this in a brief note, which typified the relations between the States General and the wic at that moment. The Amsterdam chamber reacted by informing Stuyvesant that, as the decision had been made without consultation with either itself or the Heren XIX, the director general need not make too much haste in obeying the order. Less than three weeks later the order from the States General was rescinded under pressure from the States of Holland, which had been mobilized by the Amsterdam chamber. The First Anglo-Dutch War, which broke out a couple of months later, hindered a definitive decision about the regulations for the administration of New Netherland. The 1650 proposal was never ratified by the States General. Yet some change was made in the administration of the colony. On 4 April 1652 the Amsterdam directors wrote to director general and council: [We] have resolved hereby to approve your honors’ proposal that your honors establish there a bench of justice formed as much as possible after the laws of this city. For this purpose we are sending printed copies relating to all benches of justice and the entire government. For the present, we believe that it will be sufficient to elect one schout, two burgermeesteren, and five schepenen.125

Of all the plans recommended in 1650, only this element was carried out. And it was ultimately the Amsterdam chamber that made the decision to do so, at the suggestion of director general and council, although earlier pressure by the States General played a role, as did as well the threat of war. Unity within the Dutch ranks was necessary for the defense of New Netherland against an English attack, and this concession by the wic will have contributed to that. In any event, as a result of this decision the body of Nine Men, who already administered civil justice, was transformed into a municipal government according to the Amsterdam model. In the years to come, the judicial and administrative duties of the municipal government would be expanded step for step.126 With the establishment of New Amsterdam’s own court, the rancor 125

NYSA, NYCM 11: 53, p. 9; 54 (4 April 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 149). Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.36 (1, 2, 6 and 8 March 1652; DRCHNY 1: 463), Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4846, fols. 19–19v (27 April 1652; DRCHNY 1: 471), fol. 21 (16 May 1662; DRCHNY 1: 475), outgoing letters, inv. no. 11940, fol. 100v, 101 (27 April 1652; DRCHNY 1: 472); NYSA, NYCM 11: 59 (17 April 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 166); Jacobs, ‘“To Favor This New and Growing City of New Amsterdam with a Court of Justice”’. 126

chapter three

152

disappeared from the relations between the colonists and the wic. Conflicts occurred in the years that followed, but these no longer concerned the form of the administration of the colony, and the colonists did not find it necessary again to approach the States General with their protests about alleged injustices.

The Development of Local Government The desire of the people of New Amsterdam to be given responsibility for at least matters of civil law is understandable, for local administrative bodies were already in existence elsewhere in New Netherland. Prior to the installation of the court of burgemeesters and schepenen on Manhattan in 1653, the provincial government had already erected small benches of justice in six villages. More were to follow. Table 3.1 Small benches of justice in New Netherland Year of establishment 1642 1644 1645 1646 1652 1653 1654 1656 1660 1661

1664

Name Middelburgh (Newtown) Heemstede (Hempstead) Vlissingen (Flushing) ’s-Gravesande (Gravesend) Breuckelen (Brooklyn) Beverwijck (Albany) New Amsterdam (New York) Amersfoort (Flatlands) Midwout (Flatbush)127 Oostdorp (Westchester) Rustdorp ( Jamaica) Haerlem (Harlem) Boswijck (Bushwick) Wiltwijck (Kingston) Bergen New Utrecht Staten Eylandt (Staten Island)

127 From 1654 Midwout and Amersfoort had a combined court, which was divided in 1661. NYSA, NYCM 9: 573 (31 March 1661; LO, 390–391).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

153

Most of the courts that had been established in the 1640s were located on Long Island, where English colonists had settled. The English towns of Heemstede, Vlissingen, and ’s-Gravesande were given their own courts because the wic realized that only by means of colonization, by Englishmen under Dutch rule if no Dutch colonists could be found, could it maintain its claim to the territory. The first Dutch village to gain a court was Breuckelen in 1646, but it was to be as late as 1654 before other villages on Long Island followed suit. The growth of villages to a size that justified the establishment of a court was stimulated by a policy of population concentration. For reasons of safety, scattered farms were outlawed and the inhabitants were compelled to live closer together. In 1645 the Heren XIX had already advised so in the instructions for director general and council, and after the problems with the Indians in 1655 the policy was pursued vigorously. Nevertheless, many villages in New Netherland never attained the required size, such as Schenectady and Kinderhoek in the neighborhood of Beverwijck, Nieuwdorp (Hurley) near Wiltwijck, and Arnhem on Long Island.128 The basis for local government was a stipulation in the 1640 Freedoms and Exemptions: And if it should happen that the settlements of the private colonists grow so much that the same should be considered villages, hamlets, or towns, then the Company will regulate the subaltern government, magistrates and ministers of justice (who will be nominated in triple number from the most qualified from the same villages or hamlets and will be elected by the governor and councilors), who will deal with all conflicts and suits in their district.129

To grant the privilege of local government and justice was the explicit prerogative of the overlord, the West India Company. Although the correspondence between Kieft and the wic directors is not extant, it is unlikely that the director did not wait for instructions from Amsterdam before acceding to the request of a number of the English for permission to settle in New Netherland in 1641. He gave

128 Nat. Arch., SG, commissieboeken, inv. no. 12272, fol. 198 (7 July 1645; DRCHNY 1: 161); NYSA, NYCM 6: 226–228 (18 January 1656; CM 1655–1656, 185–186); Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’, 29–31; McKinley, ‘English and Dutch Towns’, 5. 129 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 II (ingekomen 1640), C. 1048v (19 July 1640; DRCHNY 1: 120); Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’, 31.

154

chapter three

permission, subject to a number of preconditions. The English had to swear allegiance to the States General and the West India Company; they were forbidden to build fortifications; and they were obliged to use the Dutch system of weights and measures. In exchange they were granted freedom of worship, free possession of land with an exemption from the payment of tenths for a period of ten years, and rights to fishing, hunting, and trading. Additionally, if they so desired, they were to be granted the privilege of nominating three or four men, one of whom would be chosen as magistrate by the director of New Netherland. This magistrate would be empowered to pronounce final judgments on all civil cases involving sums up to forty guilders. For higher amounts, appeal to the director and council would be possible. The local magistrate also would have the right to try criminal cases, except those in which corporal punishment could be applied. These preconditions were more specific than those in the Freedoms and Exemptions of 1640, and display certain remarkable features. A nomination in triple number was uncommon, but a nomination in quadruple number was exceptional. However, this regulation stipulates the appointment of a single magistrate. In New England a oneman magistrature was customary, because there for many cases the administration of justice took place via a jury. One-man magistrature was highly uncommon in the Dutch Republic and would occur only this once in New Netherland. In general, the privileges granted to the English on Long Island differed from those granted to Dutch villages and were much more adapted to English than to Dutch custom. Kieft, with or without consultation with the directors back in Amsterdam, made major concessions to the English in order to populate New Netherland.130 Later ordinances for the establishment of courts were generally more in line with the practice in the Dutch Republic, to which explicit reference was made regularly. The first ordinances were quite summary. The placard by which a court was established in Breuckelen in 1646 does not even contain any demarcation of authority, but merely states that, should the two chosen schepenen, Jan Evertsz. Bout

130 NYSA, NYCM 4: 93 (6 June 1641; NYHM 4: 110); Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’, 30. See also McKinley, ‘English and Dutch Towns’, 15.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

155

and Huych Aertsz., find the work too arduous, they could nominate a further two schepenen. The customs of the fatherland were considered sufficiently known in Breuckelen and they did not have to be spelled out.131 The founding of three courts, in Haerlem, Midwout, and Wiltwijck, will here serve as examples. Although the ordinances and thus the responsibilities differed in each court, the examples provide useful insight into the way in which new jurisdictions were created, what caused them to be created, what rights the local courts had, and what the relationship was with the central authority in New Netherland, director general and council. The ordinance for Haerlem was proclaimed in 1658, when colonists had already been living for years on the northern tip of Manhattan. Jochem Pietersz. Kuijter, for instance, had a farm there for a number of years. After the problems with the Indians in 1655, the colonists left the area in droves, and the ordinance was intended to encourage colonists to return and try again. Those settling would be granted parcels of farmland of eighteen to twenty-four morgens and six to eight morgens of swampland, and would be exempted from the payment of tenths for fifteen years. Director general and council would, when necessary, provide for protection from the Indians by quartering some ten soldiers in the village. A cart road to New Amsterdam would be built, and the prospects of a ferry over the Harlem River and a cattle and horse market were held before the inhabitants. A minimum of twenty to twenty-five families was needed for the establishment of a small court of justice. If this number were to be achieved, the inhabitants would be allowed to make a double nomination for magistrates to the director general and council, who would then make a selection from these names. In subsequent years, the nomination was to be made by the magistrates. The actual establishment of the court took place in 1660.132 In the case of Haerlem, the initiative was probably taken by the director general and council, possibly after permission had been received from the directors in Amsterdam. In Midwout the inhabitants

131

NYSA, NYCM 4: 258 (12 June 1646; NYHM 4: 321). NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 135–138 (4 March 1658; LWA, 98–100), 9: 371–372 (16 August 1660; LO, 386–387); Riker, Revised History of Harlem, chapters 6–10. 132

156

chapter three

took the initiative. In a petition to director general and council of 1653 they asked that the aforesaid village and inhabitants be granted the privilege of jurisdiction as far as the limits, fields, woods, hayland, and pastures extend, as likewise other neighboring villages have been privileged.133

If the inhabitants were granted this jurisdiction, they argued, action could be taken more swiftly against landowners who did not fence off their land properly. Problems with straying pigs and quarrels over the exact boundaries between parcels of land could then be dealt with. Director general and council reacted positively to the petition, and three inhabitants were appointed as magistrates. This formed the basis upon which, a year later, the village was granted a small court of justice.134 In contrast, the decision to establish a court in Wiltwijck was made in Amsterdam. In the early 1650s, a settlement was established in the area around the Esopus Creek and the Rondout Creek, small tributaries of the North River halfway between New Amsterdam and Fort Orange. In the first years the area fell under the jurisdiction of the court at Fort Orange, but with the growth in the number of inhabitants the prospect of having their own court became increasingly attractive. The man that set the whole process in motion was Roelof Swartwout, the son of Hendrickje Barents and Thomas Swartwout. The latter had come to New Netherland in 1652 as a merchant. It is possible that Roelof and his mother did not arrive in the colony until 1654. Roelof first appeared in the New Netherland sources when, in 1657 in Beverwijck, he married the widow of Anthony de Hooges, the secretary of Rensselaerswijck. His wife, Eva Alberts, was a daughter of Albert Andriesz. Bradt, a successful colonist from Norway. At the end of 1659 Roelof Swartwout returned to patria, where he hired a number of farmhands to farm his land near the Esopus. At this time, he also approached the directors of the Amsterdam chamber to request that they establish a court in the

133 New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, petition Midwout (18 March 1653; Guide, no. 634). Cf. Nooter, ‘Between Heaven and Earth’, 12. 134 There is no ordinance surviving for Midwout establishing the court but it is clear that the town already had its own magistrates as early as 1654. NYSA, NYCM 5: 240 (7 April 1654; NYHM 5: 128).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

157

area of the Esopus and appoint him as schout. The favorable tones of the reaction to this request suggest that Swartwout had the right connections in Amsterdam.135 In a letter of 16 April 1660 the directors informed director general and council of their intentions. They thought the request a little premature, but did not wish to discourage Swartwout, and instructed Stuyvesant to appoint him as schout as soon as Wiltwijck had a court. They also immediately sent over a letter of commission and instructions for Swartwout. Stuyvesant and his councilors were not pleased by these measures, and in a letter two months later they stated that they found Swartwout unsuitable ‘both on account of his minority and his incapacity for that position’.136 This was not completely correct. In formal terms, Swartwout was already an adult, not just because of his age at the time (he was twenty-six years old in 1660), but also because his marriage had endowed him with adult status. It is possible that they were not aware of Swartwout’s exact age and that this remark had merely meant that Swartwout was too inexperienced. Furthermore, it could be some time before a small court of justice could be established at Esopus, as few inhabitants were qualified to become magistrates or schepenen. Besides, the schout also had to act as the Company’s commies, and better candidates than Swartwout were available for this position. The directors’ reaction spoke volumes: in their reply of 20 September 1660 (correspondence was swift that year), they expressed their surprise at opposition of the director general and council to their choice, and added: ‘we also think we have the power and authority to have our orders and commands precisely adhered to’.137 In their eyes, Swartwout’s alleged minority was no problem. He would have sufficient time to mature, because, as the director general and council themselves had indicated, a court would not be established in the immediate future. In this instance the Amsterdam directors made the

135 Schoonmaker, History of Kingston, 6; GAA, NA, inv. no. 2279, V, p. 25 (15 May 1652), inv. no. 2281, III (prot. 18), fol. 72 (6 June 1654), inv. no. 2576, pp. 75–76, 129–130, 131–132 (28 February, 6 April 1660), DTB, inv. no. 6, p. 408 (1 June 1634); ACHR, ‘A Deeds 1 1656–1678’, pp. 131–132 (13 August 1657; FOR 1656–1678, 83–84); Brink, ‘The Ambition of Roeloff Swartwout’. 136 NYSA, NYCM 13: 116, p. 6 (25 June 1660; DRCHNY 13: 177). 137 NYSA, NYCM 13: 125, fols. 3v, 4 (20 September 1660; DRCHNY 13: 188).

158

chapter three

decision, but it was an exception. The example shows that, where necessary, in their correspondence the directors could remind Stuyvesant and the council in no uncertain terms where the power actually lay.138 The establishment of a court in Wiltwijck did not take place until May 1661. The set of instructions for this court is one of the most expansive issued in New Netherland. The court, which had both judicial and administrative tasks, would consist of three schepenen and the schout. This body could pronounce definitive verdicts upon all civil cases involving fines of up to fifty guilders. Appeal to director general and council was possible against the imposition of larger fines. If the three schepenen were in disagreement, majority judgment would be applied, but the minority still had the right to have its opinion recorded in the protocol. However, the magistrates were not permitted to make public knowledge of a minority opinion: outwardly the unity of the court should be maintained. The schout was to chair the court and collect the votes. But should he have to act independently, as the representative of justice, as in criminal cases, or on behalf of the wic directors, he then had to relinquish both his seat on the bench and his vote. In such a situation, the schepen who had been in service longest had to take over the chairmanship. Also, schepenen were not permitted to take part in any vote on the judgment if they themselves were involved in a case, or were directly related to someone who was. The court in Wiltwijck would sit once every fourteen days, except in harvest time, when it would not meet. In matters requiring swifter action, extraordinary sessions could be held, but in civil cases this was permitted only when both parties so desired, and then they had to bear the costs: fifteen stivers per schepen, three guilders for the chair, and any extra costs for the clerk and the court messenger, for example. The court messenger had the duty of convening the schout and schepenen at least twenty-four hours in advance. Failure to attend incurred a fine of twenty stivers, with the chair of the court subject to a fine of double that sum. Late attendance by schepenen attracted

138 NYSA, NYCM 13: 84, pp. 2–3 (16 April 1660; DRCHNY 13: 158), 89 (letter of commission) (15 April 1660; DRCHNY 13: 158), 90 (instruction) (15 April 1660; DRCHNY 13: 159–160).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

159

a fine of six stivers. Such fines were not applicable in the case of illness, or if a member was out of the town on business.139 The area of jurisdiction of the small court of justice in Wiltwijck covered all the inhabitants around the Esopus. A clear border with other jurisdictions, such as Beverwijck in the north, was not delineated, because only a few people lived in the area in between. The court was empowered to deal with minor criminal offences such as striking a person, fighting, verbal abuse, threats and the drawing of knives, provided this did not involve actual bloodshed. For more serious offences, such as wounding, adultery, theft, blasphemy, and insulting the authorities, the task of the court was to arrest and jail the offenders until the opportunity presented itself for them to be transferred to Manhattan. The local court assembled all the information, but director general and council tried the case itself. The only town that possessed complete criminal jurisdiction was Heemstede, although appeals against judgments made at that court could be registered with the director general and council. In the cases in which a town had limited criminal jurisdiction, local magistrates were generally asked to sit alongside the director general and council.140 The court at Wiltwijck also had administrative responsibilities. It could issue orders concerning the construction of public roads, the enclosure of land, the building of churches and schools, and other public works, together with the financing thereof. However, the authority of the schepenen was limited by the requirement that such orders be submitted for the approval of director general and council. The English towns on Long Island did not have to submit their ordinances for prior approval. Another difference between Dutch and English towns was that in the latter most of the administrative measures were undertaken in annual town meetings. The annual town meeting, like trial by jury, was not a feature of the Dutch towns, nor were either of these institutions known in the fatherland.141 The schepenen of Wiltwijck were instructed by the director general and council to ensure that the laws of the fatherland, together with the ordinances of director general and council, were both made

139 NYSA, NYCM 9: 607–613 (16 May 1661; DRCHNY 13: 196–198; LO, 395–401). 140 Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’, 34, 35. 141 Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’, 31, 33.

160

chapter three

known and obeyed. They were not permitted to proclaim ordinances that had not first been approved by higher authority.142 Finally, the instructions contained stipulations concerning the appointment of magistrates. In accordance with the customs of the Dutch Republic, the schepenen were required to submit annually a double nomination, from which director general and council would make appointments. One of the reasons why director general and council drew up such extensive instructions for Wiltwijck was their concern about the dearth of inhabitants with sufficient competence to carry out adequately the duties of schepenen. In such circumstances, the schout, who according to the practice in the Dutch Republic was the representative of the overlord, in this case the Company, was even more important. In a petition, Roelof Swartwout requested that he be appointed to the office of schout now that a court had been established in Wiltwijck. After their correspondence with the Amsterdam directors, director general and council could not refuse this request. They sent Swartwout the instructions for himself and the magistrates and his letter of commission, and he took the oath. His instructions laid down that he was not permitted to occupy any other position but that of schout, and that he would preside over the meetings of the court. Together with two schepenen, he was to see to the publication of the ordinances of the director general and council. It was the schout’s responsibility to maintain public order and to ensure that the town was purged ‘from all rabble and dicing’. Neither were ‘whorehouses, pimps, or such lewd houses’ permitted. Prisoners were required to appear before the court within a maximum of four days, to keep the costs down. The schout’s income would partly come from the fines for civil offences, of which he received half, and from those for criminal offences, of which he was to receive a one-third. He was explicitly forbidden to accept gifts.143 Further, Swartwout’s instructions also required of him that as schout he had to compile the list of people due to appear before the court

142 See, for example, NYSA, NYCM 8: 15–16 (26 May 1656) and 16 (3 June 1656) for the approval of the director general and council of ordinances of Midwout and Amersfoort. 143 NYSA, NYCM 9: 619–620 (16 May 1661; DRCHNY 13: 199), 621 (23 May 1661; DRCHNY 13: 199), 622 (27 June 1661), 14: 27 (14 June 1661; DRCHNY 13: 201), 13: 90 (15 April 1660; DRCHNY 13: 158–160).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

161

in the same way as the schout of Amsterdam had been instructed to do four years earlier. This shows what the origins of the instructions to Swartwout are. On comparing the text with that of the 1646 instructions for the schout of Amsterdam, the similarities are great, not only in their purport, but even in their wording. Naturally there were also some differences between them, just as there are differences between the largest city in the Netherlands and a small colonial town with less than a hundred inhabitants.144 No instructions for earlier schouten have survived. In the 1620s, when Jan Lampo was fiscael, that position was still combined with that of schout, initially throughout the whole of New Netherland. When at a later stage local schouten were appointed, a demarcation of responsibilities became necessary. Again, no instructions are available that make clear the boundaries of the jurisdictions, but in practice the difference was that the fiscael, who was in the employ of the Company, performed the duties of prosecutor in cases that came before the director general and council, which were the more serious criminal cases. The local schouten also acted as prosecutor, but then for the lower courts, where the less serious cases were heard. The local schouten were subordinate to the fiscael, as was stated explicitly in 1646 on the appointment of the schout of Breuckelen. Jan Teunisz., the new functionary, was instructed: to do everything that a sincere schout is bound to do, whereupon he has taken the oath before us and the lord fiscael (to whom he shall be especially responsible, as in Holland the substitutes are responsible to the opperschout and the schouten to the balhiau [baljuw] or marschalck [marshal]).145

The subordinate nature of the position of local schout, which displays some similarity to the relation between the functions of the schouten and baljuws in the Dutch Republic, was also to be seen in the rights of appointment. The schout was appointed by the wic, in most cases by director general and council. Most of the Dutch towns did not nominate candidates for the office of schout. This differed from the English towns, which were allowed a greater degree of autonomy. Heemstede was even permitted to appoint its own schout. In other

144 145

Bontemantel, De regeeringe van Amsterdam 1: 78–83. NYSA, NYCM 4: 276 (1 December 1646; NYHM 4: 348–349).

162

chapter three

English towns the appointment of the schout did not always pass without problems. In 1648 Vlissingen nominated a single man instead of three for the office of schout, which was then held by the Englishman William Harck. Investigation revealed that the single nomination was connected with a conflict among the inhabitants of the English town, some of whom were dissatisfied with the contributions to the salary of their minister. After those involved had appeared before the director general, a nomination was made that was in accordance with the regulations, and from which John Underhill was selected for the office of schout.146 Although the schout was, in formal terms, the representative of the overlord, in New Netherland the office was often filled by one of the inhabitants, as in the case of Swartwout, or as in the English towns. This was not a prerequisite, and indeed could not be so when one schout had more villages under his jurisdiction, as in the case of the schout of Breuckelen, Midwout, and Amersfoort. Things were different for magistrates, who had to live in the town in which they held office. When Jan Labatie went to live in Rensselaerswijck, he had to resign as magistrate in Beverwijck.147 As is obvious in the ordinance for Haerlem, in many instances the first nomination for magistrates was put forward by the population, although this initial step was sometimes ignored; the first magistrates, for example, were appointed directly by director general and council. Subsequently, the sitting magistrates made a nomination. The right to appoint remained in the hands of the West India Company, and was exercised by the director general and council. The procedure was different for the English towns. There, the double nomination was made up by the town meeting before it was submitted to the director general and council. The English towns did not always find it easy to reconcile themselves with the Dutch customs. The inhabitants of ’s-Gravesande, where there had already been problems in 1651, had to be informed three years later that they did not have the right to appoint their own magistrates. Similar problems occurred in Heemstede in 1652, and two years later the director general and council requested nominations for a third

146 NYSA, NYCM 4: 356 (17 January 1648; NYHM 4: 474–475), 382 (27 April 1648; NYHM 4: 515–516); Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’, 34. 147 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 27 (28 October 1652; FOCM, 30).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

163

magistrate, since the bench had to consist of an uneven number. Because of the difficulty that some of the lower courts had in adhering to proper procedure, the need regularly arose for the director general to involve himself personally with local matters. Stuyvesant visited Wiltwijck and Beverwijck on various occasions, and also made several visits to the English towns on Long Island. In other instances the director general and council sent a committee to announce the appointment of local magistrates and to swear them in.148 An example of this is the journey undertaken by Brian Newton, Cornelis van Ruyven, and Carel van Bruggen at the end of 1656 to Oostdorp, a town recently founded by the English in what was later to be called Westchester. It was no coincidence that out of the three, two, Newton and Van Bruggen (also known as Charles Bridges), were English. At seven in the morning on Saturday 30 December 1656 they departed from New Amsterdam in a small boat, rowed by the captain of the Company’s yacht and a sailor. Because the captain had never previously passed through the Hellegat, Claes Bordingh was taken along as pilot. As the result of a miscalculation of the high and low tides, the expedition was compelled to land on Long Island, close to Vlissingen. There they found the remains of the house of William Hallett, which the Indians had burned down a year before. The men made a fire and fried oysters while they waited for a favorable tide to continue their journey. When they finally arrived in Oostdorp they met John Lard, one of those due to be appointed as a magistrate. They asked him to call the inhabitants together the following morning for the announcement of the appointments, but John Lard told them that the population would not be prepared to meet on a Sunday. So, the inhabitants were drummed up on the morning of Monday 1 January 1657 and the announcement was made which three of the six nominees were appointed. Although one of the inhabitants objected to one of the appointments, the new magistrates were sworn in. The assembled folk then made known a number of complaints to Newton, Van Ruyven, and Van Bruggen, who promised to lay all the points before

148 NYSA, NYCM 5: 234 (31 March 1654; NYHM 5: 125), 427 (10 November 1654; NYHM 5: 203), 11: 58 (8 April 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 165); DRCHNY 14: 128–130 (9 January 1651); McKinley, ‘English and Dutch Towns’, 7–8; Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’, 34; Wright, ‘Local Government and Central Authority’.

164

chapter three

director general and council. They then took their leave, departing after breakfast for New Amsterdam, where they arrived at three in the afternoon.149 Because of the presence of council members at the installation of magistrates, both the population and the magistrates were constantly reminded that it was the director general and council that had the last word over the affairs of New Netherland, though, of course, not over its sovereignty, which was held by the States General. The oath of the magistrates contained an oath of allegiance to the States General, to the directors of the wic and to the director general and council in New Amsterdam. Thus, the director general and council could, where they considered it necessary, suspend local courts and dismiss schouten. This occurred for instance in 1658 in Vlissingen when problems with Quakers arose. Roelof Swartwout was also to discover that Stuyvesant was not a man to hesitate in acting when the schout and some of the magistrates of Wiltwijck exceeded their authority by taking upon themselves the control of monies intended for the church and the poor. When it was indicated to them that this was the prerogative of the consistory, they wrote a letter to the director general and council expressing their astonishment at the manner in which their authority had been called into question. If the director general and council were to continue in this way, they wrote, they could better relinquish all the rights and duties of the court to the consistory. More than anything else, it was the wording of this letter that raised the ire of the provincial government. Both Swartwout and the magistrates were suspended.150 The intervention of the director general and council was not always prompted by the failings of the courts. In other instances the local courts invoked the help of the higher authorities in solving problems such as conflicts with the Indians or disputes with other towns about boundaries. Issues of the latter kind were most prevalent on Long Island, where the growth of the towns caused friction. In addition,

149 NYSA, NYCM 12: 46 (30 December 1656–1 January 1657; Corres. 1654–1658, 113–117). 150 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 233 (2 August 1655; FOCM, 206) NYSA, NYCM 9: 598 (2 May 1661; DRCHNY 13: 196), 4: 349 (11 November 1647; NYHM 4: 463), 8: 660 (22 January 1658), 15: 79 (21 November 1663; DRCHNY 13: 306), 80 (21 November 1663; DRCHNY 13: 307), 82–83 (12 December 1663; DRCHNY 13: 318), 84a (19 December 1663; DRCHNY 13: 319).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

165

the director general and council sometimes had to intervene in situations the local magistrates could not resolve, such as in a dispute between two schepenen of Breuckelen. Pieter Cornelisz. had lodged a complaint against Joris Dircksz. for slander, but the bench could not deal with this because the schepenen could not administer justice over their own case. When asked, the director general and council gave the court permission to add two schepenen from Midwout and two from Amersfoort to hear the case.151 An institutional form of contact between the local courts and central authority was to be found in the landdag. Although there had already been meetings of all the heads of families of New Amsterdam, the meeting on 8 March 1649 can be described as the first landdag in the sense of a meeting of representatives of the various towns and other places in the colony, including the English towns. The meetings were merely intended to advise the director general and council, and in that sense they were a continuation of the earlier Twelve, Eight, and Nine Men. The difference lies in the fact that these bodies represented only Manhattan and the surrounding area. Another difference is that, at a certain moment, the Nine Men administered a portion of the civil justice. In contrast, the landdagen were never given any administrative or judiciary powers, although they could exercise a certain amount of influence through their advice. In the longer term, the landdag could have grown into something comparable to a provincial meeting of estates in the Netherlands. But matters never reached that stage.152 Another landdag took place towards the end of 1653. Not all the towns were invited, probably because the director general and council, who convened these meetings, wanted principally to discuss the joint defense against the piracy of Thomas Baxter. In the majority at this meeting were the English towns Vlissingen, ’s-Gravesande, and Middelburgh. Stuyvesant intended to grant the right of a small bench to Amersfoort, Breuckelen, and Midwout prior to the next landdag, so that the Dutch representatives of New Amsterdam and Beverwijck could no longer be outvoted by the English. But the damage had already been done. During one of the sessions of the 1653

151

NYSA, NYCM 6: 12 (9 February 1655; CM 1655–1656, 14). NYSA, NYCM 4: 98 (23 August 1641; NYHM 4: 117), 425 (25 February 1649; NYHM 4: 580), 427 (4 March 1649; NYHM 4: 583). 152

166

chapter three

landdag, of which the appointed representatives of the director general and council had no inkling, a remonstrance was drawn up that severely criticized the Company. Although there were also Dutch signatories to the document, the original was written in English, and Stuyvesant was given a translation. His suspicions that this was principally the work of the English towns were probably justified. Partly because of the war between the Dutch Republic and England, any independent action by the landdag was an undesirable development.153 Director general and council therefore took robust measures. The meeting of the landdag was declared invalid, and in an extensive document the director general and council detailed their objections to the remonstrance. The protest of the landdag against this, to which the representatives added their resolve to approach the States General with their grievances, was answered with the order to go home and no longer approach the director general and council under the name of lants vergaderinge [provincial convention].154 One of the reasons for Stuyvesant and the council for declaring the landdag invalid was that it had met without having been convened by higher authority. Within the political system of the early modern period, such an act was viewed by the higher authority as tantamount to rebellion. To an extent this explains the reaction of the authorities in New Netherland and in the Netherlands. Furthermore, it explains why, shortly afterwards in letters to the directors, ’sGravesande swore vehemently that, despite the First Anglo-Dutch War, their loyalty need not be doubted. Illustrative of the relations is that, in a letter to the burgemeesters and schepenen of New Amsterdam, who had also signed the remonstrance, the directors wrote that they had to ‘conduct themselves quietly and calmly, subjugating themselves to the government under which you have been placed’ and should not interfere in ‘matters of state which do not belong to your honors’, let alone ‘make a change in the state and the government thereof ’.155

153 NYSA, NYCM 5: 152–153 (27 November 1653; NYHM 5: 84–86), 168 (12 December 1653; NYHM 5: 95); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 ‘Ootmoedige remonstrantie ende versoeck vande Colonien en durpen in dese Nieu Neederlantsche provintie’ (11 December 1653; DRCHNY 1: 550); Kross, The Evolution of an American Town. 154 NYSA, NYCM 5: 168–178 (12 December 1653; NYHM 5: 95–100), 179–180 (13 December 1653; NYHM 5: 100–101), 180–181 (14 December 1653; NYHM 5: 101). 155 NYSA, NYCM 12: 5 (18 May 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 16–17), 5: 180–181

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

167

After this experience it is hardly surprising that the provincial government waited until July 1663 before again calling a landdag. That time, as in subsequent meetings in November 1663 and April 1664, the single item on the agenda was how to arrange and finance the defense against an attack by the English.156 These meetings, this time preceded by a request from the landdag to director general and council for permission to hold them, produced little more than a joint call on the directors for support.157 Despite the threatening situation, the 1664 landdag also occupied itself with seemingly unimportant matters, such as the order of ranking in the meeting. Jeremias van Rensselaer, who took part for Rensselaerswijck, reported to his brother Jan Baptist: As to our appearance here at the Manhatans, at the gemene lantdagh [general convention] and what was transacted there, you will learn about that from the enclosed documents. In the first place we had a great dispute with the delegates from the city of Amsterdam in New Netherland, as to the right to preside, which we claimed as being the oldest colonizers, but under protest we sat without special order.158

The claim of New Amsterdam for first place in the voting order was based on the fact that it was the oldest and most important settlement

(14 December 1653; NYHM 5: 101); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.49 (littra F) (27 December 1653; DRCHNY 2: 158–159); Koenigsberger, Monarchies, States Generals and Parliaments, 44, 245, 301. 156 1. July 1663: NYSA, NYCM 10–2: 177, 179 (2 July 1663), 189–190 (6 July 1663). 2. November 1663: NYMA, ODR 4, p. 262 (22 October 1663; RNA 4: 318–320), p. 269 (29 October 1663; RNA 4: 325); NYSA, NYCM 10–2: 351–352 (26 October 1663), 353 (27 October 1663), 355 (29 October 1663), 357–358 (1 November 1663), 359 (1 November 1663), 361–363 (2 November 1663), 365–367 (3 November 1663); NSMA, VRBMs, 50 (26 October 1663; VRBM, 784–785), 51 (3 November 1663; VRBM, 785–786), 52 (3 November 1663; VRBM, 787), 53 (10 November 1663; VRBM, 788), 54 (10 November 1663; VRBM, 789). 3. April 1664: NYSA, NYCM 10–3: 71 (21 February 1664; DRCHNY 14: 542–543), 72 (21 February 1664; DRCHNY 14: 543), 107–108 (18 March 1664), 145–146 (1 April 1664), 147 (10 April 1664), 147 (11 April 1664), 153–154 (12 April 1664), 155 (12 April 1664), 157–161 (12 April 1664), 163–166 (15 April 1664), 181 (21 April 1664), 183–185 (22 April 1664). 157 NSYA, NYCM 10–2: 369–375 (2 November 1663; DRCHNY 2: 477–479), 10–3: 163–166 (15 April 1664). 158 NSYL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 24 (pp. 67 and 68) (25 April 1664; CJVR 353). Cf. O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 2: 506.

168

chapter three

of New Netherland. The counter-claim from Rensselaerswijck was that its court was considerably older than that of New Amsterdam, which was created only in 1653.159

New Amsterdam The Amsterdam directors’ permission to Stuyvesant and his council to set up a small court of justice in New Amsterdam was, as mentioned before, granted on 4 April 1652. The court was established on 2 February 1653. The date was no coincidence. In Amsterdam it had long been the tradition that the election of burgemeesters took place on the eve of Lady’s Day, the feast of the purification of the Virgin Mary. New Amsterdam had already adopted this custom in 1652, when it was applied to the installation of the Nine Men. In the early period the burgemeesters and schepenen of New Amsterdam had powers that varied little from those of magistrates of other small courts of justice. Yet, a difference is that none of the members of other lower courts were appointed as burgemeester. Where elsewhere the administration, the domain of the burgemeesters, and justice, the domain of the schepenen, were undifferentiated in the hands of one body, a distinction was made for New Amsterdam, at least in name. It was to be a number of years before a practical allocation of functions was made.160 It is no surprise that the instructions to burgemeesters and schepenen contained an explicit reference to the mother city: the small court of justice was ‘to be constituted as far as possible and as the situation of the land allows according to the laudable customs of the city of Amsterdam’. The burgemeesters were allocated the administrative tasks, and also had the duty, together with the schepenen, to administer justice. In the instructions it was acknowledged that this was not the case in Amsterdam, but the limited experience of the schepenen made it necessary at the time. The court was restricted to civil cases involving less than one hundred guilders, double the amount

159

NYMA, ODR 4, p. 262 (22 October 1663; RNA 4: 319). Dapper, Historische beschryving, 472–473; Bontemantel, De regeeringe van Amsterdam, 91; Fruin, ‘Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het burgemeesterschap van Amsterdam’, 310. 160

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

169

applicable to the court at Wiltwijck, and to minor criminal cases. They were also allowed to resort to arbitration, and to this end to appoint ‘good men’, provided the parties agreed to this measure. Appeal against the judgment of such arbitration was not possible. The jurisdiction of the burgemeesters and schepenen extended over all burghers and inhabitants of New Amsterdam, from the tip of Manhattan to the Fresh Water, all those on ships in the roadstead and over the inhabitants of towns on Long Island and on the west side of the North River, insofar as no court had been established there. The sentences imposed by the burgemeesters and schepenen were to be based on the laws of the fatherland, and so far as possible in accordance with the ordinances of Amsterdam and of director general and council.161 Extension of the judicial authority did not come until 1656. In a petition, burgemeesters and schepenen requested permission to deal with all criminal cases, with the exception of capital offences. Director general and council acquiesced and issued an ordinance giving burgemeesters and schepenen the authority to award sentences of corporal punishment, such as branding and flogging. Occasionally confusion about the extent of their powers arose, but whenever the burgemeesters and schepenen experienced doubts they asked the permission of director general and council to deal with a particular case. Permission was generally granted. In cases in which the jurisdiction of burgemeesters and schepenen was not in doubt, they sometimes asked director general and council information on the correct procedure and degree of punishment.162 The situation was rather more complex with regard to administrative responsibilities. In the course of 1653 the burgemeesters and schepenen had already come to the conclusion that the powers, described in their instructions, were too restricted. In December 1653 they

161

NYPL, Bontemantel Collection: New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official Promulgation of New Amsterdam as a Municipality’ (2 February 1653; Phelps Stokes, Iconography 4: 133–136); White, ‘Municipal Government comes to Manhattan’; Jacobs, ‘“To Favor This New and Growing City of New Amsterdam with a Court of Justice”’. 162 NYSA, NYCM 8: 299 (20 December 1656), 8: 300 (21 December 1656; LO, 268–269), 9: 29 (15 January 1660), 9: 33 (15 and 21 January 1660); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 101 (20 and 21 December 1656; RNA 2: 251–252), p. 455 (23 January 1660; RNA 3: 110–111), ODR 3, p. 200 (21 May 1661; RNA 3: 307).

170

chapter three

requested the directors in Amsterdam to extend their rights, and expressed their wish that their instructions could be ‘as far as workable according with the form of government of the laudable city of Amsterdam—name giver of this our new [city]’.163 With this request the city government of New Amsterdam took the first steps in a continuing struggle with the Company. The responsibility of the burgemeesters and schepenen in administrative matters was more flexible than that in the area of justice, and it was more affected by the peaks and troughs in their relations with director general and council. The issues that the burgemeesters and schepenen were to take care of fell into four general areas: economic affairs, public works, issues concerning education, and defense. The influence of the city government on economic affairs was exercised through various methods. The use of the Amsterdam system of weights and measures was called for in ordinances of the director general and council, but burgemeesters and schepenen could nominate the measurers, for instance, sworn grain measurers, brand markers of casks, and gaugers, in double number. They also supervised tappers and taverns, both through ordinances and through licensing, and bakers, for whom they drew up stipulations about the size, weight and price of bread. They supervised other trades less stringently. Another feature of government involvement in economic matters was the establishment of a public weighhouse in New Amsterdam. Director general and council and the city government were not always in agreement on its supervision or on the income it produced.164 The burgemeesters and schepenen were responsible for constructing and maintaining public works, such as roads and canals, and for their financing. In some instances, such when the sheet piling along the bank of the East River in 1654 had to be repaired, the burgemeesters and schepenen charged the owners of the adjacent houses to do so. The same happened when the ‘street of the canal’ (later named Brouwerstraet, currently Stone Street, between Whitehall and Broad Street) had to be resurfaced. In both cases, the burgemeesters and schepenen required the inhabitants to each do their part. In case of failure, the city government would carry out the task and charge the

163

NYMA, ODR 1, p. 181 (24 December 1653; RNA 1: 144). NYMA, ODR 2, pp. 124–125 (22 January 1657; RNA 2: 272); Lyon, ‘The New Amsterdam Weighhouse’. 164

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

171

costs to the negligent inhabitants. The burgemeesters and schepenen established rules concerning the throwing of rubbish into the canal, the nomination of fire wardens, the placement of fire buckets, and the establishment of a so-called rattle watch. The burgemeesters were in charge of the weeskamer [orphan chamber] and provided the director general and council with nominations for weesmeesters [orphan masters]. The role of the city government in educational matters was small. Schoolmasters had to be admitted by director general and council, although the burgemeesters and schepenen sometimes supported petitions in this respect. This was also the case with the establishment of a Latin School in New Amsterdam. Finally, as a matter of necessity, the burgemeesters and schepenen occupied themselves with the defense of New Netherland. While formally this fell under the duties of the West India Company, the Company was often not in a position to amass the necessary finances and was obliged to ask the city government for help. In return for such help, the burgemeesters and schepenen requested and obtained some of the wic’s rights, such as the income from the duty on wine. On the other hand, the city government realized the importance of adequate defensive measures and were prepared to cooperate with the director general and council. In 1653 two schepenen, Pieter Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven and Willem Beeckman, together with Johannes La Montagne as the representative of the director general and council, sat on the joint committee for the construction of the palisade, the wall that gave Wall Street its name. During the expedition against the Swedes in 1655, when both Stuyvesant and council member Nicasius de Sille were absent, the remaining councilors even invited Allard Anthony, at that time burgemeester, and Marten Kregier, former burgemeester, to the council to help deal with certain weighty matters. The relationship between the city government and the director general and council was never so bad as to rule out the cooperation on matter of urgency.165

165

NYMA, ODR 1, p. 290 (9 November 1654; RNA 1: 264), p. 325 (15 March 1655; RNA 1: 300), pp. 48–49 (3 December 1657; RNA 1: 33), p. 34 (26 February 1656; RNA 1: 21), p. 126 (2 August 1653; RNA 1: 92), p. 99 (15 March 1653; RNA 1: 69); NYMA, AMNA 1, pp. 72, 76–77 (1 August 1658; RNA 7: 191), pp. 76–77 (300 August 1658; RNA 7: 194); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 317 (19 September 1658; RNA 3: 15–16); NYSA, NYCM 6: 87–88 (31 August 1655; CM 1655–1656, 84); O’Connor, ‘The Rattle Watch of New Amsterdam’; Van Zwieten, ‘The Orphan Chamber of New Amsterdam’, 322; Van Zwieten, ‘“A Little Land . . . To Sow Some Seeds”’, chapter 6.

172

chapter three

For the exercise of all its tasks, the city government had at its command a growing body of officials, some of whom were mentioned above. Besides these, the city government employed other lower functionaries with executive duties, such as a court messenger, a jailer, a dog catcher, a town crier, a harbor master, and weighhouse hands. There were also several higher functionaries, such as a secretary, a receiver, and a treasurer. Apart from a difference of opinion about the office of schout, which is dealt with in more detail below, the conflicts with the Company pertained mostly to the means of financing all the tasks of the city government. Gradually, albeit not without fits and starts, the magistrates gained from the director general and council the control of various taxes, such as the duties on beer and wine and the charges levied by the weighhouse. It also acquired the right to draw up deeds of conveyance and mortgage.166 The gradual expansion of their administrative tasks, coupled with the collection of the finances thereto, had repercussions on the organization and the working methods of the city government. The burgemeesters and schepenen met at nine o’clock each Monday morning (in 1658 this was changed to Tuesdays), and, when necessary, extraordinary sessions could also be arranged. Director general and council designated the town inn, which was owned by the West India Company, for these meetings. The sessions were opened with prayers, in which the Lord was thanked for the appointment of magistrates, their unworthiness for the task expressed, and God’s help in the exercise of their duties called upon. As in the local courts, regulations were drawn up in New Amsterdam with fines for the late attendance or absence of magistrates. Late arrival cost six stivers, or twelve if the tardiness exceeded one hour. Absence was punished with a fine of forty stivers. These fines were considerably higher than those at Wiltwijck. Several years later they were increased again, but on some occasions this was not sufficient to remedy the lack of a quorum. In view of the small size of the salaries that the magistrates were supposed to receive, 350 guilders per year for burgemeesters, 250 guilders for schepenen, it is not surprising that the system of fines did not have the desired effect. Moreover, the payment of these salaries

166

NYMA, ODR 1, p. 248 (21 July 1654; RNA 1: 219).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

173

was dependent on the state of the city’s finances, which was also related to the sources of income granted by director general and council, and from time to time these sources were deficient.167 The chairmanship of the meetings rotated on a three-monthly basis between the two burgemeesters.168 In about 1660, it was customary that on Thursday mornings at nine o’clock the burgemeesters held a separate meeting to deal with administrative matters. The weekly meetings of burgemeesters and schepenen were maintained, and in the early years all decisions about administrative matters were made at these meetings, while the separate meeting of the burgemeesters was concerned more with the preparation for and execution of these decisions. Before long, the burgemeesters considered two meetings in the week somewhat excessive, and they asked the director general to be released from their judicial functions. However, their request fell on deaf ears, probably because Stuyvesant considered that the judicial experience the burgemeesters had gained up to then was indispensable.169 A similar consideration may have played a role in the appointment of burgemeesters and schepenen. The first burgemeesters and schepenen were appointed by director general and council without any question of nominations. Initially the city government did not possess the right to draw up a double nomination, and this obviously rankled with its members. In the years that followed they tried to acquire this privilege by means of various petitions, in which one of the arguments was that the surrounding towns had this right while they did not. Ultimately, the director general and council conceded the privilege, but not without an interesting, albeit rather inconsistent, consideration. They stated that the small courts of justice had been

167 NYSA, NYCM 8: 943 (13 August 1658); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 317 (1 March 1655; RNA 1: 292), p. 76 (undated; RNA 1: 48–49), p. 331 (1 March 1655; RNA 1: 306), p. 534 (13 March 1656; RNA 2: 63), p. 195 (26 January 1654; RNA 1: 157), ODR 3, p. 294 (30 September 1661; RNA 3: 367), p. 442 (18 February 1662; RNA 4: 36), ODR 4, p. 106 (23 February 1663; RNA 4: 203), p. 333 (12 February 1664; RNA 5: 26). 168 When in 1660 both burgemeesters were absent for a period, they were deputized for, not by one of the schepenen but by former burgemeester Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt. However, this was an exceptional situation. 169 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 499 (7 February 1656; RNA 2: 30), ODR 2, p. 526 (27 April 1660; RNA 3: 155), AMNA 1, p. 1 (8 March 1657; RNA 7: 140), AMNA 1, p. 27 (26 June 1657; RNA 7: 161).

174

chapter three

granted the right to double nomination because the small towns were scattered far and wide, with the result that the director general and council were not able to be present at the nomination, and therefore not in a position to assess the candidates’ suitability. In the opinion of the director general and council this was not the case for New Amsterdam and therefore they had not wanted to grant the right of nomination. Nevertheless, they were now prepared to concede nomination to the burgemeesters and schepenen on the proviso that they nominate only acceptable and suitable men, and that a representative of the director general and council be present at the drawing up of the nomination.170 The procedure was as follows. A date at the end of January was fixed for the nominations to be drawn up. Before that day, each of the burgemeesters and schepenen would draw up nominations without discussing these with their counterparts. At the meeting all the nominations were laid side by side and the votes counted. In case of a tie, a second vote would be taken. The definitive nomination was then submitted in writing to director general and council, who made the appointment on Candlemas, 2 February. The director general and council were not always satisfied with those nominated. In 1656 the list of nominees contained the names of several men who, because of earlier conflicts, were not acceptable to them. Director general and council therefore determined to retain the incumbent burgemeesters and schepenen and to fill only the two vacancies for schepenen. They did so without informing burgemeesters and schepenen of the true reason.171 Two years later the burgemeesters and schepenen discovered that the regulations regarding the nominations were not a mere formality. That year, 1658, the nomination was drawn up without the presence of Schout Nicasius de Sille as representative of the provincial government, although it was his duty to act as ‘head of the bench, convenor, and collector of the votes’172 and to cast a vote in the

170 NYSA, NYCM 5: 201–202 (27 January 1654; NYHM 5: 109–110), 202 (28 January 1654; NYHM 5: 110), 6: 222–223 (18 January 1656; CM 1655–1656, 182), 6: 223 (18 January 1656; CM 1655–1656, 182–183). 171 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 491 (24 January 1656; RNA 2: 24); NYSA, NYCM 6: 266 (2 February 1656; CM 1655–1656, 213–214), 265 (31 January 1656; CM 1655–1656, 212–213), 266 (2 February 1656; CM 1655–1656, 213–214), 267 (2 February 1656; CM 1655–1656, 214–215). 172 NYMA, ODR 2, pp. 172–173 (31 January 1658; RNA 2: 322).

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

175

event of a tie. Worse still, the representative had not even been officially invited. So director general and council returned the nomination, ordering burgemeesters and schepenen to draw up a new one. In the presence of the schout the nomination was once again approved by the burgemeesters and schepenen and submitted to the director general and council. Such relatively small differences of opinion on procedure continued to crop up, including for instance whether employees of the Company might be nominated for office in the city and again later another question concerning the voting rights of the schout.173 The schout played an important role in the city government, and it was a great source of irritation to the burgemeesters and schepenen that in 1653 it was not someone from the numbers of the burghers but the hated Cornelis van Tienhoven who was appointed schout. Van Tienhoven combined the function of schout with that of fiscael and that, according to the city government, resulted in an incomplete court of justice: it may be true that Fiscael Tienhoven is still occupying this position, but with so little contentment of the borgerije [citizenry] and as much respect for us that we cannot comprehend that the said Tienhoven can properly serve the office of schout as well as that of fiscael (in his capacity of fiscael he acts without our knowledge against the burghers, puts them into prison and releases them again) and as far as the sentences pronounced by us are concerned, none are executed by him, to the great disparagement of our authority and inconvenience of the borgerije of this city.174

Repeating their earlier demand of 1653, the burgemeesters and schepenen wanted a demarcation between the judicial responsibilities of schout and fiscael. They also wanted the right to appoint the schout, or at least the right to submit a double nomination. These were matters about which Stuyvesant and his council were not permitted to decide for themselves. The directors in Amsterdam, not unsympathetic to the wishes of New Amsterdam, opined that the functions of schout and fiscael should indeed be separated. They had earmarked

173 NYMA, ODR 2, pp. 174–176 (1 February 1658; RNA 2: 323–325), ODR 3, pp. 130–134 (1 February 1661; RNA 3: 257–260); NYSA, NYCM 8: 717–721 (1 February 1658); Fruin, ‘Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het burgemeesterschap van Amsterdam’, 310. 174 NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 181–182 (24 December 1653; RNA 1: 144–145), p. 162 (11 November 1653; RNA 1: 127); Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 127.

176

chapter three

Stuyvesant for the task of drawing up a good set of instructions for the schout in such a way that there would be no conflicts about the jurisdiction. The directors thought that Van Tienhoven could be kept on as fiscael, and they had Jochem Pietersz. Kuijter in mind for the function of schout. The request of the burgemeesters and schepenen for ‘the election or at least the nomination’ was refused, ‘because even here in this country all private lords reserve the granting of such offices for themselves’.175 Kuijter was killed by the Indians before he could take office. Director general and council had their eye on Jacques Corteljou as an alternative candidate, and informed the burgemeesters and schepenen of this fact. They pressed for adequate demarcation of the judicial authority, to which director general and council agreed that this would be taken into consideration in the drawing up of the instructions. However, Corteljou refused the appointment, causing further delay. To the displeasure of the city government the directors decided to keep Van Tienhoven in the dual function, albeit provisionally. Van Tienhoven’s dismissal some years later, when he fell into disfavor and was stripped of all his functions, gave the burgemeesters and schepenen a new opportunity to petition for a separation of the functions. However, the director general and council wanted to postpone their decision on this until they had received further advice from Amsterdam. In the meantime, Nicasius de Sille was appointed to both positions, again provisionally. This took the heat out of the discussion, probably because Nicasius de Sille was a more acceptable person than Cornelis van Tienhoven. It was to be a further four years, until 1660, before New Amsterdam had its own schout. This was Pieter Tonneman, who until then had been schout of Breuckelen. Tonneman retained his seat in the council, thereby giving rise to the question of a certain degree of conflict of interest.176 Nevertheless, New Amsterdam had finally reached the long-awaited position of having its own schout, and the boundaries with the judicial authority of the Company’s fiscael were determined. Remarkably,

175

NYSA, NYCM 12: 3, pp. 7–8 (18 May 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 12). NYSA, NYCM 8: 17–18 (1 June 1656), 18 (7 June 1656), 32–33 (26 June 1656), 9: 332–334 (5 August 1660), 5: 305, 306 (21 July 1654; NYHM 5: 157), 348 (31 August 1654; NYHM 5: 176), 12: 18, pp. 9–10 (26 April 1655; Corres. 1654–1658, 52); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 248 (21 July 1654; RNA 1: 218), p. 582 (30 May 1652; RNA 2: 109), p. 595 (26 June 1656; RNA 2: 121). 176

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

177

and contrary to expectation, the instructions for the schout of New Amsterdam are less similar to those of the schout of Amsterdam than the instructions for the schout of Wiltwijck. There are, of course, certain similarities, and probably Tonneman would have received different instructions if director general and council had already received those for Swartwout. However, that was not the case, and I suspect that the instructions for Tonneman were drawn up in New Netherland. The differences principally concern the first article which stated expressly that the schout of New Amsterdam, as an officer appointed by director general and council, must defend the authority and privileges of the Company. Burgemeesters and schepenen were not even mentioned in his oath. The schout was not permitted to compound with suspects before a trial without the knowledge of the burgemeesters and schepenen. And finally, in an implicit reference to the conduct of his predecessor Van Tienhoven, Schout Tonneman was to ensure the execution of all the sentences passed by the city government ‘after the style and custom of the fatherland’.177 An administrative organ of the fatherland to which the sources for New Netherland only occasionally refer is a vroedschap. As mentioned earlier, the commissioners of Amsterdam had held out the prospect of a vroedschap to New Amstel with the proviso that the colony was to grow to two hundred families. Whether the West India Company would also have made such a concession may be doubted. Nonetheless, precursors of a vroedschap existed in New Amsterdam. The meeting of the heads of families in 1641 is something of the kind, without as yet a restriction to the wealthiest burghers. This restriction was imposed in New Amsterdam in August 1653. To hold consultations on providing financial support to the director general and council for the defense of the city, burgemeesters and schepenen called together ‘some of the principal burghers and inhabitants’.178 Of the twenty-three men falling under this description, five were later to be either burgemeester or schepen. The meeting was intended to be only incidental and, as with the landdag, it was to be ten years before a repeat followed. Again, the defense of the colony against the English was then the reason for the burgemeesters and schepenen to

177 178

NYSA, NYCM 13: 103 (undated, circa 9 April 1660; DRCHNY 14: 463–465). NYMA, ODR 1, p. 126 (2 August 1653; RNA 1: 92).

178

chapter three

call together a number of burghers ‘in the way of a vroetschap’.179 The thirteen men who were invited to attend were without exception former schepenen or burgemeesters, or were later to become members of the city’s government. Even a few days before the surrender of the colony to the English, while the English frigates were already lying before the fort, the burghers assembled in a meeting that resembled a vroedschap.180

Under the English The dramatic occurrences of August and September 1664 have already been described on numerous occasions by various historians, and it is unnecessary within the limits of this book to devote too much attention to them. In short, what happened was that, partly as the result of pressure from the population and because of the poor state of the defensive works, on 6 September Director General Stuyvesant found himself obliged to hand the colony over to the English commandant and Governor-designate Richard Nicolls.181 The initiative for the conquest of New Netherland was taken in England, where the restoration of the monarchy had put Charles II on the throne and where a hawkish faction in the English court urged an aggressive policy toward the Dutch. The promulgation of a new Navigation Act in 1660, which was intended to affect Dutch shipping, was one of the first steps in this attack, which was led by the Duke of York, the English king’s brother. On 12 March 1664 the Duke received from his brother letters patent for a large part of the North American coast, including the Dutch colony. Various arguments played a role in this grant, as they did in the resultant takeover of New Netherland, which was first of all a means of inspiring awe in the anti-monarchist New England colonies. The display of kingly might was intended to facilitate the expansion of respect for the throne elsewhere in North America as well. After the conquest,

179

NYMA, ODR 4, p. 195 (3 July 1663; RNA 4: 273). NYSA, NYCM 4: 98 (23 August 1641; NYHM 4: 17), 15: 143 (30 August 1664), 15: 144 (1 September 1664). 181 O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 2: 520–538; Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 20–24; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 260–263. 180

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

179

England would command the east coast of America from Nova Scotia to Carolina, and this would simplify both its government and its defense. Second, economic arguments played a role. New Amsterdam served as the port of transit for Dutch goods to the English colonies and for Virginia tobacco among other goods to Europe. The continued existence of the Dutch colony would make it easy for the Dutch merchants to flout the restrictions of the Navigation Act. Finally, the Duke of York also had a personal reason for taking over the Dutch colony. The income from imposts would provide a welcome injection of funds to the ducal coffers.182 Three frigates, with a military force of three hundred soldiers, departed from Portsmouth in May 1664. The expeditionary force was commanded by Richard Nicolls, who knew full well that once the warships had departed it would be no simple matter to maintain control over so large an area with only three hundred men. It was necessary, therefore, to ensure that the population had no reason to resort to armed resistance. The terms that were agreed on for their capitulation were drawn up with this in mind, and they were therefore relatively mild.183 At this juncture, of the twenty-three articles of capitulation, only those dealing with administration, justice, and law are of importance. In matters of inheritance, the Dutch were given the right to maintain ‘their owne Customes’, which was important as English inheritance law varied considerably from the Dutch. Civil matters were resolved differently: disputes about contracts that had been entered into prior to the changeover to English law were to be settled ‘according to the manner of the Dutch’, which implied that English law would apply to those entered into after the change. With regard to the administration, in article sixteen it was specified that all magistrates would be retained for the period for which they had been appointed. Thereafter, new magistrates were to be selected, the terms of capitulation specifying that these were ‘to be Chosen, by themselves’, the magistrates. This spelled the end of the Dutch system of double nomination and appointment by higher authorities, but whether

182 BGE, 1–4 (12 March 1664 old style); Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 9–20; Bliss, Revolution and Empire, 113–116, 127–129. 183 Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 20–24.

180

chapter three

the population was to be granted more say in their governance by the changeover to the English system remained to be seen. The new magistrates were obliged to swear allegiance to the English king. Finally, the terms of capitulation laid down that ‘the Towne of Manhattans, shall choose Deputyes, and those Deputyes, shall have free Voyces in all Publique affaires, as much as any other Deputyes’.184 No mention was made, however, of a meeting in which these deputies could convene.185 The rights granted to the Dutch in the articles of capitulation were at odds with the concept of a proprietary colony as envisioned by the Duke of York. The patent had given him ‘full and absolute power and Authority to Correct, punish, pardon, Governe, and Rule’.186. Although the instructions to Nicolls have not survived, there need be little doubt that it was the Duke’s intention to establish a powerful centralized administration, in which the governor was to be allotted all judicial and executive tasks, without the hindrance of too great a measure of self-determination.187 Nevertheless, Nicolls decided to call a ‘Generall Meeting of Deputyes’, thus giving the impression that the population would be involved in its governance in some way. However, only the towns on Long Island and in Westchester were invited to attend this meeting in Heemstede in February 1665. Representatives of neither New York City nor Albany were present, and the number of Dutch was limited to nine of the thirty-four delegates. Nicolls’s particular intention for the meeting in Heemstede was to improve the administrative situation of the English towns which, because of ‘their Subjection [. . .] to a forraigne Power’ was not good. It was also his intention to solve the various conflicts among the towns.188 At the meeting, the English town of Southold, which lay on the eastern side of Long Island, came up with a number of proposals that in essence were suggestions for the maintenance of the independent form of administration that had been customary until then.

184

BGE, 37, art. 21 (27 August 1664 old style). BGE, 35–38 (27 August 1664 old style); BGE, 41–42 (8 September 1664); Goebel and Naughton, Law Enforcement in Colonial New York; Narrett, Inheritance and Family Life. 186 BGE, 2 (12 March 1664 old style). 187 Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 31–32. 188 BGE, 79–81 (1 March 1664/5 old style); Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 33. 185

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

181

Until 1664, Southold had fallen under the jurisdiction of Connecticut, and it wanted to keep matters this way, to some extent because of the easy line of communication across the Long Island Sound. It also wanted to retain the custom of the town meetings, with the right to choose its own magistrates and representatives. Such a degree of autonomy was unacceptable to Nicolls. The ‘Duke’s Laws’, which had been imposed on the English towns in 1665, did not provide for the establishment of a chosen assembly that would have a Dutch majority, and would therefore be acceptable neither to the English towns nor to the Duke of York. The governor was responsible for the day-to-day administration of the colony, with the assistance of a council selected by him. In an annual session with the High Sheriff and the Justices of the Peace, the governor and council formed the highest judicial organ in the colony, the Court of Assizes. Appeal against the judgments of this court could be lodged with the English king. Additionally, the Court of Assizes also played a role in the confirmation of local ordinances, the probation of wills, the drawing up of provincial legislation, and the supervision of the collection of taxes.189 The administration of the colony was of a clearly centralist character, which reversed the decentralization that had been slowly introduced under Dutch administration. This certainly had to do with the royal patent. In England too, the power of the monarch began to acquire absolutist characteristics. In mid-1665 Nicolls wrote to Clarendon in England: the very name of the Dukes power heere, hath bine one great motive for weell affected men to Remove hither out of other Collonies, men well affected to Monarchy, and haue found that our new Lawes are not contriued soe Democratically as the Rest.190

Despite the centralist character of the ducal rule, a form of regional government continued to exist. With the ‘Duke’s Laws’ the ‘county of Yorkshire’ was created, consisting principally of areas in which the English colonists were in the majority: Long Island, Westchester, and Staten Island. Like Yorkshire in England, the county of Yorkshire

189 Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 33–35; Christoph and Christoph, Records of the Court of Assizes, xii–xiii. 190 ‘The Clarendon Papers’, 75 (30 July 1665 old style).

182

chapter three

in America was divided into three ‘ridings’. In each of these, justice was administered by a Court of Sessions, consisting of justices of the peace and the ‘under-sheriff’, all appointed by the governor. Among other things, their duties consisted of delivering judgments in cases in which an appeal had been made against the judgment of a local court, and of the collection of taxes.191 At the local level, the administration in the English towns was formed by a constable and eight overseers, who were elected by the freemen. Each year, four new overseers were elected, while one of the overseers who was standing down was elected constable. The task of the constable consisted of presiding over the local court and carrying out the orders of the governor. Although the administrative structure introduced for the English towns in New York displayed many similarities with that in New England, an important difference was the absence of the town meetings. It is understandable that the ‘Duke’s Laws’ were not received with open arms by the English towns. The situation under Dutch rule had perhaps not been ideal, but the English towns did at least have their town meeting. Under English administration, however, their autonomy was reduced considerably. At the meeting in Heemstede Nicolls met with some resistance, but nevertheless the changes were carried out.192 While for the English colonists the changeover to English administration was to their disadvantage, initially the Dutch experienced little change. In New York City the incumbent burgemeesters and schepenen remained in office up to the date for the appointment of magistrates, 2 February 1665. Then the burgemeesters and schepenen, referring to the sixteenth article of the articles of the capitulation, appointed their successors themselves and requested Nicolls’s approval of the appointments, which he gave without much ado. The situation changed only in June 1665 with Nicolls’s decision that henceforth the city government ‘shall bee Knowne and Called by ye Name and Style of Mayor, Aldermen, and Sherriffe, according to the Custome of England’.193 Burgemeester Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt protested

191

Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 35. Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’; Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 35–37; McKinley, ‘The Transition from Dutch to English Rule’, 700–701. 193 NYMA, ODR 4, p. 616 (12 June 1665 old style; RNA 5: 248–250); BGE, 93–94 (12 June 1665 old style). 192

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

183

this, with the argument that such a measure went against the terms of the capitulation, but his words fell on deaf ears as far as the English governor was concerned. The opposition of the city government was not stiff because the majority of the magistrates, including the new schout, Allard Anthony, continued to be Dutch. The most important change was the appointment of Thomas Willett as mayor. As a merchant, Willett had years of experience with the New Amsterdam merchants and also knew Stuyvesant well. He was in Dutch eyes an acceptable magistrate. In the years that followed, the new members of the city government were appointed by the governor without having been nominated. Starting in 1669 double nominations were once again permitted, although on several occasions Nicolls’s successor Francis Lovelace made appointments without resorting to nominations. Besides the titles and the composition of the city government, its duties and tasks also changed in the sense that the probation of last wills according to English law was added. A further important point was the application of trial by jury in certain cases. As in the city government, the composition of juries shows a balance of English and Dutch, wherein the latter had few problems in adapting to the English customs.194 In Albany, as Beverwijck had been renamed, the administrative form continued to be Dutch for longer than was the case in New York City, even though in 1665 the court at Albany, which already had jurisdiction over Schenectady, was combined with that of Rensselaerswijck. Each of the three areas was to provide two magistrates. Gerrit Swart, who had been schout of Rensselaerswijck from 1652, became the schout over the whole area of Albany, Rensselaerswijck, and Schenectady. It was only after several years that Schenectady, situated at quite some distance from Albany, gained its own schout. The establishment of a separate court followed at the end of 1672. The problem of distance had already in 1671 prompted a change in the number of magistrates. Because the appearances of the representatives of Rensselaerswijck were few and far between, Albany was permitted a third magistrate so that a quorum could be made

194 NYSA, NYCM 10–3: 251 (8 July 1664); appendix 7; NYMA, ODR 4, pp. 538–540 (2 February 1664/5 old style; RNA 5: 183–185); BGE, 74 (7 February 1664/5 old style); Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 41.

184

chapter three

up more frequently. Despite these changes, both in composition and language the court in Albany remained Dutch for quite some time.195 In Wiltwijck, which had been renamed Kingston, changes were not put into effect until 1669. Until that time, Schout Willem Beeckman and Secretary Matthijs Capito were retained in their respective functions. In 1669 a number of new functionaries were appointed by a committee that had been set up by Lovelace. In 1671 the administrative reforms went further: a Court of Sessions was established for Kingston, Hurley, and Marbletown, presided over by Thomas Chambers as justice of the peace. This court held session every six months and was endowed with the right of dealing with civil matters amounting to a maximum of £5. In criminal matters they had full jurisdiction, with the exception of capital offences.196 Dutchmen continued to participate in the administration in both Albany and Kingston, where little changed, as they did also in New York City, where the winds of change blew rather more powerfully. The English did not compel the Dutch to accept radical changes. The accommodating attitude of the English went so far that Nicolls gave the magistrates of Albany permission to write to him in Dutch, although he assumed that they could read English excellently.197 And his successor Francis Lovelace was described in the Hollantse Mercurius as ‘een verstandigen baes [a sensible chap]’.198 Even so, the chance that the colony might once more fall into Dutch hands was not viewed as an unrealistic possibility. In the articles of capitulation it was established, rather unnecessarily, that should the English king and the States General come to the agreement that the colony should once more come to fall under the authority of the Dutch, and that orders to that end be given, then the appropriate actions thereto would be taken immediately. The possibility of a somewhat less peaceful changeover of power increased with the chance that the Dutch Admiral Michiel Adriaensz. de Ruyter would appear with a fleet before Manhattan. Nicolls was confident that, in the event of such an attack, he could offer sufficient defense:

195 CMARS 1: 7–9; Paltsits, Minutes of the Executive Council 2: 548–549 (2 August 1671). 196 KP 1: xiii–xiv. 197 NYSL, mss BW 10272 group B, no. 2 (17 August 1667 old style). 198 Hollandsche Mercurius, April 1667, p. 38.

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

185

wee haue rather hopes then feares of De Ruyters arivall, being allready better fitted then any other Plantacón in America, insoemuch that the Dutch heere who have Long hoped for and expected De Ruyter, begin to pray that hee may never attempt a peece of service to their soe certaine ruine.199

Nicolls’s bravura was not put to the test, as De Ruyter abandoned the idea of an attack and sailed back to the Dutch Republic by way of Newfoundland and Bergen (Norway). In the Treaty of Breda, which in 1667 heralded the end of the Second Anglo-Dutch War, it was agreed that both countries would maintain the status quo after the events in the colonies. That implied that New Netherland remained in English hands, while Surinam, which was taken in February 1667 by a Dutch fleet under Abraham Crijnssen, remained Dutch.200 However, the peace was not accompanied by any reduction in rivalry between the two countries, and new hostilities were to be expected. With her allies France, Münster, and Cologne, England attacked the Dutch Republic in 1672. The States of Zeeland dispatched an expedition under the command of Cornelis Evertsen de Jongste with the objective of attacking the enemy in its colonial territories. Although New Netherland was not the primary target, the Zeeland fleet, in combination with an Amsterdam squadron under the command of Jacob Benckes, arrived at the Hudson at the beginning of August 1673. When the ships were lying at anchor near Staten Island, there came on board several Dutch farmers, who complained very much about the hard government of the English, wishing to be again under the government of their High Mightinesses.201

Although the accuracy of the remark concerning the character of the English government may be doubted, the desire of the Dutch farmers to be under Dutch rule again was evidently strong. The farmers also provided details about the state of the city’s defenses that indicated it was ill-prepared to defend itself. Upon learning this, Evertsen decided to make an attempt to recapture it. The fleet came to lie before New York City, where three English representatives

199

‘The Clarendon Papers’, 74 (30 July 1665 old style). BGE, 37 (27 August 1664 old style); Prud’homme van Reine, Rechterhand van Nederland, 129–153. 201 De Waard, Zeeuwsche expeditie, 39–40. 200

186

chapter three

went aboard. After the objective of the fleet was made clear to them, they asked to see Evertsen’s commission, to which he answered ‘that it was stuck in the mouth of the canon, as they would soon become aware if they did not surrender the fort’.202 After a brief exchange of fire, the English surrendered on 9 August 1673. Albany was recaptured a couple of days later.203 With this, New Netherland was once again in Dutch hands, and once more a number of places underwent a change of name: New York City became New Orange, Fort James became Fort Willem Hendrick, Kingston became Swaenenburgh, and Albany was renamed Willemstadt. The Dutch intermezzo lasted only fifteen months: on 10 November 1674 the colony was handed over to the English as a consequence of the Treaty of Westminster. In 1673, the new rulers did not suspect that their dominion was to be short-lived, and they vigorously adopted measures to shape the administration to the Dutch model once more. This meant a return to the situation that prevailed prior to 1665, with some slight differences. Now, the highest authority lay not in the hands of the West India Company, which was on its last legs, but in the hands of the Admiralty of Amsterdam. The central administrative organ in the colony was initially the fleet’s court martial, in which Cornelis Evertsen and Jacob Benckes played the principal role, together with three captains of the fleet. With the departure of the ships imminent, Anthony Colve was appointed governor, Cornelis Steenwijck was appointed to the council, and Nicolaes Bayard was made secretary and receiver-general. The city government was requested, via Steenwijck, to put forward nominations, resulting in the appointment of three burgemeesters and five schepenen. Only Dutch nationals were nominated, and among the eight appointees four had already held office in the city government prior to 1665. The appointment of magistrates in other courts in New Netherland was carried out by means of a double nomination and appointments by the higher powers. The rights and responsibilities of the courts were in many instances the same, although the amount above which the judgment could be appealed was increased to 240 guilders. English

202

De Waard, Zeeuwsche expeditie, 42. In addition to the book by De Waard, an overview of the recapture is given by Shomette and Haslach, Raid on America. 203

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

187

magistrates were appointed for the English towns. But all in all, the changes were minor. For a period of fifteen months administrative procedures were once again as they had been prior to 1665.204

Conclusion After an initial period, the administrative and judicial practices that were common in the Dutch Republic also became established in New Netherland and, with some slight differences, the form they took was accepted by parties. Naturally conflicts about powers and jurisdiction occurred, just as in the Dutch Republic, but the conflicts in New Netherland remained within the frameworks common for the Netherlands, and the administration of justice was as effective in New Netherland as it was in the fatherland. This is a conclusion in sharp contrast to the opinion of some historians, who have pointed to New Netherland’s differences from New England, where the democratic town meeting formed the basis of the administration.205 In comparing New Netherland with the Dutch Republic certain other features should be noted. The administration of New Netherland was initially in conformity with the way in which trading posts in other Dutch colonies were administered. This is not surprising in a system in which a chartered company, the West India Company, controlled not only the trade but also the administration, and it suited the aims of the wic. However, New Netherland distinguishes itself through its gradual development from trading post to a settlement colony, and the administrative form of trading post was not suited to this. As the settlers came and the population grew, the groups of colonists with local interests and a local identity evolved. The interests of these groups conflicted with those of the wic, the directors of which had difficulty in adapting themselves to their altered role after they ceased to hold the monopoly in the fur trade. They were

204 NYSA, NYCM 23: 72–73 (12 August 1673; DRCHNY 2: 609–613), 23: 93–96 (1 October 1673; DRCHNY 2: 620–622); Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 102–108. 205 See, for example, Ritchie, Duke’s Province, 31: ‘Institutional life in New Netherland had been weakly rooted’. Ritchie bases this on Condon, New York Beginnings, 116–172 and on Wright, ‘Local Government in Colonial New York’ and ‘Local Government and Central Authority in New Netherland’.

188

chapter three

now in a position in which, as far as New Netherland was concerned, trade was no longer one of their responsibilities. They were only to fulfill the function of supreme government on the basis of the charter awarded to the wic by the States General. The governmental tasks included the central responsibilities for defense, for which taxes were levied, the function as the highest court of justice, and the steering of lesser administrative organs, for which the customary method of the granting of privileges was utilized. By the time that New Netherland was undergoing the change from trading post to settlement colony the wic, because of its problems elsewhere, was financially not in a position to give the colony the impulse seen as necessary by the colonists and the States General. The system of patroonships was set up as a means of passing on the costs of colonization, but the failure of the patroonships left the moral and financial burden of making the settlement colony a success upon the shoulders of the Company. A major catalyst in the conflict between the Company and the colonists was the wars with the Indians which were caused by the policies of Kieft, and which put into danger the interests of those colonists who were trying to build up an existence in the colony. The colonists were of the opinion that a government other than that of the West India Company would be better for the development of the colony. The chance that the States General would ever accede to requests in this direction from New Netherland must be seen as having been slight. In 1647, a comparatively short time before the complaints reached the lofty members of that body in 1649, a new twenty-five-years’ charter for the West India Company was approved. This had been preceded by lengthy discussions about a possible merger with the East India Company. Furthermore, the wic was encountering serious problems in Brazil and was burdened by debts that were considerable even by today’s standards. The States General exerted pressure on the Company to give the colonists some form of self-determination by the establishment of courts. The ideas that formed the basis of the development of local government were derived from the practices in existence in the Dutch Republic, as the constant references to ‘the laudable customs of the city of Amsterdam’ show. These were also the forms of administration asked for by the colonists. Thus, the administrators in the Netherlands and the colonists in New Netherland were in agreement on the lines along which the

‘the

exercise of justice and government’

189

administration should develop. Disagreement about the pace of such a development played a role, but it was not doubted that the expansion of the rights of lower administrative organs could come about only through the awarding of privileges and prerogatives by the higher authority. After the establishment of the city government of New Amsterdam, the discussion no longer related to the Company’s supreme authority, but rather to practical responsibilities. In this it is notable that, in the continuing strife between the citizenry and the Company, no internal struggle for power came about on the side of the colonists. Both prior to and after 1653 the population presented a closed front, and there are no signs to be found of such a power struggle. Besides this, it should be noted that at no time at all was there any question of a resort to violence. The most extreme measure taken by the burghers was their approach to the States General with the request to take New Netherland under their protection. With the exception of the English towns, the lower administrative organs show the same forms as in the Dutch Republic. The same legislation was also in force. In New Amsterdam a gradual specialization of administration and judicial procedure took place. Although no formal vroedschap existed, a number of signs indicate that an informal body of eminent burghers occasionally met. Such a process of growth also took place at the provincial level. On several occasions a meeting of a landdag happened, in which the same difficulties over the voting order occurred as in the Dutch Republic. In summary, the process of the development of the administrative and judicial institutions in New Netherland was a growth of scale based on the forms in existence in the Dutch Republic, rather than a growth influenced by circumstances that were specific to North America.

CHAPTER FOUR

‘THE TRADE, THAT REALLY CONCERNS US’1

On the afternoon of Saturday, 28 December 1630, Michiel Pauw, delegate of the Amsterdam chamber to a meeting of the Heren XIX in Middelburg, presented three designs of coats of arms to the assembled gentlemen. One of the designs was quickly discarded, but the other two were provisionally approved. The first was entitled ‘Sigillum Novi Amstelodamensis’ [seal of New Amsterdam]: two lions guarding a crest with the three Andreas crosses of Amsterdam, decked with the image of a beaver. The second showed the coat of arms of New Netherland: ‘a black beaver on a gold field, with embroidery of white Zeewant on a blue ground, decked with a count’s crown’, symbolizing the economic motives in the founding of New Netherland.2 The trade in peltries with the Indians was the main economic motive for the colonization of New Netherland. Right from the start of shipping to the area, beaver pelts were of particular importance. But as New Netherland slowly changed from a trading post into a settlement colony, the economic emphasis shifted and the importance of local food supplies increased. Farming activities, which had been carried out since the earliest days of the settlement, were gradually expanded. Towards the end of the Dutch period, farming had grown to such an extent that it had become possible to export grain, albeit in limited amounts. Another agricultural product, tobacco, was mainly grown for export to Europe. Along with the growth in the number of inhabitants, a group of craftsmen evolved who provided for local needs. In spite of this, the colonists remained dependent on imports from the fatherland for a wide range of commodities, luxury items in particular. The export of peltries and tobacco and the import of diverse goods were controlled by the merchants in New Amsterdam. But unlike their colleagues in Amsterdam, they rarely received coins

1

NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 3–2 (24 March 1648; Guide, no. 464). NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland papers, box 3 (28 December 1630; Guide, no. 544). 2

192

chapter four

in payment. The currency of New Netherland was produced locally and consisted of sewant and beavers.

Sewant and Beavers as Currency Trust was the basis of economic transactions in the seventeenth century, in the Dutch Republic as much as in New Netherland. Many people could provide credit, but they sometimes had to wait months or even years for payment. In 1662 in Amsterdam, Maria Momma, the widow of Wouter van Twiller, requested her relative Jeremias van Rensselaer in New Netherland to recover a debt that had been outstanding for no fewer than eleven years. Such a period was exceptional, but a number of months, or even up to a year, was not. Nor was it uncommon for a borrower to exceed his or her payment deadlines, as a result of which many disagreements arose, sometimes accompanied by harsh words and exchanges of insults. As a last resort, it was possible to take the matter to court, and indeed, the majority of cases brought before the courts in New Netherland concerned matters of debt.3 An example is the case of the widow Lijsbet Thijssen, who in 1656 had Jan Cornelisz. summoned to the court of New Amsterdam. Lijsbet had been married to Marijn Adriaensz. van Veere and Gerlach Michielsz., respectively. As a widow she was empowered to represent herself in court. In the case against Jan Cornelisz. she demanded payment of the remainder of an account for the rent of a house. The contract stipulated that seventy guilders had to be paid in halfyearly installments. The first half-year’s rent was now due and she still had not been fully paid. Jan Cornelisz. did not deny that he was late, but instead complained that the roof was leaking, making the house not properly habitable. Lijsbet rebutted that he should either repair it himself or have it repaired and then show her the bill, so that the costs could be deducted from the rent. After all, he had done so previously with other costs he had incurred. The schepenen agreed with Lijsbet, and ordered Jan Cornelisz. to pay the remainder of the debt immediately. However, if repairs were neces-

3 NYSL, VRMP, box 49, folder 32 (7 April 1662; CJVR 283–284); Maika, ‘The Credit System of the Manhattan Merchants’.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

193

sary, Lijsbet had to have them carried out according to the contract. A week later no payment had been made, and Lijsbet once more applied to the schepenen. The magistrates, while referring to Lijsbet’s ‘present circumstances’, ordered Jan Cornelisz. to pay her within twenty-four hours. These ‘present circumstances’, which were evidently known to the schepenen, although Lijsbet did not specify them, probably concerned the death of her second husband, who had been killed by the Indians some months earlier.4 In this case, Jan Cornelisz. admitted at once that he owed her money. This relieved Lijsbet Thijssen of having to provide evidence, which would have been simple enough as a contract existed. Usually, in cases in which the debt was disavowed, or disagreement arose over the exact amount, either written acknowledgement of the debt or account books had to be produced. People regularly authorized a relative or friend to recover their outstanding claims. Inhabitants of New Amsterdam, for example, could be summoned to court under a power of attorney for payment of a debt incurred in the Dutch Republic, and people returning to the fatherland gave a power of attorney to someone remaining in New Netherland to enable them to claim any outstanding debts on their behalf. Departure for the other side of the ocean did not mean that debts were avoided. As in the Dutch Republic, accounts were made up in guilders [guldens], consisting of twenty stivers [stuivers], which again were divided into sixteen pennies [penningen]. In a few cases Flemish pounds, which were worth six guilders, were used. These were units only for the purpose of calculation and at that time were often unavailable in the form of coins, which were in scarce supply. It was common practice to avoid having to pay in cash by canceling debts against each other. If money had to change hands in New Netherland, it is unlikely that such transactions were carried out in cash. On one occasion when it was, payment was made in the form of three Jacobuses, an English gold coin to the value of twelve guilders. Silver money is rarely referred to. Most often payment was made in beavers or sewant, and from the mid-1650s onwards, in tobacco.5

4 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 473 (10 January 1656; RNA 2: 7), p. 479 (17 January 1656; RNA 2: 13), ODR 2, p. 196 (4 March 1658; RNA 2: 344); Schmidt, Overleven na de dood, 61–68. 5 NYSA, NYCM 4: 5 (6 May 1638; NYHM 4: 7), 280 (10 January 1647; NYHM 4: 354); NYHM 1: 323 (15 April 1641).

194

chapter four

This was an important difference between New Netherland and the Dutch Republic: the monetary situation in the colony was more complex than in the Netherlands. In the fatherland, payment in kind was not unusual, but it rarely took the form of beaver pelts. However, New Netherland was hampered by a chronic shortage of silver coinage, as were the other North American colonies. A solution was found in sewant, an Indian word for strings of beads made from shells, mostly found on Long Island. The white sewant was made from whelk shells and the purple ones, which were called ‘black’, from the Quahog shell. The shells were polished, drilled in the direction of their length and then strung like beads. Black beads in general were twice the value of white beads. The use of sewant was adopted from the Indians, but the Dutch changed its form and meaning. The Indians had many uses for sewant, for instance in condolence rituals. For the Dutch, who already had experience with the use of beads as a means of payment in West Africa, sewant quickly acquired the role of currency. Both the Dutch and the Indians used sewant as a gift in diplomatic negotiations.6 The West India Company, in its function as governing body, issued ordinances with currency requirements for sewant and beaver pelts. For sewant the general specification in contracts was that it had to be handelbaer, which in Dutch means both suitable to be handled and suitable for trading, a reference to the requirement that the sewant must be clean, polished, and threaded, so that it could be handled easily. A precondition for beaver pelts was that they must be leverbaer [literally: fit to be delivered], meaning that they had to meet up to a generally recognized level of quality. Usually both terms are translated as ‘merchantable’.7 Ordinances on the quality of sewant were regularly repeated, which is usually an indication that they were not adhered to. There were numerous complaints about loose, unstrung sewant being used, with glass beads mixed among the shell beads. In addition to the quality, the exchange rate of the currency was a constant source of concern to the government, and the rate for sewant had to be adjusted

6 Nettels, The Money Supply; Baart, ‘Ho-de-no-sau-nee en de Nederlanders’, 91–92; Wilcoxen, Seventeenth Century Albany, 40–44; Bradley, Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois, 178–180; Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 32–33; Hamell, ‘Wampum’. 7 NYSA, NYCM 4: 90–91 (18 April 1641; NYHM 4: 107); Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, entries handelbaer and leverbaer.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

195

on a number of occasions. While in 1641 one stiver was paid for five white beads, in 1658 burgemeesters and schepenen asked director general and council to increase the rate to eight beads per stiver. A few years later it had risen to twenty-four white or twelve black beads per stiver.8 The inflation was caused by the import of sewant from New England. The West India Company was aware of this, but apart from trying to keep the rate equal to that of the English colonies by continual devaluation, few solutions to the problem could be found. As director general and council wrote to the directors in Amsterdam in 1660 on the suggestion of reducing sewant to the value of silver: it would be desirable if it could be put into practice without fear of trouble and without diverting the trade, [but] it is in our opinion not without considerable danger and peril, as the zeewant is the source and mother of the beaver trade, and no beavers can be obtained from the wilden for just trade goods without zewant, [and] if it is not imported, as we do not have it in our country, it would certainly cause a diversion in the beaver trade.9

Thus, sewant was essential for the beaver trade. But the beaver pelts too were subject to changes in exchange rates. An important difference between sewant and beaver pelts was that the latter had a commercial value in the Dutch Republic, while sewant did not. Because the beavers were merchandise, the general rate of exchange for them in New Netherland was not laid down in ordinances. Market conditions determined their value. However, the WIC did set the exchange rate of beavers when used as payment of taxes and wages. In 1656 the rate was set at six guilders per pelt; a year later it was raised to eight and even ten guilders. The rate was reduced again in 1662 and 1663, first to seven and then to six guilders, to attune it better to the market value of beavers in Amsterdam.10 The continuous inflation of sewant was hardly conducive to smooth trading, and some attempts were made to replace sewant by silver

8 NYSA, NYCM 4: 352 (30 November 1647; NYHM 4: 470), 90–91 (18 April 1641; NYHM 4: 107), 10–1: 299 (28 December 1662; LO, 433–434); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 311 (14 September 1658; RNA 3: 10), 318 (19 September 1658; RNA 3: 16). 9 NYSA, NYCM 13: 96, pp. 10–11 (23 April 1660; DRCHNY 14: 470–471). 10 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 89–90 (27 September 1656; LWA, 69–70), 119–121 (29 November 1657; LWA, 87–89), 8: 580 (15 May 1657), 10–1: 299 (28 December 1662; LO, 433–434).

196

chapter four

coins as a means of payment. In 1649, Stuyvesant suggested importing ten thousand guilders in small denominations of coin from the fatherland to reduce the use of sewant, but the directors in patria turned him down because of a shortage of money. Some years later Stuyvesant repeated his proposal, this time for twelve thousand guilders, and he took preparatory measures, but he was again brought to heel by his superiors.11 The opportunity to mint coins in the colony, as had been done in Brazil, was not available in New Netherland as a result both of the shortage of precious metals and the WIC’s financial problems. And so sewant continued to be the most common method of payment. The consequence of the continuous inflation was that the relationship between the various methods of payment became more and more disproportionate, spawning onerous bookkeeping problems. In 1662 the price of a beaver was some twenty to twenty-four guilders in sewant. Although both currencies were calculated in guilders and stivers, the relationship between the values of so-called sewantstivers and beaverstivers altered to such an extent that in 1658 the directors in Amsterdam decided not to object if the company’s bookkeeper in the colony were ‘to keep two cash accounts in the mentioned two species, if only the same are finally reduced to Dutch value’. Some of the monthly wages had to be paid out in the colony at the nominal Dutch value.12 But this left the WIC’s employees considerably out of pocket, as director general and council tried to make clear to the directors in phraseology that emphasizes the complexity of the problem. The sewant, before it is reduced to beaver value and is reckoned at seven guilders per beaver, suffers a loss of 50 percent, as the beaver, calculated at the usual rate of eight guilders, is bartered and estimated in public sales at fifteen or sixteen guilders in sewant, which would be about eighteen guilders, if the beaver is rated at seven guilders. Thus there is on sewant more than 50 percent loss, from which subsequently can

11 NYSA, NYCM 11: 14, p. 19 (27 January 1649; Corres. 1647–1653, 73), 75, p. 4 (13 December 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 189), 5: 61–62 (16 September 1652; NYHM 5: 39). 12 NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 299 (28 December 1662; LO, 433–434), 12: 80, no. 1 (20 May 1658; Corres. 1654–1658, 173), 9: 464–465 (23 December 1660), 13: 143, p. 6 (24 December 1660; DRCHNY 14: 487); Scholten, The Coins of the Dutch Overseas Territories, 175–176.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

197

be deduced how much damage your Honors’ servants have suffered thus far by being paid their monthly wages at the Dutch value and what damage they who by lack of beavers will have to take sewant will suffer from now on.13

Merchants also suffered from the difference in value between the New Netherland guilder and the Dutch guilder. Two merchants from New Netherland complained in 1662 that one hundred guilders in sewant yielded no more than twenty-five guilders in the Dutch Republic, while one hundred guilders in beavers at eight guilders each was worth fifty-six guilders and five stivers in Holland. Seven years later this exchange rate was confirmed by Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt and Nicolaes de Meijer, who stated that, when New Netherland money was transferred by IOU, four guilders of sewant was counted for one guilder in Dutch money.14 The consequences of the monetary situation in New Netherland are difficult to assess. Lynn Ceci has suggested that the dumping of inferior sewant meant that, economically, the colony was already beaten before the English frigates appeared off New Amsterdam.15 Yet the economic situation in the colony was only one of the factors that determined the defense, or lack of it, of New Netherland. However, the inflation affected the contract workers recruited in the Dutch Republic at a specified rate of pay, which was to be paid in the colony. On arriving in New Netherland they suddenly discovered that the purchasing power of their income was considerably less than they had expected, as did the Company employees in the example above.

Peltries ‘The beaver is the main foundation and means why or through which this beautiful land was first occupied by people from Europe’, wrote Adriaen van der Donck in 1655.16 According to him no fewer

13

NYSA, NYCM 13: 131, p. 7 (6 October 1660; DRCHNY 14: 484). GAA, NA, inv. no. 2578, pp. 688–689 (16 November 1662), inv. no. 2956, p. 251 (3 January 1669); Korthals Altes, Van £ Hollands tot Nederlandse ƒ, 153–157; McCusker, Money and Exchange, 156, n. 8 and 291–296. 15 Ceci, ‘First Fiscal Crisis’, 847. 16 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 82 (Description, 110). 14

chapter four

198

than eighty thousand beavers per year were killed in New Netherland and its Indian controlled hinterland. Although other furred animals, such as otters, were also traded in the early period, the beaver was by far the most important. Van der Donck’s estimate of the number of beavers taken annually is one of the highest made of the extent of the trade. Only Samuel Maverick, in his efforts six years later to convince the Earl of Clarendon of the benefits of conquering New Netherland, stated the even higher total of one hundred thousand pelts per year. Both men had reason to exaggerate. Van der Donck wanted to promote emigration to the colony, while Maverick laid on with a trowel the advantages of an English conquest. Both estimates were too high, as a closer look at the available data reveals.17 Table 4.1. Peltries exported by the

WIC

from New Netherland, 1624–1635.

Year

Beavers

Otters

Value in guilders

1624 1625 1626 1627a 1627b 1628 1629 1630 1632a 1632b 1633 1635

4000 5295 7258 5934 1586 6951 5913 6041 8569 4944 8800 14891

700 463 857* 130 240 734* 681 1085 546 1115* 1383* 1413*

27,125 35,825 45,050 43,690 12,730 61,075 62,185 68,012 94,925 48,200 91,375 134,925

Total

80182

9347

725,117

* = otters and other peltries. Source: De Laet, Historie ofte Iaerlyck verhael (1644 version), appendix, pp. 29–30. De Laet reports two totals for the years 1627 and 1632, probably based on different ships’ cargoes.

17 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 83 (Description, 111); cf. Burke, ‘New Netherland Fur Trade’, 1–2; Burke, Mohawk Frontier, 7; ‘The Clarendon Papers’, 20 (undated, probably 1661). 18 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 174 (DRNN, 228).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

199

Little information is available on the period prior to 1623, the years of the New Netherland Company and private traders. A remark by Isaac de Rasière in 1626 indicates that the private traders obtained some two thousand to two-and-a-half thousand pelts each year from the area round the South River.18 This estimate fits in with later information on the trade volume in the early years of the West India Company as supplied by Johannes de Laet, a director of the Company, and the information he provided is detailed and likely to be accurate. The absence of figures for the years 1631 and 1634 makes the overview incomplete, although the figures for 1632 and 1635, almost double the average, suggest that these are combined totals. It is evident that the trade expanded considerably during these twelve years, almost doubling in volume. The other figures for this period on the whole correspond with those provided by De Laet. De Rasière hoped to be able to export ten thousand pelts in 1626, but this was a little optimistic. In the same year the ship Wapen van Amsterdam arrived in the Netherlands with 7246 beavers and 1004.5 other pelts, which is almost the same as in table 4.1. A report from the West India Company of 23 October 1629 states that New Netherland expected to obtain no more than fifty thousand guilders’ worth of peltries per year. This is quite a low estimate, which nonetheless is quoted quite frequently in literature.19 The fur trade continued to grow in the early years, reaching a level just below ten thousand pelts per year by 1633. The ship Eendracht, which was seized by the English in Plymouth in 1632, carried more than five thousand pelts, roughly half of the total for that year, although an English report of the same year gives the higher figure of fifteen thousand. In 1633 Kiliaen van Rensselaer estimated that the fur trade in New Netherland could yield an annual maximum of sixty to seventy thousand guilders, which corresponds with

19 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5751 II (ingekomen 1626) (5 November 1626; DRCHNY 1: 37), inv. no. 5752 (23 October 1629; DRCHNY 1: 39); Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, November 1626, fol. 37v (NNN, 83); Wieder, De stichting van New York, 174, 178 (DRNN, 228, 244); Davies, A Primer of Dutch Seventeenth Century Overseas Trade, 140; Emmer, ‘Nederlandse handelaren, kolonisten en planters’, 28; Emmer, ‘The West India Company’, 84; Emmer, ‘Slavenhandel’, 107; Van Dillen, Van rijkdom en regenten, 168; Brandão, “Your Fyre Shall Burn No More”, 85–91.

200

chapter four

a total of a little fewer than ten thousand pelts. A year later John Winthrop estimated the Dutch trade at nine to ten thousand pelts per year. In the same year Kiliaen van Rensselaer wrote to Wouter van Twiller that he had heard that the new commies of the Company, Hans Jorisz. Hontom, believed that he could send over some thirteen thousand pelts per year, which Van Rensselaer considered impossible. In 1636 the WIC received approximately eight thousand pelts.20 After the Company’s monopoly on the fur trade had been lifted, the trade expanded, but quantitative details for the 1640s are scarce. No estimates of the total trade are available. Van Rensselaer noted in 1640 that in the preceding fifteen years five to six thousand pelts were shipped annually from Fort Orange, the center of the beaver trade. In that year the number was smaller. But this applies to the trade from only one of the areas in the colony, albeit the most important. The other details available are limited to the trade of individual merchants. For example, in 1645 the ship Rensselaerswijck carried 1585 beaver pelts. In 1647 Govert Loockermans hoped to dispatch approximately two thousand pelts. He also reported that another merchant, Willem de Key, expected to export five thousand beaver pelts. With the wreck of the ship Prinses in 1647 no fewer than fifteen to sixteen thousand beavers disappeared under the waves. A year later, some five-and-a-half thousand pelts were shipped in the Valckenier for the firm Verbrugge, while the same ship carried a further two thousand pieces for the WIC. Although these figures do not cover the entire trade, they give the impression that in the second part of the 1640s, when the wars with the Indians were over, the fur trade grew to a volume that was considerably greater than that of the 1630s.21 Information on the 1650s is also quite hard to come by, but it can be assumed that the growth of the trade continued until 1657.

20 Nat. Arch., SG, lias Engeland, inv. no. 5892 I (10 April 1632; DRCHNY 1: 47); Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574 –1660, 143–145; NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 48v (25 November 1633; VRBM, 244), fol. 59v (23 April 1634; VRBM, 273), fol. 88v (6 October 1636; VRBM, 334); Burke, ‘New Netherland Fur Trade’, 3. 21 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 124 (29 May 1640; VRBM, 483); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1073, fols. 221–222 (30 March 1645); NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers, 2: 4 (2 August 1647; Guide, no. 459), 2: 5 (12 August 1647; Guide, no. 460), 2: 6 (1 November 1647; Guide, no. 461), 3: 9 (5 August 1648; Guide, no. 471).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

201

Some authors cite the rather high figure of forty-six thousand beavers for Fort Orange alone. With a beaver price of seven to eight guilders, this would mean that the value of the export of peltries reached some three hundred thousand to three hundred and fifty thousand guilders. At least 37,940 beaver pelts were shipped from Beverwijck to New Amsterdam in the summer of 1657. Thereafter the volume went down slightly, although the complaints increased. In 1660, in a letter to Stuyvesant, La Montagne grumbled about the ‘bad trade of this year which barely mounts up to the number of thirty-thousand’. Director general and council estimated the number of beavers on which the recognition fee was paid at only twenty-five to thirty thousand. With a beaver price of seven guilders, this would yield the WIC sixteen thousand guilders. It was a rather low estimate, particularly as the recognition fee was levied not only for the beaver pelts from Fort Orange, but also for those from New Amstel. The trade from that area was in 1663 estimated at ten thousand beavers per year. On the whole, the conclusion by many historians that the beaver trade underwent a decline is based more on qualitative than quantitative indications. It attaches more importance to the sentiments of contemporaries, which were influenced by the price of furs, than to the scarce information on the total volume of the trade.22 The cause of the decline is generally sought in problems on the supply side. Two factors have been put forward: intra-Indian wars and a gradual depletion of the beaver population as the result of over-hunting. Inter-tribal warfare, it has been written, was a problem because it meant that the Indians devoted less attention to beaver hunting, and because it jeopardized the safety of the trade routes to Beverwijck. In 1663, Jeremias van Rensselaer wrote that the trade ceases so abruptly that one hardly sees a wilt and this because the path is not safe for the wilde, for one says that the French wilde are coming, the other that the English are coming with wilde, so that

22 Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 257; Trelease, Indian Affairs, 131; ACHR, ‘B Deeds 2 1656–1678’, p. 139 (20 June 1657; ERA 1: 244); Burke, ‘New Netherland Fur Trade’, 2; Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 247; NYSA, NYCM 13: 123 (6 September 1660), 131, p. 6 (6 October 1660; DRCHNY 14: 484); GAA, AV, inv. no. 98, fol. 111r (10 August 1663; DRCHNY 2: 212).

202

chapter four the maquas [Mohawks] are quite in a pinch, and the sinnekes [Senecas] are in a fierce war with the minquase [Susquehannocks].23

Sources of information about the second factor, over-hunting, are scarcer. Over-hunting and a gradual decimation of the beaver population may have played a role, although the rate at which it occurred remains unclear. The traditional view is that both inter-tribal war and over-hunting contributed to the reduction in the supply of beavers.24 This view has recently been challenged by the work of José António Brandão. In 1997, Brandão pointed out that Iroquois warfare was an expression of various social and cultural imperatives, among which the need to replace deceased members of the community by captives was prominent. Economic motives, such as the capture of furs from other Indian groups, have led to the labeling of Indian conflicts as ‘Beaver Wars’, but only in a small percentage of the raids carried out by the Iroquois was the taking of furs the main motive. There is no indication, Brandão contends, that over-hunting led to gradual extinction of the beaver or caused the Iroquois to supplement their trade by taking peltries from other Indian groups. Brandão’s argument against previous explanations is very persuasive, although he fails to put forward an alternative explanation for the decline of the fur trade.25 Demand was also a factor that determined the price of pelts, and thus the total value of the export of peltries, but virtually no attention has been paid to this factor in the literature. The beaver pelts were shipped from New Netherland to Amsterdam, and a large number were sold to Muscovy, where they underwent processing. The market price in Amsterdam was, of course, subject to periodic fluctuations, but towards the end of the 1650s prices were considerably lower than they had been in earlier decades. As a result of the large supply of beavers in the 1650s, the market suffered a glut, and demand and thus price fell. At the end of 1657, Guilliaem Momma wrote to Jeremias van Rensselaer:

23

NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 15 (7 August 1663; CJVR 325–326). Martin, Keepers of the Game; Burke, ‘New Netherland Fur Trade’, 2; Norton, Fur Trade, 10–11; Matson, ‘“Damned Scoundrels”’, 395. 25 Brandão, “Your Fyre Shall Burn No More”, 31–61, 84–91; Starna and Brandão, ‘From the Mohawk-Mahican War to the Beaver War’. 24

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

203

it stands poorly with the beavers and they are not easy to sell, so that the merchantable beavers are sold here at ƒ 6, so that the trade from New Netherland becomes worse daily. More beavers are coming than can be sold to Muscovy, so that it would be good if the trade stood still for a year.26

The beaver price quickly descended to ƒ 4:18 in the middle of 1658. Later, it recovered somewhat, and fluctuated between six and seven guilders. If for the 1650s as a whole the average price for a beaver was six-and-a-half guilders and if we estimate the average yearly export of peltries at thirty-five thousand pieces, then the total value of the export can have amounted to almost 230,000 guilders. But this is only an estimate, which, in view of the scantiness of the figures available, should be treated with caution.27 The volume of the trade and the price of the beaver were, of course, of great importance to the colonists in New Netherland, but other aspects of the fur trade also played a role. After the ending of the West India Company’s monopoly on pelts, the interaction with the Indians in the trade fell into the hands of private individuals. Furthermore, the recognition fee on the export of peltries was one of the sources of income of the West India Company. An extensive set of regulations was the result. The Company’s monopoly of the fur trade was already under pressure by the early beginnings of colonization. Colonists were allowed to trade with the Indians, but they had to sell the acquired pelts to the WIC at a price set by the Company, with the result that their margin for profit was minimal. Isaac de Rasière found in 1626 that it was not easy to make the colonists sell the pelts to him, especially as they had other options. For instance, Ondercommies Gerrit Fongersz. offered the colonists a higher price than De Rasière was prepared to pay on behalf of the Company. Fongersz. planned to ship the beavers to the fatherland for his own account, a plan that De Rasière opposed. The extent to which employees of the WIC and colonists were permitted to take beaver pelts back to patria is not completely clear. It is probable that, as with the VOC, a limited amount of private trading was accepted. Gunner’s mate Jan Baptist

26

NYSL, VRMP, box 48, II, folder 15 (17 December 1657; CJVR 73). Rich, ‘Russia and the Colonial Fur Trade’, 311; Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’, 106. 27

204

chapter four

van Antwerpen, who in 1632 returned from the colony on the ship Nieu Nederlant, took twenty-three beaver pelts with him with permission of the Company. Without doubt many others did not bother to seek permission.28 At the introduction of the system of patroonships, the extent to which the patroons could engage in the fur trade had been limited: the patroons were allowed to trade only in areas where the Company did not have a trading post. Furthermore, one guilder per pelt had to be paid as recognition fee. Van Rensselaer, interpreting this as a transfer of the WIC’s monopoly of the fur trade to the patroons, tried to exclude the majority of his workers in the colony from the trade, although it is doubtful that he was successful. After the WIC had surrendered its monopoly, Van Rensselaer tried to keep a firm grip on the exclusive rights to the fur trade that, in his opinion, accrued to him according to the old Freedoms and Exemptions of 1629. Every so often he granted exemptions to his colonists, such as to Abraham Staets and Evert Pels, who as surgeon and brewer joined his service in 1642. They were permitted to export a limited number of beaver pelts, on payment of one guilder per pelt to the patroon.29 Van Rensselaer took pains to do everything according to the WIC’s rules, albeit he interpreted the rules somewhat one-sidedly. Other patroons were more casual. David Pietersz. de Vries as participant in the colonization of Swanendael was technically a patroon and thus was allowed to engage in the fur trade, to a limited extent. Still, it is doubtful that he declared to the WIC the pelts he had obtained on his journey with the ship Walvis in 1632–1633. At the request of two other participants in Swanendael, Samuel Godijn and Samuel Blommaert, members of the crew declared that while the ship was at Texel De Vries had unloaded eight bales of beaver and otter pelts and one hundred loose pelts into a lighter and had left with them for Medemblik. In his Korte Historiael De Vries dismissed the incident. Yes, when leaving New Netherland there had been

28 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 114, 130, 167, 171–172 (DRNN, 10, 67, 196, 214–217); GAA, NA, inv. no. 843, not paginated (7 April 1632). 29 Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 15 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 144–146); Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 14, fol. 93 (15 November 1635); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 17–17v (20 July 1632; VRBM, 209), fol. 108v (14 September 1638; VRBM, 425); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1054, fols. 68v–69 (1 February 1642), inv. no. 1062, pp. 110–111 (7 June 1642).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

205

problems with the inspection, and yes, he had taken a lighter from Texel to Medemblik, but he was only importing ‘two or four beaver pelts’, so why did his co-patroons make such a fuss about it? For De Vries, who cannot be accused of being perfectly honest in this case, it was sufficient reason to terminate his involvement with the patroons.30 Smuggling and illicit trading could never be prevented completely. An ordinance of 1638 stated rather exaggeratedly that illicit cargo took up so much room in the holds of the WIC ships that hardly any room was left for the legal goods. Nevertheless, it is not likely that the smuggling featured significantly in the considerations concerning the abolition of the fur monopoly. Rather, the pressure exerted by the States General on the West India Company to take measures that would make immigration more attractive played a leading part in the abolition of the WIC’s monopoly. In addition, in this decade other government-granted monopolies were also under discussion in the Dutch Republic. The WIC monopoly on the shipping to and trade with Brazil had already partly been abolished in the 1630s, and the Northern Company, which had a monopoly on whaling, came to grief in about 1640. By the 1640s, the WIC had not only lost the monopoly on the fur trade, but also shipping rights to New Netherland were opened to all citizens of the Dutch Republic, provided a recognition fee was paid to the Company.31 This development required the New Netherland authorities to tighten the regulations on shipping and the carriage of goods. The procedures were laid down in a number of ordinances. On arrival at New Netherland the ships had to anchor on the East River, to the south-east of the fort. The fiscael carried out an inspection before anyone was permitted to land. The cargo was unloaded into sloops, which then sailed to a landing stage. From there the goods were taken to the WIC warehouse, where the contents of the chests were compared with the bills of lading. The goods were released to the

30 GAA, NA, inv. no. 727, fol. 315 (29 July 1633), inv. no. 727, fols. 337–337v (13 August 1633), inv. no. 727, fol. 356 (30 August 1633); De Vries, Korte Historiael, 177–178, 183 (NNN, 190–191). 31 NYSA, NYCM 4: 7 (7 June 1638; NYHM 4: 10); Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 45; Bruijn, ‘Walvisvaart’, 22; Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 II (ingekomen 1640) C. 1049 (19 July 1640; DRCHNY 1: 119–123); Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 137.

206

chapter four

addressee after they had been checked and the relevant excise had been paid. The procedure for the export of goods was largely similar. During the ships’ stay in port, the traffic between ship and shore was subject to strict rules. The colonists were allowed to board ships only after they had been granted permission. The crew was not allowed to stay on land overnight, and journeys by sloop to and from the ships at night were forbidden. The cargo was transported in chests, which were identified with merchants’ marks, usually the initials of the addressee. During the checking of cargo in the Company warehouse, the chests were re-verified, opened, and pelts for which excise duty had been paid were marked with the company’s monogram in white chalk.32 Not even checks and severe punishments could prevent large-scale smuggling. The most commonly used method was to load or unload goods out of sight of the Company authorities. As ships approached New Amsterdam, contraband could be put overboard in watertight chests, to be recovered later when the coast was clear. And when ships left New Netherland, beaver pelts that had been left on one of the uninhabited islands off the coast could be picked up. To prevent this, a guard ship was stationed near Sandy Hook [Santpunt], probably with little success. On the other side of the Atlantic, contraband was transported in small vessels to and from Edam, Medemblik, or Durgerdam, while the ship was on route between Texel and Amsterdam.33 Apart from the loss of income caused by the evasion of excise duties, the relationship with the Indians was another reason for the government to try to regulate the fur trade. At an early stage, probably within a couple of years after the Mohawk-Mahican War ended in 1628, the fur trade was concentrated in the area around Fort

32 NYSA, NYCM 4: 304 (4 July 1647; NYHM 4: 391), 2 (April 1639; NYHM 4: 3–4), 304 (4 July 1647; NYHM 4: 390–392), 369 (10 March 1648; NYHM 4: 495), 300–301 (4 July 1647; NYHM 4: 383–386), 359 (29 January 1648; NYHM 4: 478), 397 (16 July 1648; NYHM 4: 538); NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 3 (pp. 11–12) (25 August 1660; CJVR 231–232), folder 3 (pp. 23–24) (2 June 1661; CJVR 256–257). 33 NYSA, NYCM 4: 389 (19 June 1648; NYHM 4: 524), 389–390 (23 June 1648; NYHM 4: 525–527), 10–2: 283 (6 September 1663), 10–3: 51 (20 September 1663); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1289, fols. 99v–100 (15 July 1644); Kupp, ‘Records Depict Fur Smuggling Episode in 1658’.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

207

Orange.34 Little is known about how trade was conducted there in the 1630s and 1640s. One of the few sources is the journal that Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert kept during his journey in the land of the Mohawks and Oneidas in 1634 and 1635. Together with Willem Thomasz. and Jeronimus Gerritsz., and accompanied by a number of Mohawks, he set out in December 1634 to try to discover why the fur trade had turned bad recently. When after a journey of nineteen days they arrived in the land of the Oneidas, the cause of the decline turned out to be the competition from the French in Canada: the French had come here to trade with them and had given them good gifts, for they had traded with them in the aforementioned river last August of this year with six men. We saw there good timber axes and French shirts and coats and razors. And this councilor, he derided us as scoundrels and [said] that we did not care for them because we gave them so little for their pelts. They said that the French gave them six hands of seewant for a beaver and all sorts of things more.35

Nevertheless, after a few days the Oneidas began to show some appreciation for the visit of Van den Bogaert and his companions. The Indians gave the Dutchmen gifts, and asked that they would get four hands sewant and four hands of long cloth for each large beaver, ‘for we have to go far with our pelts and if we then arrive, we often find no cloth, no sewant, no axes, kettles, or anything else and we have wasted our effort. Then we have to go back a long way and carry our goods again.’

Van den Bogaert was unable to agree on a higher price for the peltries, but promised that he and his companions ‘would tell the chief at the Manhatas, who was our commander’ of the Indians’ request.36 Van den Bogaert’s account highlights several aspects of the fur trade, such as the competition with other Europeans, the importance of sewant, the necessity to exchange gifts and the desirability of having sufficient stocks of merchandise to trade, in particular woolen

34

Starna and Brandão, ‘From the Mohawk-Mahican War to the Beaver War’. Huntington Library, San Marino, HM 819, journal of Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert, p. 14 (30 December 1634; Gehring and Starna, A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, 13). 36 Huntington Library, San Marino, HM 819, journal of Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert, p. 17 (3 January 1635; Gehring and Starna, A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, 15–16). 35

208

chapter four

cloth and hardware. But at the same time, the journey was atypical: the usual practice was that the Indians came to Fort Orange; only rarely did the Dutch venture out of their trading posts to meet the Indians in their own land, as did the French coureurs de bois. Furthermore, the situation changed when the monopoly on the fur trade was abandoned. The system of fixed prices in existence in Van den Bogaert’s time was no longer applied. Each colonist could now decide for himself how much he wanted to pay for beaver pelts. However, this did not mean that every sort of commodity could be traded with Indians in exchange for beavers. Trading in alcohol and weapons was not permitted. Supplying the Indians with liquor was forbidden in various ordinances, starting in 1643. It was ‘a very dangerous offence, tending to the general ruin of the country, which cannot be tolerated in a place where justice prevails’. For the Indians, getting drunk was a way of going into a trance, bringing on visions and developing a closer contact with the spiritual world, albeit temporarily. But often the result was that the Indians in their drunkenness became violent, or that the Dutch took advantage of their drunken helplessness by cheating them, robbing them of their pelts, or killing them, as happened at the beginning of the Second Esopus War. To prevent such excesses, severe punishments were promulgated: an ordinance of 1656 presented offenders with the prospect of a fine of five hundred guilders, flogging and banishment. In practice, however, punishments were much lighter. In Beverwijck where the majority of offences were committed, the schepenen tended to show mercy rather than apply the full weight of the law, especially if the guilty party showed remorse and promised to improve his or her behavior. And if a severe sentence was pronounced, such as banishment, it was not usually enforced.37 This did not mean that a blind eye was turned on the practice, as twenty-three-year-old Susanna Jans was to discover. On Sunday 12 August 1657, a group of rowdy and drunken Indians went through Beverwijck, disrupting the church service. Officer Johannes La Montagne’s investigation led to a Mohawk Indian called Kanigeragae who, in return for payment of one beaver, was

37 ACHR, CMFO 1658–1659, p. 70 (16 July 1658; FOCM, 388); Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 86; Jacobs and Shattuck, ‘Bevers voor drank, land voor wapens’, 100; NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 93 (26 October 1656; LWA, 72).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

209

prepared to disclose where he had obtained the alcohol. The next evening La Montagne, accompanied by two magistrates and the lieutenant of the burgher guard, followed the Indian to the house of Marten Hendricksz. de Bierkaecker. Kanigeragae went inside, but as some other patrons were present, he was unable to get his kettle filled with alcohol. Three-quarters of an hour later he tried again, and this time he emerged from the house with a full kettle. La Montagne questioned the proprietor, Marten de Bierkaecker and his wife Susanna Jans, and Susanna admitted to having provided the drink. In the court case that followed, the prescribed fine of five hundred guilders and banishment were demanded. Susanna admitted her guilt, but stated that it had all happened through extreme poverty, her husband being broken on both sides and thus unable to earn his living, being burdened with three small children for whom she cannot get food except for beavers, which she had sought to buy the week before in many places for sewant at ƒ 12 apiece, but could not get.

When Kanigeragae offered her a beaver she had sold him ‘about three pints of beer, brandy, French and Spanish wine, mixed together’, which must have given him quite a headache. She begged the court’s ‘forgiveness in consideration of her youth and extreme poverty, promising henceforth not to do so again’. Unfortunately, the size of the fine imposed on her is unknown, but the courts were often lenient in cases of hardship.38 Even more unforgivable in the eyes of the authorities than providing the Indians with alcohol was for private individuals to supply them with weapons and ammunition. On their expedition into Mohawk country, Van den Bogaert reported that he and his companions were repeatedly asked to fire their guns, which suggests that the Mohawks were not much acquainted with firearms at that time and certainly did not yet possess them. As far as is known, this started to change around 1640, although it is possible that the Algonquian groups in a more southerly area acquired firearms earlier. A 1639 ordinance required the death penalty for the sale of weapons, gunpowder and lead to Indians. In all likelihood this sentence was

38 NYSA, NYCM 16–2: 103–105 (15 August 1657; FOCM, 323–325), 109–110 (20 August 1657; FOCM, 328).

210

chapter four

never actually carried out, but it does show how serious the trade in weapons was considered to be. The death penalty was reiterated in an ordinance of 1645, and in this time of the wars with the Indians it was even said ‘our enemies are better provided with powder than we’. Furthermore, the French king had complained to the States General that the Canadian Indians were buying firearms from the Dutch. Subsequently, their High Mightinesses had given the directors in Amsterdam the order to forbid this trade. From the English colonies, too, came accusations of the ‘dangerous liberty taken by many of yours in selling guns, powder, shott and other instrument’s of warr to the Indians not onely at your forte Aurania’, but also in other places. The Commissioners of the United Colonies, who complained to Stuyvesant, added: ‘though possibly you haue good lawes to suppresse soe mischeevous a trade, yet soe stronge is the temptation by an excessiue gaine arising thence’.39 Thus, the arms trade put international relations in jeopardy and increased the risks in the event of conflicts with the Indians. But once the Indians had discovered the advantages of firearms it was impossible to stop the trade. To keep the situation under control, the arms trade in New Netherland was made the monopoly of the government. The directors in patria ordered director general and council not to risk war with the Indians by bluntly refusing to sell them arms and ammunition, and to ensure that such trade took place as little as possible. In 1654, a magistrate of Beverwijck, Rutger Jacobsz., was instructed to accommodate the Mohawks with some powder and lead, but he had to do it as moderately and secretly as possible. If the Mohawks were denied ammunition the relations would suffer and hostilities might break out. Furthermore, it was feared that the Mohawks would acquire their gunpowder and lead from the English, with the risk that the beaver trade would be diverted.40 Of course, some private traders tried to exploit the lucrative trade in arms illegally. In 1648, in the court at Rensselaerswijck the death

39 Gehring and Starna, A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, 39–40, n. 69; NYSA, NYCM 4: 36 (31 March 1639; NYHM 4: 42–43), 216 (23 February 1645; NYHM 4: 256–257); Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives, 2: 97 (I thank Martha Shattuck for this reference). 40 NYSA, NYCM 11: 12, p. 2 (7 April 1648; Corres. 1647–1653, 55), 5: 215–216 (25 February 1654; NYHM 5: 116).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

211

sentence was called for against Michiel Jansz. for supplying ammunition to the Indians, which according to the prosecutor he had done only to satisfy his ‘vulgar greed’.41 Various others were prosecuted for the same offence, and ordinances concerning the trade in weapons were promulgated a number of times in the 1650s, a clear indication that the problem had not vanished. It is difficult to estimate the share of alcohol and firearms in the total package of merchandise traded by the Europeans with the Indians. Weapons are commonly found in archaeological excavations of Indian burial sites, and the same applies to textiles and metal objects. The information on payments for land and for ransoms for captured Netherlanders indicates that in addition to arms, gunpowder and lead, woolen, duffel and linen clothing, metal instruments such as knives, axes, kettles, and adzes were also traded.42 These were objects the Indians could also obtain in Beverwijck during the normal trading season. Most beavers were trapped in the winter. Each year from June to August, hundreds of Indians came down the Mohawk River in canoes to approximately thirty kilometers north-west of Beverwijck, the location of the present-day Schenectady, where the Cohoes Falls and rapids make the river impassable for canoes. They walked from Schenectady with packs of beaver pelts on their backs to Beverwijck, either through the forest over the ‘Maquas path’ (later called the ‘Kings Highway’), or along a bluff in the Helderberghs on a path still known as the ‘Indian trail’. In Beverwijck they sometimes slept in the homes of colonists, but in the English period separate huts were also built specially for them. It is possible that this practice had already begun earlier. Once they had arrived in the town the Indians went from house to house to get the best price for their beavers.43 The example of Susanna Jans makes clear how important the trade in beaver pelts could be for individual colonists. The competition

41

NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder 11 and 12 (15 October 1648; MCR, 36–39). NYSA, NYCM 11: 53, p. 1 (4 April 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 144), 8: 135–136 (11 August 1656; LO, 236–239), 814 (4 April 1658; LO, 346), 18: 24, ‘veerthiende titule’ (9 December 1656; DP, 95); Nat. Arch., SG, Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4846, fol. 263r (31 May 1658; DRCHNY 2: 48); Puype, Dutch and other Flintlocks; Baart, ‘Hode-no-sau-nee en de Nederlanders’, 96; Jacobs and Shattuck, ‘Bevers voor drank, land voor wapens’, 109. 43 Jacobs and Shattuck, ‘Bevers voor drank, land voor wapens’, 104–105. 42

212

chapter four

was fierce, and could have adverse consequences for the relations with Indians. Handing out gifts to sway the Indians into selling all their beavers to a single trader was still relatively innocuous, but the attempts to persuade the Indians could also take on more violent forms. Indians were sometimes beaten and obstructed as they went from house to house. Complaints from the Indians resulted in a few prosecutions. For example, Jochem Becker, no stranger to violence, was fined two Flemish pounds for assaulting an Indian.44 Another undesirable result of the competition was the tendency of the Dutch to wait for the Indians in the forest before they arrived in Beverwijck to trade for the beaver pelts there. The practice of going inland and looking for the Indians had already been carried out by itinerant traders on the South River, but was swiftly prohibited by the director general and council. A similar prohibition was also promulgated for Beverwijck some years later, as the authorities were of the opinion that it would make the Indians lazy and thus it would be disadvantageous to trade. Furthermore, it was not free of danger: the Indians could be tempted to steal the merchandise and kill the traders. When trading in the forest was forbidden, inhabitants of Beverwijck tried to get around the letter of the law by using go-betweens, who would wait for the Indians and persuade them to do business only with certain traders. The use of such maeckelaers [brokers], both Indian and European, was prohibited in an ordinance of 1654, which was read out each year prior to the commencement of the trading season.45 When the trade in peltries began to diminish, the competition in Beverwijck became increasingly fierce, with the result that many of the prohibitions were regularly contravened. As a consequence the court in Beverwijck on several occasions made an exception to the general ordinances by allowing the use of Indian brokers for one year. An additional problem was that the use of brokers was expensive, and was therefore only possible for the larger fur traders, who in this way drove the smaller traders out of the market. And it was mainly the large traders who sat on the Beverwijck court and thus

44

ACHR, CMFO 1658–1659, p. 14 (8 February 1658; FOCM, 352). NYSA, NYCM 4: 296 (18 June 1647; NYHM 4: 376–377), 5: 68 (30 September 1652; NYHM 5: 43), 16–3: 154–155 (31 May 1660; FOCM, 492); Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 256. 45

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

213

had the opportunity of drawing up ordinances that promoted their own interests, barring the intervention of the director general and council.46 In 1660 this situation led to a serious conflict within the community of Beverwijck. On 25 May, the principaelste handelaers [principal traders], presented a petition in which they asked that only wilde makelaers [Indian brokers] be allowed to promote the trade. The court hesitated and decided to call the entire community together in the fort to lay the matter before the people. At the meeting the general opinion was that it would be better if the fifty thousand guilders per year paid to the Indian brokers be granted to Dutch brokers, a recommendation that was diametrically opposed to the wishes of the principal traders. The latter repeated their request in a second petition, signed by twenty-five traders. The gemeene handelaers [common traders] submitted a request two days later, which was signed by fifty-four people. The vice-director of Fort Orange, Johannes la Montagne wrote to Stuyvesant about the problem, reporting that ‘the matter led to insults and thereafter to heavy threats’. The court was divided and with difficulty reached a compromise: neither duijtsen noch wilde maeckelaers [Dutch nor Indian brokers] will be used in the trade, on the penalty of three hundred guilders and suspension of their trade for the time of two months.47

But it quickly became apparent that the compromise was untenable. A month of several violations followed, and on 17 June the magistrates had to decide to allow both Indian and Dutch brokers again. Nine days later the Mohawks came to complain that the Dutch treated them with violence if they met them in the forest. In this way the Indians became the victims of the competition among the Dutch, who tried to persuade them to trade exclusively with them. The Mohawks warned that the friendship between themselves and the Dutch, which had existed for more than thirty years, was put at risk. The court in Beverwijck took the hint and decided immediately to reverse its decision and to permit only the use of Indian

46 NYSA, NYCM 16–2: 71 (29 May 1657; FOCM, 299); Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 254–268. 47 NYSA, NYCM 13: 114 (15 June 1660; DRCHNY 13: 175); Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 275–280; Sullivan, The Punishment of Crime, 148–159; Merwick, Possessing Albany, 89, 94.

214

chapter four

brokers. As could be expected, a number of Dutchmen nonetheless went into the forests. If they were caught, they presented a variety of innocent sounding reasons for their presence, such as the picking of berries or searching for stray horses. After the arrival of Stuyvesant on 22 July order was quickly restored. He listened to the complaints from both sides and then decided that the use of both Indian and Dutch brokers would be prohibited. Without doubt violations occurred in the years that followed, and it was therefore necessary to repeat the ordinance in 1662. The absence of the minutes of the court at Beverwijck for 1661 through 1667 makes it impossible to say whether the dissension between the principal traders and the common traders dragged on.48 The fur trade not only played an important role in the economy of New Netherland, it also had great influence on the relations with the Indians. The conflict in Beverwijck in 1660 demonstrates that there the fur trade was of such importance that its decline exerted serious pressure on the society. At the same time the decline brought with it such effects only in Beverwijck. In the rest of New Netherland the direct fur trade had become less important by the late 1650s.

Farms and Plantations The agriculture of New Netherland is a subject in which plans and expectations in the Netherlands contrast sharply with the actual development of the colony. Long before the founding of the WIC, Willem Usselincx had grandiloquent visions of settlement colonies that could provide the Dutch Republic with raw materials, and in which he, as Otto Keye later, had Guyana rather than New Netherland in mind. For the directors of the West India Company such plans initially scarcely played a role, but the idea did not pass entirely into oblivion. It was one of the motives in the establishment of the patroonship system in 1629. In 1638 the Heren XIX were of the opinion that in the long run a considerable amount of grain could come from the colony. In the plans for New Amstel, one of the considerations

48 NYSA, NYCM 16–3: 171 (17 June 1660; FOCM, 502), 172 (26 June 1660; FOCM, 503), 186 (15 July 1660; FOCM, 511–512), 191–192 (22 July 1660; FOCM, 514–515), 10–1: 186–188 (5 August 1662; LO, 425–426).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

215

was ‘not to be always dependent exclusively on the Oostzee [Baltic Sea]’, from where the major proportion of the grain imported into the Netherlands came.49 New Netherland as the granary of the Dutch Republic was even mentioned by Vondel in his poem ‘Zeemagazijn’, where he exalts it with the words: Nieu Nederlant, bezaeit, belooft ons maght van koren. Een ander Polen schijnt voor Hollant daer geboren.50 [New Netherland, richly sown, promises us plentiful corn. Another Poland appears for Holland there to have been born.]

A major problem with these ambitions was that the costs of freighting bulk goods from New Netherland were considerably higher than from the Baltic area. Van Claef Bachman has argued that the costs of shipping grain from New Netherland were approximately twice as high as the transport of goods from the Baltic.51 That argument becomes less valid if New Netherland is not considered a competitor to the Baltic area, but rather as complementary or as a strategic reserve in the event of the closure of the Sound, the narrow strait between Denmark and Sweden. In New Netherland, the colony’s potential importance as a granary was also recognized, and it was used as an argument when requesting help from the Dutch Republic against the English: this well situated province, where thousands of morgen[s] of land are still lying uninhabited, uncultivated, yes, which could even function as a retreat if (which God prevent) our Netherlands should be visited with heavy war, both within and without, and also as a granary in the case the easterly crops are lacking, or trade is prohibited by the northern king or rulers.52

Furthermore, the burgemeesters of New Amsterdam in February 1664 reported that eight thousand schepels [6,112 bushels] of winter grain were expected, in addition to large amounts of summer grain and other agricultural products. To gain the much-needed support, the

49 Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 81; De Vries and Van der Woude, Nederland 1500–1815, 775–776; GAA, AV, inv. no. 21, fols. 76v–77 (3 March 1656; DRCHNY 1: 614); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.6 (30 April 1638; DRCHNY 1: 107), secrete kas, inv. no. 12582.9 (24 January 1656; DRCHNY 1: 587). 50 Sterk, Werken van Vondel, 8: 653–665, l. 317–318. 51 Bachman, Peltries or Plantations, 63–73, 157–160. 52 NYMA, AMNA 2, p. 127 (20 February 1664; MOM 2: 186).

216

chapter four

magistrates may have indulged in a little exaggeration. Similarly, the communication made by the burgemeesters to the States General nine years later, when the province was once more in Dutch hands, is doubtful. According to them, the area around the Esopus alone, which consisted of three villages, had in 1672 produced twenty-five thousand schepels [19,100 bushels] of corn. The commissioners of New Amstel were also optimistic, and in 1664 estimated that within two years the South River could supply at least ten thousand schepels [7,640 bushels] of grain.53 Apart from these three estimates the extent of agriculture in New Netherland is unknown. It may be assumed that from 1625 the total production initially grew at a rate roughly similar to that of the growth of the population of the colony. In the early years the greatest proportion was probably used for consumption in the colony itself, and it is doubtful whether the local produce was sufficient to feed everyone. The colonists regularly supplemented their provisions by obtaining maize from the Indians, and this may have influenced Kieft and his council in 1639 when they decided to have the Indians pay contributions partly in maize. There is no indication of any grain exported to the Dutch Republic, but the WIC still thought that New Netherland could in time supply Brazil with foodstuff. Kiliaen van Rensselaer also believed that opportunities existed for grain trade with other Dutch colonies, such as Brazil and the trading forts on the West African coast. The great expectations for trade between the Dutch Atlantic colonies were never fulfilled, because Brazil was lost before agriculture in New Netherland produced any substantial surpluses. Indeed, one shipment of corn was sent to Curaçao in 1654, but that was the extent of it. In 1668 Jeremias van Rensselaer exported wheat to Boston, where he was able to obtain a better price for it than in New York. In the Dutch days of New York, the export of products from agriculture never reached the proportions that it was to reach later in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.54

53 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5769 (ingekomen 1674) (8 September 1673; DRCHNY 2: 526–527); GAA, AV, inv. no. 99, fols. 2r–3r (8 July 1664; DRCHNY 2: 244). 54 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Rapport ende advijs over de gelegentheijt van Nieu nederlant’ (15 December 1644; DRCHNY 1: 152); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 41v (25 November 1633; VRBM, 235); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1307, fols. 64v–65 (10 March 1657); NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 50 (pp. 123–124) (16 November 1669; CJVR 416); Simmons, American Colonies, 132.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

217

Despite the lack of exportable surplus, agriculture was important in the economy of New Netherland and in the livelihood of the colonists. Three forms of agricultural activity were the most important: crop farming, stockbreeding and tobacco growing. Other plans, such as those to set up sericulture, illustrate the Dutch efforts to make New Netherland a success, but they never got off the ground. Fishery, too, after a half-hearted attempt at whaling in the South River, was never of importance.55 Agricultural activities began when colonization started in 1624. In his instructions, Verhulst was ordered to give ‘each household as much land as they are able to cultivate’. The Provisional Regulations instructed the colonists ‘to plant and sow first the lands allotted to them with such crops and fruits’ as the West India Company would prescribe and make available.56 As with the fur trade, agriculture for the first fifteen years was exclusively run by the West India Company, which concentrated its activities on Manhattan. The island may have been a good choice for strategic reasons, but its soil was less fertile than elsewhere in New Netherland. The WIC retained ownership of the cultivated lands, the buildings and the stock, and installed the colonists as tenants. After a few years the WIC’s hold on matters became less firm, as the stock was sold to the tenants. Until 1630 some eight bouwerijen [boweries] were set up on Manhattan in this way, consisting of a farmhouse, a haystack, a barn and fifty morgen of land, about a hundred acres. In the years that followed, various farms fell into disuse because the tenants abandoned them. The remaining farms were not very productive and rarely produced sufficient harvests to provide the WIC’s employees with food, not to mention the export market. The Company gradually sold the farms to private individuals, some of whom installed tenants. The last farm to be in the hands of the WIC was the so-called Directors’ Bowery, which Stuyvesant bought in 1651.57 The decline of the West India Company farms was speeded up by the implementation of the patroonship system. Cattle was bought up on Manhattan and transported to the patroonships by the patroons,

55 NYSA, NYCM 12: 56, pp. 4–5 (7 April 1657; Corres. 1654–1658, 128), 11: 75, p. 8 (13 December 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 192); De Vries, Korte Historiael, 147. 56 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 123, 117 (DRNN, 40, 17). 57 Folkerts, ‘The Failure of West India Company Farming’.

218

chapter four

and in particular by Van Rensselaer. Furthermore some Company tenants were inclined to move on to Rensselaerswijck after the expiration of their contracts, if they had not saved sufficient funds to set up a farm on more fertile ground than that on Manhattan. The tenancy agreements that were entered into for Rensselaerswijck provide some insight into tenants’ rights and duties, even if these date from some time later. A good example is the contract that Theunis Dircksz. van Vechten agreed with Jeremias van Rensselaer, director of Rensselaerswijck, in 1666. Theunis Dircksz. was obliged to maintain the house, the barn and the haystacks at his own expense, and after the expiration of his six-years’ tenancy hand the property back in good condition. Lacking in his contract was a common stipulation that in the event of a fire the damage was divided between tenant and landlord, but in the case of war damage, or damage caused by flooding or drifting ice, the costs were entirely the responsibility of the patroon. Since there had been problems in the past with the return of cattle, the contract with Theunis Dircksz. stated that he was to deliver four mares, one gelding, four dairy cows and one bull at the end of his tenancy, prior to the division of the increase. In many instances the cattle was rented op halve aantelinge [on half the increase], in which the tenant took care of the animals and had a right to half the offspring. If after six years the tenancy was transferred to someone else, the sown land would be valued. Every two years the tenant had to spread the accumulated animal dung over the fields and remove trees and tree stumps. In the case of Theunis Dircksz. the rent was set at 450 guilders per year, to be paid in grain. In addition, Dircksz. had to pay the requisite tenths to the patroon. The final clause in the contract with Theunis Dircksz. is revealing: Finally the tenant promises to conduct himself quietly, obediently and diligently, and to follow all good laws as an obedient subject, and to respect the lord director [of Rensselaerswijck] and the commissaries as his lawful government.58

The inclusion of such a clause suggests that not all tenants exercised the required diligence and obedience. In November 1648, Cornelis Hendricksz. van Nes probably had a foreboding that the tenancy of

58

NYSL, mss 10643 (1666–1703; Guide, no. 173).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

219

his farm in Rensselaerswijck was not going to be renewed. He did not take the cattle entrusted to his care into their winter quarters but rather left them to fend for themselves. As a result, he was brought before the court by director Brant van Slichtenhorst and sued for damages. Finding good tenants was no simple matter, and for Rensselaerswijck preference was given to ‘highland’ farmers from the east of the Netherlands over ‘lowland’ farmers from Holland and Zeeland. Ex-director Wouter van Twiller was more specific when he hired two farmhands: they had to practice farming in the way it was done in the province of Gelderland. Despite having been so carefully selected, tenants regularly decided to set out for themselves, sometimes abandoning their rented farm before their master had found a new tenant. This may have played a role in the decision to sell off certain Rensselaerswijck farms. But negligent tenants, who were to be encountered as frequently in the Dutch Republic as in New Netherland, will not have been the most important cause of the productivity in Rensselaerswijck lagging far behind what had been hoped for in the Netherlands. Other factors played a role.59 Because of regular flooding, the farmlands along the North River were liberally provided with fertile river clay and were exceptionally well suited for agriculture. In spite of this, constant manure spreading was necessary, but farmers did not carry out this task as often as they should. Moreover, stones could make plowing difficult, and the removal of ‘inconvenient trees’ was no simple matter. The Dutch adopted the Indian practice of burning down areas of forest, a practice not without risk. Various houses were destroyed in this way, particularly in the early years. Another method was to strip the trees of bark just above the ground, causing them to slowly die. Jan Folkerts surmises that the use of the second method was prevalent. The disadvantage of both methods was that the stumps and roots remained in the ground for a long time and kept productivity low. Turning forest into farmland was a time-consuming affair, and Van der Donck’s remark that new farmers could be making a surplus as early as the third year is rather optimistic.60

59 NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder 16 (26 November 1648; MCR, 44–46); VRBM, 824–825; NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 155v (12 February 1642; VRBM, 605); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1060, fols. 89–89v (13 May 1641); Folkerts, ‘Kiliaen van Rensselaer’. 60 Folkerts, ‘Kiliaen van Rensselaer’, 300–301; NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol.

220

chapter four

In view of these problems it is no surprise that New Netherland did not shortly grow into a grain-exporting country. In the early years hardly enough foodstuff was produced to feed the colonists, and it is possible that they had to purchase maize from the Indians to survive. The Dutch also grew maize themselves to some extent, but wheat was considerably more important in the greater part of New Netherland, while rye, oats, and buckwheat were the most widely grown crops on the less fertile soil on Manhattan. Peas, beans, turnips, and clover were planted as fallow crops. Many houses had a kitchen garden, and in some cases a number of fruit trees. An orchard behind a house that Anthony Jansz. van Salee sold to Barent Dircksz. in 1639 contained twelve apple trees, forty peach trees, and no fewer than seventy-three cherry trees, in addition to twenty-six sage plants and fifteen grapevines. In the case of the seventy-three cherry trees, it is unlikely that the yield was solely intended for use by the farmer and his family, but the produce from most kitchen gardens was for family consumption.61 The government considered farming important for the provision of food and because the taxes levied upon it were an important source of income. The general tax of ten stivers per morgen of land was nominally on the low side in comparison with Holland.62 The most important land tax, as in the Dutch Republic, was the tienden [tenths], which had biblical origins (for instance Genesis 14:20). The traditional purpose of the tenths was to defray the costs of the church and the salary of the minister, although the revenues were not always sufficient and had to be supplemented from other means. As Kiliaen van Rensselaer put it, when farmers in his patroonship began to mutter: They want to dictate a different way of paying the predikant, but these fellows will become aware whether they are my masters or whether I am theirs. There is no more divine means than the tenths, for where the Lord God gives and lets grow nine trees, fish or schepels of corn,

135 (25 January 1641; VRBM, 520); NYSA, NYCM 2: 154j (26 January 1647; NYHM 2: 387–389); Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 16, 97 (Description, 21, 129). 61 Folkerts, ‘The Failure of West India Company Farming’; NYHM 1: 179 (18 June 1639). 62 NYSA, NYCM 12: 17, p. 3 (23 November 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 40); De Vries and Van der Woude, Nederland 1500–1815, 255.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

221

he [the farmer] can easily give the tenth in addition [and] be better blessed than those who try to keep it in their purse.63

Although the West India Company tried to help new farmers in New Netherland by exempting them from paying tenths for the first ten years, the tenths was envisioned as an important source of income. But in 1647 the collection had to be postponed for a year because the harvest was very meager as a result of the war with the Indians. A year later, the director general and council once again received a request for the cancellation of the tenths because of ‘the bad crop this year and many other impossibilities’. Once again director general and council acquiesced. But in 1649 the situation had not improved, and the export of grain was forbidden on a provisional basis, as was the use of it for the brewing of beer. In 1653, the harvest was again disappointing, and the ban had to be repeated, although there are no signs that the attempts to collect the tenths were halted this time. On the contrary, according to the wishes of the Amsterdam directors a number of recalcitrant farmers were hauled before the court at New Amsterdam by Fiscael Van Tienhoven to compel them to pay. But in 1655 and probably also in 1654 the director general and council managed to convince the directors that the collection of the tenths was not opportune that year, although according to the gentlemen in Amsterdam in future the tenths were always to be collected, even in the event of a poor harvest. In the years that followed, difficulties with farmers who refused to pay the tenths or tried to frustrate the collection were a regular occurrence. It was deemed necessary in 1663 to warn the inhabitants of Breuckelen and surrounding district not to collect their harvest from the fields until Adriaen Hegeman, the local schout, had come along to count the yield.64 Besides agriculture, stockbreeding was an important element in the

63

NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 129 (VRBM, 505–506). NYSA, NYCM 4: 11 (24 June 1638; NYHM 4: 16), 305 (6 July 1647; NYHM 4: 393), 393 (8 July 1648; NYHM 4: 532), 5: 128–129 (30 May 1653; NYHM 5: 72; the original of p. 129 is lost), 11: 38 (26 April 1651; Corres. 1647–1653, 124), 12: 18, p. 4 (26 April 1655; Corres. 1654–1658, 49–50), 45, p. 4 (19 December 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 105) 8: 607 (12 June 1657), 10–2: 218 (19 July 1663; LO, 445); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 20 (8 November 1649; RNA 1: 14), p. 139 (25 August 1653; RNA 1: 104–105), p. 146 (1 September 1653; RNA 1: 111–112); NSMA, VRBMs, 17 (19 July 1640; VRBM, 515). 64

222

chapter four

agricultural sector in New Netherland, both to provide meat and dairy products, but also because the manure from the animals was used in the fields. Many, if not all, farms had milk cows, horses, sheep, goats, chickens, and pigs. The first animals were imported from the Netherlands in 1625. The transport was organized by West India Company director Pieter Evertsz. Hulft, who had received instructions to do so from the Amsterdam chamber. ‘One hundred and three stallions and mares, bulls, and cows’, together with an unknown number of ‘hogs and sheep’, were loaded into two ships. These were specially equipped for transport: each animal has its own appropriate stall, heightened with three feet of sand, arranged as suitably as any stall here in this city [Amsterdam], every animal has its servant who attends it and who knows what he will get if he delivers it there alive; all fodder is there, oats, hay, and straw and what else is useful.65

In addition, special measures were taken for the supply of water, and an extra ship stocked with water and feed accompanied the vessel carrying the animals in case the journey lasted longer than planned. The costs of transporting animals across the Atlantic were considerable. The contract that Hulft made with the captains specified that 125 guilders would be paid for each horse or cow that was delivered alive to New Netherland, which with some 103 animals in all added up to a total of almost thirteen thousand guilders. The care that was taken paid off: only two animals died on the way. But another twenty died on Manhattan, probably because they ate ‘something bad from an uncultivated soil’, even though it had been impressed on Director Willem Verhulst in the Further Instructions to make sure that the beasts did not gorge themselves in the changeover from dry to fresh fodder.66 In later transatlantic transports of cattle, less care was taken and on many occasions animals died during the voyage. The journal of Anthony de Hooges, who made the crossing in 1641 on the Coninck David, makes constant reference to dead horses and cows, which had to be thrown overboard. According to Adriaen van der Donck, the

65

Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, April 1625, fol. 40v (NNN, 79). GAA, NA, inv. no. 226, fols. 63v–64 (27 May 1625); Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, April 1625, fol. 40v (NNN, 79), November 1625, fol. 181v (NNN, 82), November 1626, fol. 37v (NNN, 83); Wieder, De stichting van New York, 137 (DRNN, 89). 66

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

223

greatest number of horses originated in the province of Utrecht, but animals were also imported from New England and from Curaçao and Aruba. But these were not of a quality that found favor in the eyes of Van der Donck: they were less suitable for farm work, as they were too light. They could, however, be used for riding. The horses from Curaçao and Aruba were not used to the cold, and suffered from the New York winters. About the cows, Van der Donck reported that those of the Dutch kind were bought in the vicinity of Amersfoort. Cows were also brought in from New England.67 The reason to import cattle from other colonies, apart from avoiding the risks and costs of transatlantic transport, was that New England cattle were approximately forty per cent cheaper. Secretary Van Tienhoven stated in 1650 that a milk cow in New Netherland cost one hundred guilders, while one from New England cost sixty to seventy guilders. The price difference for a mare was about forty to fifty guilders. This difference may have been caused by a shortage of stock in New Netherland around 1650. This assumption is supported by the protests that arose when in November 1649 the director general and council decided to give their permission for the export of twenty horses to Barbados. When the States General rapped Stuyvesant on the knuckles for this, he reacted with the remark that he would of course comply with a ban on the export of animals, but he wondered whether this might cause trouble among the English in New Netherland as their principal activity was the trade in grain and animals. Despite these indications, a chronic shortage of animals is not likely. In Rensselaerswijck in 1651 farms averaged slightly over seven horses per farm, a rather high number not only for colonial America but also compared to the Dutch Republic.68 Little trouble was taken in New Netherland to keep the animals in enclosed areas. The pigs in particular were allowed to roam free

67 NSMA, VRBMs, 24 (30 July–29 November 1641; VRBM, 580–603); Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 32–33 (Description, 40–41). 68 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A (29 November and 13 December 1649; DRCHNY 1: 385–387), ‘Bedenckinge over het aenvaerden vande landerijen in Nieu Nederlant’ (4 March 1650; DRCHNY 1: 369); DRCHNY 1: 419 (17 August 1650; according to the reference in DRCHNY this document should be in ‘Lias West Indie 1650’, but I have not been able to find it in either Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5762 or 5763); Folkerts, ‘Kiliaen van Rensselaer’, 302; NSMA, VRBMs, 46 (1651, VRBM, 732–740); De Vries and Van der Woude, Nederland 1500–1815, 250.

224

chapter four

and forage for food in the forests, which caused quite some problems. The grazing by free-ranging horses and cows and the rooting by pigs on the walls of Fort Amsterdam were detrimental to the state of the defense works. Furthermore, it was not unusual that pigs tucked in to the sowing-seed in the fields or that goats helped themselves to a snack in orchards or vegetable gardens, which unavoidably led to conflicts. In October 1654, Wolfert Webber was summoned before the court in New Amsterdam as there had been complaints about wounds caused to another man’s pigs, after Webber set his dogs on them. His explanation was that the pigs had destroyed the seed on his land and he had had to take action. On various occasions he had brought the pigs back to their sty, but because he could not keep them off his land, he had finally used his dogs to chase them away. Although Webber denied that either he or his dogs had injured the pigs, the court warned him to ensure that there would be no further complaints against him on this score.69 Conflicts between the colonists were dealt with by the local courts, but dangerous situations could arise when Dutch settlers’ livestock destroyed the Indians’ maize fields. The fear of reprisals by the Indians is reflected in an ordinance of 1640: Whereas daily serious complaints are made by the wilden that the hogs and other cattle trample and uproot their maize pits and that consequently when the maize is growing great damage will be done, as a result of which the maize would be dear in the autumn and our good community would suffer want, the wilden would be caused to move and develop a hatred against our nation and some injury might happen to one or the other of us.70

For this reason, everyone had to take care that the animals were properly tended. In addition to paying for any damage to crops, offenders also had to pay a fine of several guilders. Similar ordinances, mostly accompanied by warnings to keep gates and fences in good order, were frequently proclaimed in the years that followed, although relations with Indians is mentioned specifically only in this

69 NYSA, NYCM 5: 19–20 (15 November 1651; NYHM 5: 13–14), 302–303 (11 July 1654; NYHM 5: 156); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 275 (5 October 1654; RNA 1: 247). 70 NYSA, NYCM 4: 60–61 (9 May 1640; NYHM 4: 73–74), 58 (15 March 1640; NYHM 4: 70–71); Williams, ‘Great Doggs and Mischievous Cattle’. The 1640 ordinance indicates that the colonists still relied on the Indians for part of their food.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

225

instance. In 1647 a schuthuys [pound] was built in New Amsterdam in which Fiscael Hendrick van Dijck could lock up stray animals until their owners had paid the fine. A similar measure was taken for the whole province in 1664. It was not only the crops that suffered from the attentions of the stray stock: in 1658 the city government of New Amsterdam prescribed that all pigs should have a ring put through their noses to prevent them from uprooting the streets and making them impassable for wagons and carts.71 Apart from the fact that straying animals caused damage, they could also easily come to harm. The Indians were quickly inclined to kill any animals seen destroying their crops. And the livestock also had an enemy in wolves, which were numerous in New Netherland. Although according to Van der Donck the wolves in America were smaller than those in patria, small livestock, and in particular sheep, were at danger from them. In 1649 the director of Rensselaerswijck decided to sell all his sheep to Stuyvesant, as the wolves did too much damage to the flock. Rewards were offered in many places for the shooting of wolves and foxes. In ’s-Gravesande on Long Island the bounty was two guilders for a fox and three for a wolf. A dead wolf was worth more in Rensselaerswijck: in 1650, Brant van Slichtenhorst paid twenty-four guilders for five wolves that had been captured. The death of a wolf was rewarded in Albany in 1671 with payment of six guilders in sewant, if a head, leg, or ear were produced as evidence. In 1673 the price on Manhattan had risen to twenty guilders in sewant for a male wolf and thirty guilders for a female. Even more than the increasing amounts paid in premiums, the continual re-promulgation of these ordinances is a sign that wolves continued to be an unremitting plague. But in this, New Netherland was no different from some parts of the Netherlands. In Amersfoort in Gelderland, for example, annual wolf hunts took place, and at the end of the seventeenth century premiums of 32 to 120 guilders were paid for killing a wolf.72

71 NYSA, NYCM 4: 366, 372 (10 and 16 March 1648; NYHM 4: 488–489), 299 (1 July 1647; NYHM 4: 380–381), 5: 466–467 (31 December 1654; NYHM 5: 217–218), 6: 95–96 (11 October 1655; CM 1655–1656, 91–92), 16–1: 60 (7 October 1655; LWA, 51), 6–7 (1 July 1647; LWA, 9), 10–3: 5–6 (3 January 1664; LO, 453–545), 239–240 (23 June 1664; LO, 462–463), 5–6 (3 January 1664; LO, 453–454), 23: 235 (16 April 1674); NYMA, ORCC 6, pp. 270–271 (14 November 1673; RNA 7: 22), ODR 1, p. 57 (19 August 1658; RNA 1: 38–39). 72 Van der Donck, Beschryvinge, 37 (Description, 46); NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder

226

chapter four

A way of protecting the livestock was the appointment of a herdsman. Nolle Morisse was appointed to this function in Haerlem in 1667. For the period mid-April to All Saints Day, 1 November, he was paid four hundred guilders in sewant and one half pound of butter per cow in his herd. In total nineteen persons entrusted twentytwo oxen and fifty-eight cows to his care. Herdsmen were also used in Wiltwijck and in other settlements. How it was supposed to work becomes clear from an incident in 1660. Gabriel Carpesy, the herdsman, complained to the court in New Amsterdam that Jan Jansz. refused to pay the six guilders, fifteen stivers, and a pound of butter that he owed for the care of his cow. The defending party stated that Gabriel had allowed the cow to stray in the forest and that the son of Jan Jansz. together with Dirck Siecken had been searching for the animal for two days. The herdsman answered that Jan Jansz. had not brought the cow to him to be led to the pasture after the horn had been blown, as was required. The court found for Gabriel Carpesy. Of course, other means than herders to keep the flocks or herds together were also employed. In 1654 the cattle breeders in Beverwijck asked the court permission to close off a section of the public highway with fences to form a ‘corral’ for the cattle. This was agreed to, on the provision that a ‘footstep’ was built at each side.73 Just as with agriculture, the government saw stockbreeding as a potential source of taxation. When in 1654 it was decided not to collect the tenths that year, director general and council imposed a tax on animals and land. An annual levy of one guilder per morgen of land had to be paid to the WIC’s collector. For each horned animal of more than three years old the tax was also one guilder, for animals of two years it was only twelve stivers. Two years later an excise duty was introduced on the slaughtering of animals. A tax of

46 (19 December 1649; MCR, 100); DRCHNY 14: 129 (8 January 1651); Beernink, Arend van Slichtenhorst, 278; ACHR, ‘Court minutes. City & County of Albany Clerk’s Office 1668. 1672’, pp. 276–277 and p. 224a (12 October 1671; CMARS 1: 276–277); NYMA, ORCC 6, p. 272 (14 November 1673; RNA 7: 24); Herks, Amersfoortse tabak, 48–49. 73 NYPL, James Riker Collection vol. 10 (court minutes Haerlem), pp. 29–32 (March 1667); UCHR, ‘Book 1’, pp. 16–17 (28 September 1661; KP 1: 3–4); OFDRCB, 46 (14 May 1662), 48 (27 September 1662), 56 (20 December 1662); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 498 (24 February 1660; RNA 3: 137); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 140 (9 June 1654; FOCM, 133).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

227

five per cent of the value of oxen, cows, calves, pigs, goats, or sheep had to be paid prior to their slaughter. In New Amsterdam the slaughter excise was farmed out to Gerrit Hendricksz., who was also granted the right to charge the twentieth penny on any meat brought into the city. If the meat was intended for export, a license had to be bought for the sum of three stivers.74 A regulation for bringing animals for slaughter into New Amsterdam was more necessary than elsewhere, as there already existed an annual cattle market there on 15 October 1641, and an annual pig market was introduced on 1 November of the same year. Whether these were continued in the years that followed is doubtful, as in 1659 burgemeesters and schepenen made a new decision to hold cattle markets. On this occasion it concerned markets for lean cattle in May and for fat cattle from 20 October to 30 November. These markets were fairly sizable as is evident from the fact that the burgemeesters took the trouble to have the poster advertizing them translated into English and copies of them sent to several English towns on Long Island.75 Tobacco, the third branch of the agricultural sector in the colony, was already known in the Dutch Republic before the colonization of New Netherland began. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, tobacco from Virginia was imported by the English Merchant Adventurers into the Dutch Republic via Middelburg. The high price paid for American tobacco not only played a role in the development of tobacco growing in the Netherlands, but may also have been an incentive for Kiliaen van Rensselaer to try it in Rensselaerswijck. In 1631 he made a tenancy agreement with Marijn Adriaensz. van Veere, who went over with four farmhands to set up a plantation. Although Van Rensselaer had great expectations for the venture, Marijn Adriaensz. did not manage to make tobacco culture a success, despite the fact that he probably received advice from an English

74

NYSA, NYCM 5: 260–261 (2 June 1654; NYHM 5: 141–142), 262 (2 September 1655; NYHM 5: 142), 339–340 (24 August 1654; NYHM 5: 170–171), 16–1: 53–55 (24 August 1654; LWA, 46), 63–64 (18 January 1656; LWA, 53), 12: 18, pp. 2–3 (26 April 1655; Corres. 1654–1658, 50); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 48 (1 October 1657; RNA 1: 32), p. 66 (25 September 1659; RNA 1: 44), ODR 2, pp. 79–80 (20 November 1656; RNA 2: 232–233). 75 NYSA, NYCM 4: 101 (25 September 1641; NYHM 4: 121), 8: 1047–1048 (28 November 1658; LO, 364–365); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 63 (7 January 1659; RNA 1: 42), AMNA 1, p. 102 (7 March 1659; RNA 7: 215–216).

228

chapter four

youth, Rutger Moris, who had gained experience in the culture in Virginia. The attempts may have failed because of the applied method. The tobacco was sown in the autumn and protected from the cold during the winter with horse manure. In the spring, the germinated tobacco plants were then re-planted. In the Dutch Republic, however, sheep manure with high contents of nitrogen and potassium was used, which was supposed to produce a better quality tobacco leaf. Furthermore, in the 1640s cold frames were already used, which enabled the planter to sow the seed in early spring. Another problem was that the growing season in Rensselaerswijck was too short. Further south, on Manhattan, Rutger Moris had been able to set up small-scale tobacco culture. Despite the lack of success, tobacco cultivation in Rensselaerswijck continued. The appointment of Brant van Slichtenhorst as director of Rensselaerswijck at the end of the 1640s may be due to his experience as a tobacco planter in Amersfoort. Kiliaen van Rensselaer’s expectations of tobacco growing were equally unrealistic as those for agriculture. Tobacco growing was a laborintensive activity and a shortage of experienced workers hampered production, even though Van Rensselaer recruited tobacco planters from Nijkerk, where the cultivation of tobacco had been set up with some success.76 While the first attempts to establish tobacco plantations in New Netherland were in general not successful, Dutch merchants engaged in a lively trade in Virginia tobacco. Most of it was shipped to London, and exported first to Middelburg and later to Rotterdam. In the early 1630s, several attempts were made to evade the English customs duties by setting up direct trade with Virginia but, as David Pietersz. de Vries discovered, this was no simple matter without having an agent permanently situated there. Better opportunities arose when the outbreak of the English Civil War made the English shipping with Virginia difficult. Dutch merchants were quick to fill the gap. Among them were the brothers Arent and Dirck Corsz. Stam.

76 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fols. 2–3v (12 January 1631; VRBM, 176–179), fol. 66v (23 April 1634; VRBM, 282–283), fol. 23 (20 July 1643; VRBM, 219), fols. 25–25v (27 July 1632; VRBM, 233), fols. 25–25v (27 July 1632; VRBM, 233), fol. 98 (29 December 1637; VRBM, 398), fols. 113v–114 (13 May 1639; VRBM, 447); Roessingh, Inlandse tabak, 108–112, 125–127, 188–189; Herks, Amersfoortse tabak, 19, 24, 67; Enthoven, Zeeland en de opkomst van de Republiek, 259, 263; Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches, 194; Folkerts, ‘Kiliaen van Rensselaer’, 302.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

229

They had gained experience with this trade while in the service of Van Rensselaer and decided to establish themselves in Virginia. In the years that followed they made a number of voyages between Virginia and Amsterdam, trading large amounts of tobacco: in 1639 a total of seventy-six thousand pounds, and two years later no fewer than a hundred thousand pounds, thereby surpassing the London merchants by far. In comparison, the amounts of tobacco that Kiliaen van Rensselaer received from Rensselaerswijck at the end of the 1630s were small. In 1639, 1258 pounds was shipped in seven barrels, of which after the deduction for rotted tobacco and a standard percentage for stalks 1156 pounds remained, which at eight stivers per pound yielded ƒ 462:8. In the course of time the tobacco culture improved, and four years later the production had already quadrupled. Van Rensselaer’s correspondence also shows that the tobacco was shipped in the form of whole leaves in barrels. Further processing, such as saucing and spinning, took place in Amsterdam, although it is likely that a small amount remained in New Netherland for consumption in the colony.77 In contrast with Virginia, tobacco culture on Manhattan and Long Island overcame its initial problems late, towards the end of the 1630s. Director Wouter van Twiller and his council already reported in 1635 that he could use a number of tobacco planters in the colony. The Manatus map of 1639 shows twenty-seven plantations, of which it can be surmised that the majority were tobacco plantations. Most of these were quite small in comparison with regular farms. The plantation of Christoffel Laurens and Raef Cardael, Dutch versions of Christopher Lawrence and Ralph Cardell, was only three morgens in size, which is roughly the same size as the tobacco plantations at Nijkerk and Amersfoort. Other plantations, for example the three

77 GAA, NA, inv. no. 414, fol. 173 (26 August 1636), inv. no. 1497, fols. 100–102 (11 May 1638), inv. no. 1621, not paginated (19 December 1639), inv. no. 696 B, folder 92, pp. 118–120 (8 July 1641), inv. no. 1280, fol. 69v–70 (25 May 1639); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 114 (13 May 1639; VRBM, 447), fol. 179 (16 March 1643; VRBM, 661); Pagan, ‘Dutch Maritime and Commercial Activity’; Kupp, ‘Dutch Notarial Acts’; Enthoven, Zeeland en de opkomst van de Republiek, 259; De Vries and Van der Woude, Nederland 1500 –1815, 220; Bailyn, New England Merchants, 45; Bijlsma, ‘Rotterdams Amerika-vaart’, 126–137; Ames, Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore, 47–50; Ames, County Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia, 1640–1645, 58, 98–99, 142–145, 148–151, 265, 295–296.

230

chapter four

at Paulushoek on the west bank of the North River opposite Manhattan, had an area of only one morgen. As they were in the Dutch Republic, plots were screened against the wind with hedges made of branches. For drying the tobacco, special barns were built, some of which were of a considerable size. A tobacco barn built in 1639 for Thomas Hall was a hundred feet long, twenty-four feet wide, and ten feet high, with two doors. However, the available information on tobacco barns is insufficient to point to the Netherlands as the origin of building specifications. On the whole, it can be questioned whether the techniques employed in tobacco were transferred from the Dutch Republic. The frequent occurrence of English names in contracts makes it more likely that planters from Virginia introduced the culture on Manhattan.78 The scattered details available on the tobacco production in New Netherland nevertheless allow some conclusions. In some instances, plantations were tenanted and the amount of the rent in the contract was expressed in pounds of tobacco, usually three hundred to three hundred and fifty pounds. If the rent amounted on average to one quarter of the total yield, then on the basis of twenty-seven plantations in 1639, a cautious estimate can be made that approximately thirty-five thousand pounds can have been produced in New Netherland at that time. This should be viewed as a minimum quantity. The increasing number of references to tobacco after 1639 show that in later years the production of tobacco grew quite considerably. The only other quantitative information available dates from 1663, and confirms this. In the plans for New Amstel an annual export of one thousand barrels of tobacco was conjectured, in total four hundred thousand pounds, of which the excise duty income (one-anda-half per cent of the value) would amount to six thousand guilders. This should imply a total export value of four hundred thousand guilders worth of New Netherlands tobacco. Even though this is only an estimate, possibly optimistic, which only refers to tobacco from New Amstel, New Netherland’s share in the total amount of North American tobacco that was shipped to Amsterdam was quite minor.

78 Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 50, doc. 32 (20 August 1635); NYHM 1: 34–35 (17 July 1638), 242 (3 November 1639), 76 (21 October 1638), 84 (21 October 1638), 119–120 (22 March 1639), 217 (29 August 1639); NYSA, NYCM 4: 4 (29 April 1638; NYHM 4: 5); Roessingh, Inlandse tabak, 121, 146–172; Phelps Stokes, Iconography, 4: 184–185; Zandvliet, Mapping for Money, 207.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

231

In 1675, the imports of Virginia tobacco to Amsterdam were estimated at a much higher twelve thousand barrels.79 Not just the quantity, but also the quality of the New Netherland tobacco left something to be desired. At an early stage the provincial government thought fit to appoint tobacco inspectors. On 12 August 1638, Claes van Elslandt and Wijbrant Pietersz. were appointed to supervise the quality of the New Netherland tobacco. A week later the tobacco planters who concentrated more on quantity than quality were warned by means of an ordinance to produce tobacco that was well cured and properly made. Besides the quality of the tobacco, transport allowed an opportunity for fraud, as the directors in patria remarked in 1654. The tobacco leaves were packed in the barrels in such a way that the top layers at both ends are the best, and in the middle the worst and most rotten is packed, which bad condition or rottenness often originates from moisture, as the same is packed too damp and not sufficiently cured, which causes the leaves to become wholly black and spoiled, while they are otherwise usually of a yellow color.80

The inspectors also had to watch out for this problem. An improvement in the quality would lead to higher price, and the aim was to make New Netherland tobacco competitive with Virginia tobacco, which would be for the good of the economy of New Netherland.81 In 1657 further plans for the inspection of tobacco were drafted by director general and council. A distinction was made between three qualities of tobacco: good, merchantable and poor, applying both to the tobacco from New Netherland and that from Virginia, which was shipped in significant quantities via New Netherland to the Dutch Republic. The hogsheads had to be branded with letters that indicated the quality. Discussions about the proposed ordinance were held with a number of prominent merchants in New Amsterdam, who expressed their fear ‘that the trade in Virginia tobacco would be utterly diverted from this place, if a stricter ordinance was enforced’.

79 NYHM 1: 154–155 (17 May 1639), 334 (25 May 1641); GAA, AV, inv. no. 98, fol. 111r (10 August 1663; DRCHNY 2: 212); Roessingh, Inlandse tabak, 238. 80 NYSA, NYCM 12: 17, p. 12 (23 November 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 45). 81 O’Callaghan, The Register of New Netherland, 115–116; NYSA, NYCM 4: 14 (12 August 1638; NYHM 4: 19), 16 (19 August 1638; NYHM 4: 20–21), 12: 17, p. 13 (23 November 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 45).

232

chapter four

The directors in Amsterdam, who had to approve the draft ordinance prior to promulgation, did not share this expectation, but decided not to force the ordinance through against the wishes of the merchants.82 The growth of tobacco exports also provided the government with an additional source of income. In determining the amount of the excise duty, careful account was taken with the difference between tobacco from New Netherland and that from other areas. In 1649 at the request of the colonists the directors in patria decided to reduce the excise on New Netherland tobacco to the level of that of the worst Caribbean tobacco, in the hope of furthering the tobacco culture and thus the development of the colony. The competition with Virginia tobacco was also taken into account in their considerations. In 1654 the excise duty on tobacco from Virginia was brought down from forty-five to thirty stivers per hundred pounds, but that for New Netherland tobacco was kept at twenty stivers, due to the directors’ fears that the tobacco production in the colony would be detrimental to grain cultivation. A year earlier the director general and council had decided, in view of the recent growth in the population and the expected number of immigrants that year, to order the tobacco planters to devote as much attention to growing crops for food as they did to tobacco.83 Apart from an 1674 ban on smoking in meetings of the burgemeesters and schepenen, this was the only measure directed against tobacco. In general, the government tried to promote the tobacco trade by levying relatively low excise duties on it and by the introduction of quality control. It is doubtful whether these measures were effective. Although tobacco growing in the colony was significant, the New Netherland tobacco continued to play second fiddle to Virginia

82 NYSA, NYCM 8: 494–497 (30 March 1657; LO, 307–309), 498 (30 March 1657), 16–1: 108–111 (30 March 1657; LWA, 81–83), 12: 66, p. 2 (15 September 1657; Corres. 1654–1658, 148), 69, p. 2 (22 December 1657; Corres. 1654–1658, 155). 83 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Naerdere aenwijsinghe ende observatien’ (26 July 1649; DRCHNY 1: 267–268); NYSA, NYCM 4: 436 (21 April 1649; NYHM 4: 598–599), 12: 3, p. 6 (18 May 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 11), 4, pp. 14–15 (18 May 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 16), 16–1: 31 (20 March 1653; LWA, 32–33).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

233

tobacco. As the burgemeesters of New Amsterdam remarked in 1658: it was ‘the English that bring the most tobacco to this place’.84 The agricultural sector in New Netherland could never meet the high hopes for it in the fatherland. Both the directors of the WIC and the commissioners for New Amstel expected too swift results from an investment that was too small. New Netherland would never become a granary for other Dutch colonies or for the Dutch Republic. But the fact that the export of grain in particular never reached any significance that we know of did not diminish the importance of agriculture to the colonists. Towards the end of the Dutch period, the greatest proportion of the population was engaged in agriculture. The continued existence of the colony relied on the extent to which the colonists could be self-supporting.

Industry and Craftsmen While the fur trade and the tobacco culture mainly served export purposes, by contrast the craftsmen in New Netherland served only the local market. No form of industry that produced a surplus for export ever developed. That was not the role of colonies, according to seventeenth-century economic thinking. As early as 1608 Willem Usselincx contended that it would be better if no industries were permitted, and the colonies supplied only raw materials to patria.85 The directors of the West India Company, who generally ignored the ideas of Usselincx, in this case followed his advice. In the Provisional Regulations of 1624, the colonists were forbidden to carry out ‘any handicraft to which trade is attached’, in particular weveryen [weaving] and verwerye [dyeing]. Both steps in the process of making cloth are mentioned in the two versions of the Provisional Regulations. Wieder, in De stichting van New York, suggests that first weaving was forbidden and that subsequently dyeing was inserted into the stipulation, as dyeing was the step that made unfinished cloth into a trade good. In this way weaving in New Netherland would be restricted to a home industry for use of the colonists only. That such was the intention

84 NYMA, ORCC 6, p. 486 (18 September 1674; RNA 7: 123), ODR 2, p. 318 (19 September 1658; RNA 3: 17). 85 Boxer, Nederlanders in Brazilië, 16.

234

chapter four

of the WIC directors is not impossible, but the absence of any spinning wheels or looms in contemporary inventories makes it unlikely. Also, textiles were imported in large numbers. Finally, a stipulation in the Freedoms and Exemptions of 1629 contradicts Wieder’s suggestion: The colonists shall not be permitted to make any woolen, linen, or cotton cloth, nor to weave any other fabrics, on pain of being banished and punished for perjury.86

A textile industry was thus not permitted in New Netherland, and it is doubtful whether the few textile workers who went to the colony, such as Willem Claesz. and Lieven Jansz., ever worked in that trade. Other forms of industry, such as those using clay or paper, printing, sugar refinery and suchlike were not explicitly forbidden, but there is no sign that these ever took place in the colony. Of greater importance was the wood industry.87 The wood industry in New Netherland consisted of shipbuilding to a minor extent and of saw milling for a rather more considerable part. In one known instance a seaworthy ship was built in New Netherland, called appropriately enough the Nieu Nederlant. It proved its worth by sailing to patria. Other ships built were small yachts and sloops for river and coastal navigation. Dutch ships returning from the Caribbean to the fatherland were sometimes repaired in the colony, but not to a great extent. A number of sawmills were built that produced timbers for shipbuilding, but sawmills served primarily housing construction. Several types of mills were employed in the colony, for which up-to-date technology from patria was imported: windmills, water mills, and horse mills. New Netherland boasted a tide-driven mill, used both for sawing wood and for grinding corn. As early as 1626, François Vesaert built a horse mill for the WIC. Vesaert also had a plan to build a water-driven corn mill on Manhattan, but it is not known whether this ever came to fruition. His wind-powered mill sawed timber for the ship Nieu Nederlant in 1630 and 1631. The number of sawmills grew considerably during the existence of the colony. In 1638, Rensselaerswijck owned at least one corn mill and

86

Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 29 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 152). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 115 (DRNN, 13); Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 93; De Roever, ‘Koopmanschappen’, 79; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1903, pp. 200–201 (2 January 1659), inv. no. 986, pak a, sub dato (5 May 1658), inv. no. 2993, pp. 212–213 (4 May 1661). 87

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

235

one sawmill. The sawmill was water powered and could produce thirty planks per day. By 1651 daily productivity had increased: the mill now had the capacity to saw about forty planks. Unfortunately lack of running water hampered production that summer. Towards 1660, Jan Baptist van Rensselaer contemplated shipping two hundred well-sawn pine planks to the Dutch Republic, which had to be twentyfive feet in length, two inches thick, at least one foot wide, with as few knots as possible. He had a purchase price of two guilders in sewant each in mind, but was unable to obtain the planks at this price, and the experiment was abandoned. The export of wood from New Netherland never gained a volume of any significance, but the products from the sawmills were of great importance to the colonists for their housing.88 Other forms of industry sprang up in New Netherland after 1650. In a letter of 6 June 1653 the directors in Amsterdam remarked that they had noted that the director general and council in New Netherland had granted patents to a few people for the setting up of a potash works, a pantile and brick-making works, and a salt works. They approved of the furtherance of such undertakings, but were opposed to monopolies as these would be detrimental to the development of the colony. Potash, potassium carbonate derived from wood ashes, in purified form used in pottery making, was produced in New Netherland, or at least attempts were made to produce it, but little more is known. In 1653, Adriaen van der Donck hired a Delftware potter, Hendrick Claesz. van Rotterdam, to make potash in the colony. Van der Donck collaborated in this project with the Amsterdam merchants Gillis and Seth Verbrugge, who in 1655 decided to withdraw from the enterprise. It probably folded shortly after, when Van der Donck died. Another potash burner is mentioned in 1662, a certain master Pieter. He was instructed to find a suitable site near Fort Orange. Whether he succeeded is unknown.89

88

GAA, NA, inv. no. 667, fol. 27v (2 August 1632), inv. no. 306, fol. 123v and 119v (24 February 1632), inv. no. 943, not paginated (25 June 1632), fol. 583 (17 July 1632), fol. 656 (3 November 1632), not paginated (6 November 1632); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 76v (29 April 1634; VRBM, 298), fol. 102v (8 May 1638; VRBM, 406), fol. 104 (10 May 1638; VRBM, 410); NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 7 (16 November 1651), box 48, III, folder 25 (8 October 1659; CJVR 184), box 49, folder 5 (7 September 1660; CJVR 235); Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 25 (NNN, 321); Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, November 1626, p. 38 (NNN, 83). 89 GAA, NA, inv. no. 2280, IV, pp. 59–60 (26 July 1653), inv. no. 2140, fols.

236

chapter four

Information on the manufacture of bricks and roof tiles is easier to come by. In the early 1640s Kiliaen van Rensselaer had difficulty in finding brick makers and considered trying to attract English workers from Connecticut, which indicates that, prior to this time, few brickyards existed in New Netherland, although it was already known that the area around Fort Orange could provide good clay. In 1653 a brick maker traveled to New Netherland in the employ of Johan de Hulter to set up a brickyard near Fort Orange. The directors in Amsterdam instructed Stuyvesant to help him find a suitable location. Probably the enterprise flourished. After Johan de Hulter’s death in 1656 his wife, Johanna de Laet, sold a pantile kiln for 3,717 guilders to Pieter Meese Vrooman, while retaining another one under her ownership. About 1660 at least six brick and tile yards could be found in Beverwijck, and bricks and tiles were sold to other places in New Netherland. However, it is unlikely that bricks were exported outside the colony during the Dutch period. In all probability, the local production was only complementary to the large numbers of bricks that were imported from the Netherlands, to some extent as ballast. The ship Wasbleecker, which sank en route to New Netherland, carried sixty-three thousand bricks and roof tiles. Other ships also imported brick.90 Less successful than brick making was the attempt at salt extraction in New Netherland. Salt was imported into New Netherland principally from the Caribbean. Although Verhulst had already been ordered to explore the possibility to establish saltpans in 1625, it is unlikely that attempts were made to extract salt prior to 1661. In March of that year two Amsterdam merchants, Dirck and Abel de Wolff, father and son, who already had interests in New Netherland, were granted a monopoly by the WIC directors for the refining of salt. Initially it was stipulated that the director general would select a good place for this, but later they were allowed to choose the location themselves. In preparation, Arent Theunisz. van Amsterdam was

92–92v (27 May 1655); NYSL, VRMP, box 49, folder 34 (25 May 1662; CJVR 294); NYSA, NYCM 11: 83, p. 9 (6 June 1653; Corres. 1647–1653, 212). 90 ACHR, ‘A Deeds 1 1656–1678’, pp. 150–151 (7 November 1657; FOR 1656–1678, 96); GAA, NA, inv. no. 2860, fols. 200–201v (6 May 1658); NYSA, NYCM 11: 78 (7 May 1653; Corres. 1647–1653, 202–203); Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 87; Zantkuyl, ‘Reconstructie van enkele Nederlandse huizen in Nieuw-Nederland’, 171; Venema, Beverwijck, 89–91.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

237

employed as a blacksmith a month later. By that time ’s-Gravesande had been chosen as the location and Evert Pietersz., who formerly had been a schoolmaster in New Amstel in New Netherland, was appointed manager of the project. But soon problems arose. The land near ’s-Gravesande on Long Island, Conijne Eijlant [Coney Island] and Conijnehoek [lit. rabbit corner], had been bought by De Wolff from Gijsbert Opdijck, but the purchase was challenged by the inhabitants of the English town, who used it as common pasture. When the case was brought before director general and council it transpired that Gijsbert Opdijck’s title to the land was dubious, but at the same time the claim of the inhabitants of ’s-Gravesande was not clear cut either. Director general and council, who recognized the importance of salt production, granted permission for the De Wolffs to continue their work until the claims made by the inhabitants of ’s-Gravesande had been further examined. These were in total disagreement and eventually, after a campaign of harassment, sabotage and threats, managed to bring about the failure of the venture. A complaint of Dirck de Wolff to the directors in patria, who then urged director general and council to take severe action against the English, did not help.91 Craftsmen and shopkeepers in the service sector played a much greater role in the economy of New Netherland than the forms of industry mentioned above. Many bakers, brewers, tailors, coopers, bricklayers, shoemakers, butchers, smiths, tappers, and carpenters provided for the needs of the colonists. In the Dutch Republic, these trades were regulated by the guilds, but in New Netherland guilds were nonexistent. In 1655 the bakers of Beverwijck tried to establish a guild, but this was rejected by the court, because the magistrates found ‘this for the present for certain reasons not advisable’. They may have been of the opinion that a limit on the number of craftsmen, which could be the consequence of the introduction of guilds, was undesirable in a rapidly growing economy. Three years later the city government in New Amsterdam also contemplated the

91 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1364, fols. 60–60v (28 April 1661); NYSA, NYCM 9: 739 (25 August 1661), 10–1: 150 (15 June 1662), 155a (22 June 1662; DRCHNY 14: 514), 7–9 (12 January 1662; DRCHNY 14: 507–508), 14: 80 (6 December 1662; DRCHNY 14: 518–519), 15 (31 March 1661), 15: 97, pp. 8–9 (20 January 1664; DRCHNY 2: 221); Wieder, De stichting van New York, 133 (DRNN, 76); Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 184–186; Jansen, ‘De Wolff ’, 134–136.

238

chapter four

establishment of guilds. After a discussion about working hours and mealtimes of workers, burgemeesters and schepenen resolved to petition the director general and council for the introduction of guilds. There is, however, no sign that such a petition was actually submitted. The answer would probably have been negative anyway. It is likely that the directors of the WIC, who by this time opposed private monopolies as well, considered the establishment of guilds not opportune ‘in such tender beginnings of a newly developing country’. They may have preferred to give the director general and council and the local courts some of the duties that were fulfilled by the guilds in the Dutch Republic.92 Such duties involved quality control and determining the permitted number of craftsmen per trade. The government in New Netherland acted in a regulatory manner for trades in which a lack of supervision could lead to social or economical excesses, such as those of bakers and tappers and, to a lesser extent, brewers. Director general and council had little involvement with tailors, coopers, bricklayers, shoemakers, butchers, blacksmiths, carpenters, or wheelwrights. When complaints about the quality of the work of these craftsmen were brought before a local court, judgment was frequently placed in the hands of ‘good men’, from the same trade who had the required expertise. The admission of people to a trade was in most instances also arranged by the local courts. That was the case with the butchers in New Amsterdam. To facilitate the collection of the taxes on slaughtering, butchers had to swear an oath and be versed in the instruction for sworn butchers. Also, the slaughtering costs per animal were established and the butchers were charged with keeping to the regulations for the slaughtering duty. Following the promulgation of these regulations in 1660, ten butchers took the oath.93 Blacksmiths, carpenters, bricklayers, coopers, and wheelwrights worked in the colony, but as these trades were not subject to government regulation, little is known about their methods or their exact numbers. The same applies to tailors, except for the detail that in 1648 Jan Verbeeck and Jan Michielsz. were given permission to

92 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 208 (11 May 1655; FOCM, 190); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 275 (11 July 1658; RNA 2: 410); NYSA, NYCM 12: 1, p. 6 (12 March 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 5). 93 NYMA, AMNA 1, pp. 162–164 (15 October 1660; RNA 7: 258–259).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

239

carry out in Rensselaerswijck ‘the tailor’s trade to the exclusion of others’. Their exceptional monopoly position did not last long: six months later Evert Jansz. was also admitted as a tailor. The number of tailors elsewhere in New Netherland is unknown. As to shoemakers, at least four worked in New Amsterdam in 1658, for they were called in on 1 August by the burgemeesters, as leather fire buckets needed to be made. One of the shoemakers was Coenraet ten Eijck. Via his brother-in-law Engel Uijlenberg in Amsterdam he hired two helpers in 1659. Their contracts provide interesting information about working methods and production. Abel Hardenbroeck van Elberfeld and Pieter Jansz. Schol van Den Haag were taken into service for three years as shoemaker’s assistants, and in the summer had to work from five in the morning until nine in the evening. Working hours in the winter were shorter. A production of ten pairs of shoes per week was expected of them. In addition to a free passage to the colony and board and lodging they were to receive 120 guilders per year. An earlier contract that Engel Uijlenberg entered into with shoemaker’s assistant Harmen van Deventer, born in Groll, specified that he had to make twelve pairs of shoes per week, unless he was required to work at the tanning vat, which shows that Ten Eijck tanned his own leather. He bought the raw materials locally, as transpires from his purchase of some ox pelts from Jeremias van Rensselaer. Other shoemakers also carried out their own tanning. In most cases locally produced leather would have been used for regular shoes. Special materials, such as Russian leather, was still imported from the Dutch Republic.94 For trades that affected the general interests of the community, such as tapping, brewing, and baking, the government laid down extensive regulations. In the case of the tappers, the main issue was the prevention of excessive drunkenness, for the bakers it was quality and quantity of the food supply. In addition, both baking and tapping played a role in the trade with the Indians while in the case of tappers and brewers, as with the butchers, the collection of taxes required regulation.

94 NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder 4 (30 April 1648; MCR, 28), folder 11 (15 October 1648; MCR, 35), box 49, folder 25 (16 November 1662; CJVR 303–304), folder 57 ( January 1665; CJVR 371); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1359, fol. 6 (6 January 1659), inv. no. 1352, fols. 53v–54 (1 July 1654); NYSA, NYCM 8: 226–227 (27 September 1656).

240

chapter four

A considerable number of tappers or tavern keepers carried out their trade in New Netherland. Herberg [inn] may be too grand a word for their establishments, as only a few provided sleeping accommodation as well as food and drink. Many of the croegen [bars] or taphuyzen [tap houses or taverns] were not much more than the front room of a house, with a table and a couple of chairs, where local residents could drink and talk after work. The drinks, beer, wine, and brandy, were drawn from small kegs and ankers [liquid measure, ca. thirty-five liters] and a record of how much had been consumed was chalked on a board or on the door. Tap houses provided an important location for socializing, and drinking was a social ritual that enhanced cohesion in the community. Yet it could also provide a threat, at least in the eyes of the authorities. An extensive ordinance of 1648 provides a colorful picture of the possible evils: if unregulated, almost a quarter of the town would consist of tap houses, honest trades would be neglected and the youth would be led from the straight and narrow by the bad example of their parents. Exaggerated, of course, but director general and council nevertheless enforced a number of measures. New tap houses could be established only after receiving the prior permission of director general and council, the sale of drink to the Indians was once again forbidden, fights had to be reported immediately, and on weekdays the sale of alcohol was forbidden after the sounding of the bell at nine o’clock. On Sunday the tap houses were allowed to open only after the afternoon church service was over, i.e., after three o’clock. Finally, tappers had to be registered. A week after the ordinance was proclaimed twelve men fulfilled this requirement, a number that makes it unlikely that a quarter of the town actually consisted of tap houses. On the registration of the tappers in Albany in 1668 a license fee of one Flemish pound per three months was introduced. Although the colony was then already under English administration, the license was called a spinhuyssedul [literally: spinning house certificate], a reference to Amsterdam, where the income generated by the tappers’ licenses was used for the spinhuis [women’s house of correction]. The fact that no spinhuis existed in Albany was no obstacle to the use of the name.95

95 NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 4 (13 December 1650; MCR, 132); NYSA, NYCM 4: 370–371 (10 March 1648; NYHM 4: 496–500), 372 (16 March 1648;

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

241

Measures concerning the tappers had to be repeated regularly, as was true also for regulations to prevent the evasion of the beer and the tappers’ excise. Brewers were forbidden to tap, and tappers were not permitted to brew, as in patria. Probably because it was not obeyed, a year later this regulation was repeated, with additional punishments for the unlicensed movement of alcohol. Maximum prices were also laid down: eight stivers for a mutsje [liquid measure: ca. 63.5 ml] of brandy and nine stivers for a jug of beer. Even the measures of beer jugs were determined by the powers that be.96 The government’s intention with all these regulations is quite clear, but the question remains whether the rules were adhered to, as offences occurred regularly. In January 1653, Pieter Adriaensz., an innkeeper in Beverwijck, was fined six guilders for tapping after the bell had been sounded. The various petitions for tapping licenses indicate that the trade remained under strict governmental control. In some cases a license was withdrawn, as happened to Jan Peeck in 1654. Schout Van Tienhoven had on several nights discovered ‘heavy drinking-bouts’ in his establishment where all sorts of people were engaged in ‘dancing and jumping’ during the minister’s sermon. The drunks were making a great noise on Sunday 18 October and one of them was so inebriated he had to be transported in a cart to the jail, ‘a scandalous affair’. After a few weeks Jan Peeck asked for permission to restart his tapping activities, which he obtained on condition of his future good behavior. Such incidents, as well as the permission granted to the schouten of New Amsterdam and Beverwijck to inspect tappers’ cellars, give the impression that it was no simple matter to disregard the regulations.97

NYHM 4: 500); NYMA, ODR 3, p. 158 (15 March 1661; RNA 3: 278), ODR 1, pp. 7–9 (10 March 1648; RNA 1: 5–6), p. 10 (16 March 1648; RNA 1: 8); NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 2 (25 August and 2 September 1648; ER 1: 236; cited in Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 84); ACHR, ‘Court minutes. City & County of Albany Clerk’s Office 1668. 1672’, p. 23 (12 November 1668; CMARS 1: 36); Dapper, Historische beschryving, 419. 96 NYSA, NYCM 4: 356 (12 January 1648; NYHM 4: 474), 16–1: 10 (12 January 1648; LWA, 12), 19 (8 August 1649; LWA, 22), 37 (18 August 1653; LWA, 34), 5: 131–132 (18 August 1653; NYHM 5: 72), 6: 183 (29 November 1655; CM 1655–1656, 155–156); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 41 (11 February 1653; FOCM, 42); NYMA, ODR 4, pp. 184–185 (26 June 1663; RNA 4: 264–265). 97 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 37 (28 January 1653; FOCM, 39), p. 68 (9 December 1653; FOCM, 68); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 254 (10 August 1654; RNA 1: 225), p. 259 (24 August 1654; RNA 1: 231), p. 268 (7 September 1654; RNA 1:

242

chapter four

Tappers served beer, wine, and brandy. The most important drink in the seventeenth century was beer, the annual consumption of which in Holland was between two and three hundred liters per head. It is doubtful whether a similar quantity was drunk in New Netherland. In 1632 Kiliaen van Rensselaer in a letter to one of the partners in the patroonship venture unfolded his intentions to set up a brewery that could provide the whole colony with beer. It is an indication that the number of brewers in the first years of the colony was limited and that water was the principal drink. Unlike the cities in Holland with their foul canals that served as sewer system, fresh water was easier to obtain in New Netherland.98 No brewery is known to have existed in New Netherland prior to around 1640, although beer may have been brewed in homes for the families’ own consumption. The first mention is in 1642, when Hendrick Jansz. sold his brewery on Manhattan with appurtenances to Willem Adriaensz. for two thousand five hundred guilders. In the same year, Kiliaen van Rensselaer granted Evert Pels a monopoly to brew in Rensselaerswijck. His reasoning was that too many people in his colony occupied themselves with brewing, thus neglecting their other work and leaving their houses, which were the property of the patroon, ‘in peril of fire’. The available data do not provide a complete picture of the brewing activities in the colony, but it is clear that the number of breweries grew. At least twelve breweries were established in Beverwijck, and there were quite a number in New Amsterdam too. Sadly, virtually nothing is known about the working methods of the brewers in New Netherland, about the recipes used or the amount of beer produced, although there is some information about its quality.99 The scarcity of grain in the colony influenced the quality of the beer. Brewers made the beer increasingly weaker, while still charging the same price for it. As a consequence, the main population

240), p. 282 (19 October 1654; RNA 1: 255), p. 290 (9 November 1654; RNA 1: 264). 98 Yntema, ‘A Capital Industry’, 76; NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 13 (27 June 1632; VRBM, 200); Carr and Walsh, ‘The Standard of Living in the Colonial Chesapeake’, 136; Venema, Beverwijck, 292–302. 99 NYSA, NYCM 2: 37b (24 November 1642; NYHM 2: 88–89), 124 (1 September 1644; NYHM 2: 251–252); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1062, pp. 110–111 (7 June 1642); NSMA, VRBMs, 38 (5 June 1642; VRBM, 679); Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 92.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

243

felt hard done by, while a few individuals could line their pockets, according to the complaints. As a reaction to this, in 1655 the director general and council produced an ordinance in which the price of beer was set at twenty guilders per barrel, and brewers were ordered not to decrease the quality any further. The brewers protested against these measures, stating that they could not possibly brew good beer for this price, since citizens and tappers paid in inferior, unstrung sewant. Director general and council were convinced by this argument and the price of beer was increased to twenty-two guilders.100 Because of the high costs of purchasing a wort boiler [brew kettle], brewers had to invest considerable sums of money. In Holland, various brewers were members of the city vroedschap, which was selected from the wealthiest inhabitants. In New Netherland brewers were also often part of the elite. For example, in Beverwijck brewer Goosen Gerritsz. van Schaick was also a magistrate for a number of years. In New Amsterdam, the brewers Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt, Pieter Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven, Jan Vigne, Jacob Kip, and Willem Beeckman were at various times members of the city government. In the 1650s and 1660s, Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt was one of the most prominent magistrates and in various periods acted as burgemeester. Van Cortlandt and other brewers probably had personnel for the daily brewing activities, enabling them to devote their attention to the management of the brewery and to their other trading interests. In 1656, Van Cortlandt got involved in a conflict with a tax farmer, which provides insight into how the monitoring of taxation was carried out, and how problems were dealt with. On 22 November 1656 the farmer of the burgher excise, Paulus van der Beeck, accompanied by the gerechtsbode [court usher], arrived at Van Cortlandt’s house to check his cellar for the presence of beer or wine. Van Cortlandt’s refusal to allow him access caused Van der Beeck to petition the city government, in which at that time Oloff Stevensz. was one of the burgemeesters. Referring to the charters of Amsterdam, Van der Beeck stated that he had the right to inspect the houses and cellars of all brewers to see whether or not they had paid the required tax per brew. This was also a way of checking on the illegal movements of beer. As in many cities

100 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 61 (29 November 1655; LWA, 52), 6: 174 (29 November 1655; CM 1655–1656, 148), 182–183 (29 November 1655; CM 1655–1656, 155).

244

chapter four

in Holland, in New Netherland the rights to transport beer and other alcoholic drinks had been granted to sworn beer porters who were not allowed to transport beer on which no tax had been paid. Burgemeesters and schepenen decided that those members of the city government who were not brewers should consult the director general and then come to a decision. In their letter to Stuyvesant they referred to a 1649 ordinance of the States General, in which a distinction was made between brewers and beer merchants, who organized the retail and who had to pay taxes on beer for their own consumption. However, Van Cortlandt maintained that he was not a beer merchant but a brewer. In his answer, Stuyvesant stated that it was desirable to make a distinction between brewers and beer merchants, but as long as this distinction was not spelled out in an ordinance the brewers would have to pay excise duties twice, as brewers and as merchants. The ruling was therefore against Van Cortlandt, but at the same time Stuyvesant was of the opinion that all prior refusals by brewers to allow access to the inspectors were not be punished.101 This was not the end of the matter. The brewers in the city government protested vehemently that this regulation was disadvantageous to them, and the non-brewers again visited Stuyvesant, who told them that the opinion he had given was only his advice, and that any decision on the petition of tax farmer Van der Beeck remained a matter for the burgemeesters and schepenen. After having heard Van der Beeck once more, the burgemeesters and schepenen drew up a compromise regulation, in which the right of the tax farmer to carry out inspections was maintained, but the amount of duties was considerably reduced as compared with Stuyvesant’s suggestion. The city government then asked for Stuyvesant’s approval of the new regulation, and after this had been obtained the ordinance was proclaimed at the New Amsterdam city hall on 6 December 1656. On the whole, the regulations in New Netherland concerning brewers and beer merchants hardly vary from what was the custom in the Dutch Republic.102 Furthermore, in problematic economic and

101 Yntema, ‘The Welfare of Brewers’, 124, 126–127; GAA, NA, inv. no. 2280 III, pp. 62–63 (8 May 1653); NYSA, NYCM 5: 433–434 (18 November 1654; NYHM 5: 205–206); NYMA, ODR 2, 82–85 (23 November 1656; RNA 2: 233–237), p. 86 (29 November 1656; RNA 2: 237–238). 102 NYMA, ODR 2, p. 86 (29 November 1656; RNA 2: 237–238), pp. 87–88 (30

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

245

fiscal matters, the laws of the fatherland were used as a reference. The example also provides a useful insight into the relations between the city government and the director general. The involvement of governmental authorities with the brewers was relatively limited in comparison with that of the bakers. There may have been quite an amount of beer consumed, but in the event of a shortage sufficient fresh drinking water could be found in the various streams in the colony. Bread, on the other hand, was the most important food, and no alternative was available in the case of scarcity. Therefore regulations were even more necessary. As far as is known, the first measures were taken in 1649, although bakers were active in New Netherland before that time. The bakers inclined to bake white bread, krakelingen [pretzels or cracknels], and cookies for the Indians rather than the normal rye bread for the colonists. The director general and council condemned this practice in their customary colorful phraseology: from a desire and inclination for the highest profit the wilde en barberissche naturellen [the wild and barbarous natives] are furnished best in preference to the Christian nation.103

A fine of fifty guilders was specified for the offence, but the prohibition on baking for the Indians had to be repeated regularly in the years that followed. Furthermore, it did not go unchallenged. In 1653, when the ban had just been repeated, the bakers of Beverwijck petitioned for an easing of the regulation. The local magistrates were unwilling to grant this, but promised to pass on the complaint to the director general and council. Baking for the Indians was much more prevalent in Beverwijck than elsewhere in the colony because of the concentration of the fur trade there. It is therefore no surprise that in the court minutes of Fort Orange most breaches of the law are to be found. A frequent offender in Beverwijck was baker Jochem Wesselsz. Becker. Commies Dijckman had him brought to court in February 1653 for baking white bread and biscuits. Becker denied the charge: since the proclamation of the new ordinance, a week earlier, he had not baked these items. On this occasion he

November 1656; RNA 2: 238–239), pp. 88–89 (6 December 1656; RNA 2: 239–241); Yntema, ‘Beer in Abundance’, 95. 103 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 20–21 (8 November 1649; LWA, 22); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 19 (8 November 1649; RNA 1: 13–14).

246

chapter four

walked away unpunished. Two months later Jochem Becker was once again suspected of a contravention. While the commies was absent, he had blown his horn, the usual method of informing the community that bread was for sale. And in this instance it was white bread. He had then said to magistrate Abraham Staets that he had obtained permission from the commies to sell white bread. When questioned, another baker, Hendrick Jansz. Westercamp, told the court that he knew of no such permission. Becker was fined fifty guilders. Two years later he was accused of having baked sugared bread, but since Johan de Deckere, the officer at the time, could not furnish proof, the case was dismissed.104 The ban on baking for the Indians was not the only regulation that Jochem Becker contravened. In the same session in which he was cleared of baking for the Indians, he was fined twelve guilders for baking bread that was too light in weight. The price and weight of bread were laid down by the government in an ordinance, as in patria. In New Netherland this occurred in the aforementioned ordinance of 1649, with a number of amendments in the years that followed. The ordinance of 1649 contained the stipulation that the bread must be baked in loaves weighing eight, four, and two pounds, but a policy on the price of the loaves had not been formulated. Prices were set down in 1651 at fourteen stivers for a whole loaf of wheat bread and twelve stivers for an eight-pound rye loaf. Bakers were permitted to bake white bread only for colonists, in the units of one, one half, and one quarter of a pound, to be sold at three stivers per pound. Later pricing systems illustrate the complex monetary situation in the colony. In 1658 the price of a coarse wheat loaf of eight pounds was set at seven stivers in silver money, ten stivers in beaver and fourteen stivers in sewant. For rye bread this was six, nine, and twelve stivers respectively. This pricing system created problems for the bakers in New Amsterdam. They had to pay for grain at a beaver price, while the poor people paid for the rye bread in sewant, which was detrimental to the bakers’ profits. As

104 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 46 (4 March 1653; FOCM, 45), p. 47 (18 March 1653; FOCM, 46–47), pp. 40–41 (11 February 1653; FOCM, 41), p. 42 (18 February 1653; FOCM, 43), pp. 49–50 (12 April 1653; FOCM, 49–50), p. 239 (7 December 1655; FOCM, 211), p. 240 (14 December 1655; FOCM, 213), p. 248 (8 February 1656; FOCM, 219); Jansen, Jan Steen, 122; Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 207–216.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

247

the result of their complaints, the city government raised the sewant price of rye bread.105 In addition to the price and weight of the bread, the ingredients were also subject to governmental regulation. After complaints in 1650 about the ‘leanness and thinness of the common bread’ the director general and council decreed that the bread be baked of ‘pure wheat or rye flour as it comes from the mills’.106 As a result of the bakers baking excessive quantities of white bread for the Indians, only undesirable bran bread remained for the colonists. The magistrates requested measures, in the interest of the community here, especially of the plain and common people, who cannot bake themselves, so that if this continues the Christians must eat the bran and the wilden the flour.107

In the illegal bread baked for the Indians the bakers introduced such ingredients as sugar, currants, raisins, and prunes. In 1655 the bakers in Beverwijck were forbidden explicitly to enrich the bread in this way. And even in New Amsterdam, baker Hendrick Jansz. was prosecuted in 1661 because he had baked ginger bread and had not offered any normal bread for sale. His excuse was that he had baked only a very small quantity of ginger bread from dough that was left over because he had insufficient flour to bake regular bread. The burgemeesters and schepenen accepted this explanation and acquitted him. Compliance with the ordinances was enforced in two different ways. First, the manner in which the baking trade was carried out was supervised. In 1656 the bakers of Beverwijck wanted the baking of bread for sale to be permitted only after the government had granted prior permission. In this way it could be prevented that all sorts of people started baking for the Indians during the trading season, only to cease their baking activities in the winter. The director general and council acceded to their request and went on to create an ordinance in which bakers were required to renew their license

105 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 249 (8 February 1656; FOCM, 219); NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 20–21 (8 August 1649; LWA, 22–23), 23–25 (15 June 1651; LWA, 25–27), 8: 1024 (11 November 1658; LO, 360); NYMA, AMNA 1, p. 89 (4 January 1659; RNA 7: 206), ODR 3, p. 312 (11 October 1661; RNA 3: 378), ODR 1, p. 65 (7 January 1659; RNA 1: 43–44). 106 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 21 (14 April 1650; RNA 1: 15). 107 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 114 (17 March 1654; FOCM, 109–110).

248

chapter four

each quarter at a cost of one Flemish pound.108 The city government of New Amsterdam was in agreement with the introduction of licenses, but did not like the idea of the fees for them: it is not usual in any place that craftsmen pay anything in this form, and especially if this is now introduced, it would at the next occasion also be imposed on other artisans.109

Such considerations moved the burgemeesters and schepenen a little later to petition for the introduction of a formal system of burgher right, in which the exercise of a trade was the sole prerogative of citizens. Second, the price, weight, and quality of the bread were monitored. The schout in New Amsterdam was expressly ordered in 1659 to check the bakers on a regular basis. In 1661, special bread inspectors were appointed, Hendrick Willemsz. and Christoffel Hooglant, both bakers themselves. Furthermore, bakers were instructed to identify their bread with a mark. Seven bakers had their marks registered by the secretary of New Amsterdam. Likewise, it was customary for bakers in the Netherlands to mark their bread, although the monitoring thereof was generally carried out by the guilds. Such a system simplified the task of revealing which baker had baked bread that did not comply with the regulations.110 Some details about the ways the bakers worked become evident through a court case in 1661 in New Amsterdam. Baker Anthony de Milt was accused by the Schout Pieter Tonneman of baking bread that was too light in weight. De Milt did not deny that his bread was below standard, but maintained that this was not deliberate. According to him the batch had been left in the oven too long. His explanation was supported by his assistant, Laurens van der Spiegel, who declared that the bread had been in the oven for four hours, an hour longer than normal. This had happened while De Milt was

108 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 222 (13 July 1655; FOCM, 199), CMFO 1658–1659, pp. 108–109 (27 November 1658; FOCM, 415–416); NYMA, ODR 3, p. 384 (13 December 1661; RNA 3: 422–423), ODR 1, p. 41 (26 October 1656; RNA 1: 24–26); NYSA, NYCM 8: 243–244 (10 October 1656), 244–245 (24 October 1656), 16–1: 95 (26 October 1656; LWA, 73). 109 NYMA, ODR 2, p. 115 (9 January 1657; RNA 2: 264). 110 NYMA, AMNA 1, p. 109 (25 April 1659; RNA 7: 221), ODR 1, p. 70 (25 March 1661; RNA 1: 46–48), ODR 3, p. 169 (25 March 1661; RNA 3: 285), pp. 326–327 (21 October 1661; RNA 3: 389–390); NYSA, NYCM 9: 836 (13 October 1661).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

249

out on business and Van der Spiegel was busy in the loft. Furthermore, the batch consisted of only forty loaves instead of the usual seventy. And since bread from between sixty and seventy schepels [about fifty bushels] of grain had been baked during the previous days, the oven was very hot. The result of all this was that the bread became too dry, and consequently weighed less than it should have. Other bakers consulted by the court stated that this was a plausible explanation. Burgemeesters and schepenen nonetheless sentenced De Milt to a fine of one hundred and fifty guilders, but rejected the demand by Schout Tonneman that he be banned from baking for six weeks, probably because they were convinced that this was not a case of a deliberate attempt to defraud.111 In summary, on the whole, the regulations concerning craftsmen display a gradual development towards the Dutch model. As the community grew in size, the number of trades increased, as well as the number of workers within each trade. This development lay at the root of the specification of regulations, and without fail the authorities fell back on the practices of the Dutch Republic. The bakers provide the clearest example of this. The increase in their numbers necessitated that the government introduce special bread inspectors, fix the price of bread and introduce identification marks. As in the other trades, the government acted only in a regulatory manner for reasons of the common good, such as the relations with the Indians, the quality and quantity of the colony’s food supply, and the levying of taxes. The craftsmen in New Netherland worked almost exclusively for the local market, and the few attempts to set up industries did not lead to exports of any magnitude. Neither the industry nor the craftsmen were able to fulfill completely the requirements of the colonial community, which for a number of products continued to rely on imports from the Dutch Republic. In this, the merchants of New Amsterdam played the leading role.

111 NYMA, ‘Burgomasters and Schepens’ 8, fols. 6v–7 (7 February 1661; O’Callaghan, Register of Solomon Lachaire, 5–6), ODR 3, p. 136 (8 February 1661; RNA 3: 262); Middleton, ‘“How it Came That the Bakers Bake No Bread”’.

250

chapter four Trade, Shipping, and Merchants

Many goods required by the colonists were not manufactured in New Netherland. The most important among these were textiles, provisions, and ironware, including guns, supplemented with a varied assortment of diverse implements. These were not commodities intended only for use by the colonists, but also those used in the fur trade with the Indians. The textiles that were shipped to New Netherland consisted of a great deal of woolen cloth, originating from Amsterdam, Leiden, and Kampen. Duffel, a coarse woolen cloth with a thick nap, was intended for the fur trade. The Indians used the duffel in a way unfamiliar to the Europeans, and which surprised Isaac de Rasière: ‘they also use a great deal of duffel cloth, which they buy from us, and which serves as their blanket by night and their dress by day’. He had found that it was virtually impossible to sell red or green duffels, ‘because the wilden say that it hinders them in hunting, as it is visible from too far off ’.112 The Indians preferred black. Lead bale seals found many years later during excavations reveal that the cloth supplied to the Indians was of a high quality. Although woolen cloth was the most important of the textile goods, other types of cloth were also imported, such as Osnabrück linen and English damask. When cloth was intended for the use of the colonists, it was generally made into clothing by tailors in New Netherland. Other items of clothing were produced in the Dutch Republic and subsequently shipped to the colony, such as hats, linen, shirts, and stockings. Included in the latter were, for example, ferousse stockings from the Faeroe Islands, which were popular with the Indians because they were water repellent. An extensive selection of stockings was summed up in a notarial deed of 1659: men’s gray stockings, crimson stockings, women’s violet stockings, and white and yellow children’s stockings, in numbers varying from ten to twenty-four pairs. These were probably intended for the colonists.113

112 Eekhof, ‘De “memorie”’, 269 (NNN, 106); Wieder, De stichting van New York, 174 (DRNN, 228–230). 113 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 118 (3 May 1640; VRBM, 467–468); Baart, ‘Ho-de-no-sau-nee en de Nederlanders’, 96; Baart, ‘Dutch Material Civilization’, 6–10; GAA, NA, inv. no. 2753, fol. 124 (15 April 1660), inv. no. 2992, pp. 32–33

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

251

In the second category also, provisions, many items occur that were not produced in the colony. Alcoholic drinks are the most numerous in this category, and mainly consisted of Spanish and French wines and, to a lesser extent, brandy and liqueurs, such as anisette. The wine was transported in hogsheads of 230 to 240 liters capacity, and in New Netherland was sometimes mixed with local wine, water, and sugar. Brandy and liqueurs were mostly shipped in ankers of thirty-five liters and occasionally in bottles. In 1656, Jeremias van Rensselaer received a consignment from his mother, which he was to trade on her account. It consisted of thirty bottles in two chests, containing angelica, anisette, and several other types of cordial (princess, orange, lime, gin, and cinnamon), with a total value of approximately sixty-five guilders. Beer was imported from the Netherlands in only a handful of instances, and this may have been strong, high quality beer. Besides alcoholic drinks, normal foodstuffs were also transported to the colony, especially in the 1620s and 1630s when the agriculture in New Netherland could not feed all of the colonists. In the early years the quality of imported food was mediocre and the availability scant. Predikant Jonas Michaëlius complained in 1628 about the rations in New Netherland: it was ‘hard, old food, such as men are used to on ships’.114 Later, the food situation in the colony was improved by the increase in the amount of goods produced there, while the selection of imported provisions also became greater. In 1662 a shipment to New Amstel contained oil, vinegar, and wine, together with seventy-five pounds of cheese, six hundred pounds of prunes, fifty pounds of raisins, thirty pounds of currants, a pound of mace, one-and-a-half pounds of clove, two pounds of nutmeg, five pounds of pepper, and fifty pounds of sugar. Both the amounts and the wide selection of what were essentially luxury food items is astounding. Not all the necessities had to cross the Atlantic: salt and sugar were imported principally from the Caribbean.115

(17 January 1661), inv. no. 2486, p. 773 (27 November 1659); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 379 (21 October 1659; RNA 3: 61); NYSL, VRMP, box 13, folder 4 (1656–1663); NYSA, NYCM 12: 61 (10 July 1657; Corres. 1654–1658, 41). 114 Eekhof, Michaëlius, 124, 135 (NNN, 130). 115 NYSL, VRMP, box 49, folder 31 (8 April 1662; CJVR 287), box 13, folder 34 (8 December 1656; CJVR 40); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 ‘Lijste vande cargasoene soo in de colonie Nieuwer Amstel in Nieunederlandt werden vereijst’ (3 November 1662; DRCHNY 2: 183–184), NA, inv. no. 1287, fol. 24 (7 March 1643); NYSA,

252

chapter four

The third category of commodities for trade, ironware, consisted of nails, pins, kettles, axes, knives, swords, and the like. Also guns, muskets, snaphaenen [snaphances, matchlocks], and pistols were shipped from the Dutch Republic to the colony. The largest importer of firearms was the West India Company, which distributed the weapons to its soldiers. Although the WIC tried to stop the trade in firearms with the Indians, it could not prevent the spread of firearms among the colonists, who used them for defense and hunting, and occasionally in trade with the Indians. The weapons used by the colonists were in some cases made to order. In 1657, Jeremias van Rensselaer ordered a firearm from the Amsterdam gunsmith Jan Knoop. Prior to shipment the weapon was tested in the Dutch Republic by Jeremias’s brother Nicolaes. This gun was intended for Jeremias’s own use. Other ironware was imported specifically for trading with the Indians. The ship Wasbleecker, which in 1657 sank near Martinique, carried various sorts of ironware: small round tin mirrors, thimbles, brass bells, copper kettles, scissors, and awls: all items that are also found in excavations of Indian sites. Also farming tools for the colonists were imported: plowshares, grain forks, scythes, and suchlike.116 The fourth category of commodities for trading is a catch-all category, encompassing everything that does not fall under textiles, provisions, or ironware. It contains pottery, large amounts of which were imported in a wide variety of both quality and origin: cheap white and red earthenware for daily use, faience from Delft in the Netherlands, but also from other European countries, Dutch majolica, and German stoneware, including some from the area of the Rhine. Other items of imported earthenware were pipes, which have been found in large numbers in excavations.117

NYCM 16–1: 39 (19 November 1653; LWA, 35–36), 5: 205 (28 January 1654; NYHM 5: 110–111), 10–3: 95–96 (17 March 1664), 103–104 (18 March 1664), 8: 580 (15 May 1657), 843 (16 April 1658; LO, 348); Nat. Arch., SG, Res. WIZ, inv. no. 4845, fols. 324–324v (20 January 1648; DRCHNY 1: 215). 116 NYSA, NYCM 12: 45, p. 5 (19 December 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 107); NYSL, VRMP, box 48, II folder 13 (December 1657; CJVR 67), folder 17 (22 December 1657; CJVR 77); GAA, NA, inv. no. 2880, pp. 80–82 (17 February 1659), AB, inv. no. 541 ‘Lijste vant bougereetschap soo alsnu vereijscht wert te senden na deses stats colonie’ (3 November 1662; DRCHNY 2: 184); Puype, Dutch and Other Flintlocks; Baart, ‘Kammen’, 180; Van Dongen, ‘Inexhaustable Kettle’, 136. 117 Wilcoxen, Dutch Trade and Ceramics; Wilcoxen, ‘New Netherland Ceramics’; Baart, ‘Dutch Material Civilization’, 1–6; De Roever, ‘The Fort Orange “EB” Pipe Bowls’; Huey, ‘Archeological Excavations in the Site of Fort Orange’, 74.

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

253

The same is true of glassware, such as glasses and bottles. Dutch glassware shipped with an eye to the trade with the Indians were glass beads, which find little mention in the archives, but which come to light to a greater extent in excavations. Despite the presence of shoemakers in New Netherland, shoes were also imported right up to the end of the Dutch period. In 1640, Arent and Dirck Corsz. Stam imported ninety-six pairs of them, rain shoes, women’s slippers, girls’ shoes, and children’s shoes. Luxury items were also shipped to the colony, although this was not such a common practice. In 1643, Jan Tjebkensz. Schellinger, captain of the Hoop, took with him part of his household effects, consisting of paintings, silverwork, clothing, jewelry, and furniture to sell in New Netherland. To some extent, luxury goods were ordered in patria to the specifications of the colonists, as the correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer shows. But that option was open only to the upper classes.118 The diversity and quality of the commodities imported indicates that for many products New Netherland continued to be dependent on imports from the fatherland. Furthermore, it shows that the colonists did not have to be deprived of the luxuries they were accustomed to in the Dutch Republic, if they could afford to import them. Transport costs of goods sent to New Netherland made imports considerably more expensive than in the Netherlands. Van der Donck maintained in his Vertoogh van Nieu Nederlandt that commodities were two to three times as expensive as in the Dutch Republic. The director general and council tried to fix the prices of imported goods, as they had also done for bread. However, the directors in Amsterdam initially rejected this, arguing that the perspective of gain is the greatest incentive to make people go there, as experience has taught us sufficiently, whereas on the contrary the fear of a meager and uncertain profit discourages people and keeps them at home, as would certainly happen if they would come there with their merchandise on this basis.119

This would reduce the WIC’s income from the duties. As with the export of beaver pelts and tobacco, the levies on the import of various

118 Huey, ‘Glass Beads from Fort Orange’; Francis, ‘De kralen waarmee het eiland Manhattan niet is betaald’; GAA, NA, inv. no. 524, fols. 28v–29 (29 June 1640), inv. no. 1715, pp. 525–526 (9 May 1661), inv. no. 602, fols. 43v–44 (9 July 1643). 119 NYSA, NYCM 12: 1, p. 2 (12 March 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 4).

254

chapter four

products into the colony was a source of income for the West India Company. However, the amounts charged were a bone of contention for the citizens of New Netherland, and the delegation that in 1650 submitted diverse complaints to the States General protested strongly about it. In a memorandum of March 1650 the delegates stated that, in particular, the levies on dry goods necessary for the sustenance of the colonists stood in the way of the successful colonization of New Netherland. Levies on liquids or on goods intended for the Indians had fewer detrimental effects.120 Although the protests had no immediate effect, the WIC implemented the advocated distinction in the stream of merchandise some years later. An ordinance promulgated in early 1654 states that the existing levy of one per cent had so far not been collected, because it would make necessary items such as stockings, shoes, linen, shirts, woolen cloth, and soap more expensive. The unfavorable financial situation of the government now moved the director general and council to introduce a new levy, although it was limited to commodities for trade with the Indians, dosijntjes [calico], kettles and blankets, and less important goods, such as wine, brandy, liqueurs, imported beer, and salt. Protests from the merchants resulted in a reduction by a quarter.121 Apart from New Amsterdam, the WIC also charged levies in Amsterdam. The figures on the proceeds cover a number of years: in 1654 the Amsterdam chamber received ƒ 32,603:7 in recognition fees on goods that private traders dispatched in six ships to New Netherland. The total for the following year was ƒ 28,850, in 1656 ƒ 24,624:4:8, in 1657 ƒ 19,004:5, in 1658 ƒ 32,196:18, and in 1659 ƒ 26,772. Noteworthy is that the amounts per ship vary quite considerably. The goods on the Vergulde Beer which sailed in 1654 were taxed at ƒ 10,619:19:8, but those on the Abrahams Offerhande only ƒ 424:12. The lack of any specifications implies that it is impossible

120 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 38–39 (19 November 1653; LWA, 35–36); Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 27 (NNN, 323); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Cort bericht ofte antwoorde op eenige poincten’ (29 November 1650; DRCHNY 1: 422), inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Consideratien over het stuck vande recognitie’ (7 March 1650; DRCHNY 1: 372–376). 121 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 41–42 (28 January 1654; LWA, 37–38), 5: 203–206 (28 January 1654; NYHM 5: 110–111), 308–309 (21 July 1654; NYHM 5: 157–158), 309–312 (22 July 1654; NYHM 5: 158–159).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

255

to discover the reason for this difference. The figures provide an indication of the total value of the stream of goods from fatherland to colony. If the recognition fees were maintained at the same level in this period, namely four per cent, then the total value of the export from the Dutch Republic to New Netherland between 1654 and 1659 would have fluctuated between five hundred thousand and eight hundred thousand guilders annually. As shipping increased after 1659 the value of the goods dispatched from the Dutch Republic to the colony must have been even higher. At some point the collection of the recognition fees was transferred from Amsterdam to New Amsterdam, to give the colonial government more financial leeway. Later, this measure was reversed. Since the bookkeeping records of the WIC, both of Amsterdam and of New Netherland, have been lost in their entirety, little more is known about the collection and the proceeds of the recognition fees.122 After the WIC had given up its monopoly on the fur trade and shipping, the key role in the trade between colony and fatherland went to a group of Amsterdam merchants. They made use of factors in New Amsterdam, usually family members, to maintain their trading activities in the area. In his book Holland on the Hudson Oliver Rink has described the four main Amsterdam merchants’ families who controlled half of the trade with New Netherland: the Verbrugges, the Van Hoornbeecks, the De Wolffs, and the Van Rensselaers. The gradual development of a group of independent merchants in New Amsterdam has since been researched by Dennis Maika. After the expiration of their contracts, many of the factors who were sent over by Amsterdam families to take care of their affairs began trading on their own account, and in doing so they continued to make use of their connections in Amsterdam. Included in this group were merchants such as Cornelis Steenwijck, Govert Loockermans, and Johannes de Peijster. As a result of their prominent position in New Amsterdam, many of them acquired a seat in the city government and were therefore in a position to negotiate the conditions and levies laid

122 NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland Papers box 1, folder ‘Tax list of the Dutch West India Company for taxes received on merchandise conveyed by private parties to New Netherland’ (1654–1655; Guide, no. 561), folder ‘Accounts of the West India Company, slave trade etc.’ (1651–1660; Guide, no. 553); NYSA, NYCM 12: 45, p. 5 (19 December 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 106), 56, p. 2 (7 April 1659; Corres. 1654–1658, 127).

256

chapter four

down by the WIC for trading with the director general and council, and in some instances with the directors in Amsterdam. This applied not only to the direct trade with the Dutch Republic in textiles, provisions, ironware, and pottery on the one hand, and peltries and tobacco on the other, but also for the transit trade with other areas of America.123 An important facet in the development of New Amsterdam into the central point in the trade was that the WIC in the Freedoms and Exemptions of 1629 had designated Manhattan as its staple. Such a measure was unnecessary while all shipping and trade remained in the hands of the Company, but the freedom of the patroons to use their own ships made it necessary to require all imports and exports to go via the WIC warehouse in New Amsterdam. When the shipping and trade were decontrolled in 1640, this requirement was maintained. Although the staple right remained in the hands of the WIC, which levied the import and export duties, the merchants of New Amsterdam found it to be to their advantage, especially as it applied not just to transatlantic but also to inter-colonial shipping. The staple right was not undisputed: some English towns on Long Island in vain sought permission for direct trade, which meant that ships would not put in at New Amsterdam. The commissioners for New Amstel were more successful. In 1663 the directors in Amsterdam allowed ships from the Netherlands to sail directly to the South River without first calling at New Amsterdam. The direct shipping from the Dutch Republic to the English colonies and vice versa was also subject to the WIC monopoly and after 1640 could be carried out only after payment of recognition fees. At the end of the 1640s several ships were seized in New Amsterdam for having broken the regulations in an attempt to increase their profits. Direct shipping was continued illegally, although this was not made any easier by the introduction of the English Navigation Acts. For the merchants who were not prepared to take such risks the opportunity still remained to trade legally via New Amsterdam.124

123

Rink, Holland on the Hudson, chapter 7; Maika, ‘Commerce and Community’. Freedoms and Exemptions, art. 12 (7 June 1629; VRBM, 142); Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 II (ingekomen 1640) C. 1049 (19 July 1640; DRCHNY 1: 121); Shattuck, ‘Heemstede’, 39; NYSA, NYCM 19: 83 ( July 1663; DRCHNY 2: 207; DP, 330). 124

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

257

The number of ships traveling from the Dutch Republic to New Amsterdam gradually increased over time. The amount of traffic was small until 1623: it consisted of small-scale private shipping, organized by Amsterdam merchants, who were granted a monopoly from the States General for a short period. Although much information is missing, it probably involved only a few ships each year. From 1623 to 1640, when the monopoly on shipping was released, the amount of traffic increased slightly to about two to three ships per year, largely dispatched by the West India Company. The patroons had the right, under certain conditions, to send out their own ships, but only occasionally made use of it. After 1640 the average number of ships increased, at first to four or five per year. At the end of the 1650s it had risen to seven or eight. The vast majority of the ships were fitted out by Amsterdam merchants, and the WIC’s share of the shipping fell to between ten and twenty per cent. At the end of this period part of the shipping was already financed by New Amsterdam merchants. The English Navigation Acts, which stipulated that shipping from English colonies had to be carried out in English ships, caused this trend to increase after 1664. The New Amsterdam merchants, in collaboration with those in Amsterdam, looked for opportunities to arrange part of the financing via Amsterdam. Initially, direct shipping was permitted in the conditions of capitulation, but after the Second Anglo-Dutch War goods had to be cleared through customs in Dover or London, and thereafter shipped to Amsterdam. This increased costs to such an extent that direct shipping between New York and Amsterdam decreased to two to three ships per year.125 This development had severe consequences for the economy of the colony, according to a petition from Stuyvesant to the Duke of York in 1667: ‘all the Dutch inhabitants of New Yorke must inevitably be brought to ruyne’, if direct shipping was forbidden. If ‘the Comodities brought from Holland as Camper, Duffles, Hatchetts, and other Iron worke made at Utrick &c much esteemed of by the Natives’ were not available any more, the beaver trade in New York would collapse, and the French in Canada would take over the trade with the Indians. It would also be detrimental to the other English colonies, since ‘the Dutch lost their former trade, by which also many

125

Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’; Jacobs, ‘Enkele aspecten’.

258

chapter four

thousands of His Matyes subjectes in Virginia Maryland and New England were furnisht with necessaries’.126 The statement makes clear how important the transit trade had become. From New Amsterdam the merchants distributed the imported goods in small yachts or other craft throughout the rest of New Netherland, as well as to New England, Maryland, and Virginia. Director general and council wrote the directors in patria that Virginia yearly draws a great quantity of mixed goods, brandy, and distilled waters from here, and exchanges it for tobacco, which is the main trade here and without which there would be few returns from here.127

Excavations in Virginia and various sites in New England, including Boston and Jamestown, show that large amounts of Dutch pottery were also shipped to these colonies. What goods were shipped back from New England is less clear. Close contacts existed between the colonies, but as yet little is known about the scope of the transit trade or the intra-American shipping.128 In contrast, how the shipping and trade between the Netherlands and New Netherland was carried out in practice can be clearly determined. Although for a number of years it was principally in the hands of the WIC, this did not mean that all the ships were owned by the Company. In the 1630s and 1640s, to cut costs, the WIC began to make increasing use of chartered ships, a practice that private merchants also adopted in the 1640s. Collaborating in a partnership, they hired a ship for a number of months. An example is the chartering in 1651 of the Hoff van Cleeff, of 170 last [approximately 340 tons], and armed with twelve cannons. It was hired by her owners Hendrick Agges and Jan Vlasbloem to Adriaen Bloemmaert, Nicolaes van Lith, and Jan and Charles Gabry for a period of at least seven months, at 630 guilders per month. The charterers were to provide the crew and the victuals, while the shipowners were to send captain Jan Bloem on the voyage to supervise the running of the ship, but not to be in command of it. That role was assigned to Adriaen Bloemmaert. In such an arrangement it was the task of

126

DRCHNY 3: 69 (1 October 1664), 163–164 (1 October 1667). NYSA, NYCM 13: 96, p. 13 (23 April 1660; DRCHNY 14: 471). 128 Wilcoxen, ‘Dutch Trade with New England’; Hatfield, ‘Dutch Merchants and Colonists in the English Chesapeake’. 127

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

259

the charterers to acquire a cargo. Part of this cargo consisted of their own trading commodities, while the rest of the hold was filled with goods belonging to others, which were shipped for a prearranged price. Generally, a WIC supercargo sailed with the ship to prevent smuggling.129 As the trade in the 1640s and 1650s expanded, some of the private trading companies were moved to buy their own ships, such as the families Van Rensselaer and Van Twiller, who in 1647 together owned the Prins Willem and in 1651 bought the ship Gelderse Blom. Such purchase indicates that the business relationships with the colony had gained a sound and long-lasting nature. The shipowners expected that the use of their own ship over a couple of years would be less expensive than chartering a ship every year. The Gelderse Blom made annual voyages to New Netherland between 1651 and 1657, captained first by Cornelis Coenraetsz. van Kampen and later by Sijmon Claesz. van Graft. Besides transporting trading goods, it also carried contract workers for Rensselaerswijck.130 When a ship arrived in New Amsterdam, extensive regulations on the unloading and the clearing of goods via the WIC warehouse had to be followed. Some of the documents required have survived in the archives of the director general and council and in private archives, such as those of the Van Rensselaers. An example from the correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer shows clearly how small the scale of trade could sometimes be, and the length of time it could take before the proceeds were received. In 1656 Talckjen, maid to Jeremias’s mother Anna van Rensselaer, sent Jeremias six silver spoons valued at thirty guilders and a pair of silk stockings worth ten guilders. Nicolaes van Rensselaer had convinced her that her chances of making a profit were good, and she had invested in this consignment not only her savings but also some borrowed capital. Six months later Jeremias answered that he thought that the silver spoons would yield a beaver each, and that he had already received a bid of sixty guilders about which he was still negotiating. In the meantime, the silk stockings had been sold for twenty guilders. A couple of weeks

129 Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’, 19–20; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1534, p. 173 (17 February 1651). 130 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1081, fols. 197–198 (9 August 1647), inv. no. 1096, fols. 338–339 (30 March 1651); Jacobs, ‘Scheepvaart en handel’, 65.

260

chapter four

later he sent to patria five-and-a-half beavers for the spoons and twoand-a-half beavers for the silk stockings. This was a partial advance, as the silver spoons had still not been sold. In the meantime the proceeds from the stockings turned out to be insufficient. Anna van Rensselaer reported to him in 1658 that Talckjen made a loss of one guilder on them; and the advance for the spoons was too high. Jeremias could not sell them for any more than five beavers, and ultimately decided to keep them himself at that price. He also tried to sell goods in Rensselaerswijck for other people, such as his brother Rijckert and his sister Leonora, who sent over pistols. Without doubt Jeremias charged an amount in commission. His correspondence does not make clear how much this was, but another source reveals that it was generally twelve per cent.131 The merchants in Amsterdam and their agents in New Netherland maintained a close correspondence about the commodities that could fetch a good price at any particular time, as is apparent from the exchange of letters between Govert Loockermans and the Verbrugges. Loockermans was reprimanded because he did not include sufficient information about the trade: In your honor’s letter your honor writes us one-and-half page full of news, such as [the journey of] our little ship to the north [New England] and further about the situation of the land, which is unnecessary as we learn that sufficiently orally from the captain and the passengers, but the trade, that really concerns us. [. . .] Your honor will please realize that it is not like France or other places, to which mail carriers go every week, but it will take a whole year before we get further tidings, which time will hang very heavy on our hands.132

Conclusion The trade really concerned the merchants, both in Amsterdam and in New Amsterdam, and it was of great importance for the founding and continued existence of New Netherland. In the literature

131 NYSL, VRMP, box 48 I, folder 13 (5 December 1656; CJVR 36), box 50 A, folder 23 (25 June 1657; CJVR 52), folder 4 (no. 25) (14 August 1657; CJVR 57), box 48, II, folder 4 (8 May 1658; CJVR 90), folder 29 (20 December 1659; CJVR 201); CJVR 168, n. 394; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1804, p. 434 (24 November 1657). 132 NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 3–2 (24 March 1648; Guide, no. 464).

‘the

trade, that really concerns us’

261

dealing with the economy of New Netherland the emphasis is placed for the most part on the economic significance of the colony for the fatherland, a perspective that stems from nineteenth and early twentieth century imperial views of colonies. The transport of goods to and from the colony features prominently, and the beaver trade takes a central role. The fur trade was of great importance in the first twenty years of New Netherland. However, even at its highest point at the end of the 1650s the total value of the export was only three hundred to three hundred and fifty thousand guilders. That is a higher figure than some earlier assessments, but the estimates for the export of tobacco from New Netherland (about four hundred thousand guilders in 1664), make clear that at the end of the Dutch period the tobacco export was more important than that of peltries. Nevertheless, the export of New Netherland tobacco lagged in volume behind that from Virginia, part of which went via New Amsterdam. These export figures can be compared with those for import, which in the 1650s fluctuated between the five hundred and eight hundred thousand guilders, and which probably rose even more after that. Of course these are all estimates and, in view of the absence of concrete figures, must be treated with a certain amount of caution. Even so, it shows that New Netherland was not of particular importance in the total Dutch Atlantic trade, which already in the first twenty years of the seventeenth century had a total value of four to seven-and-a-half million guilders.133 Such figures were of no significance to the inhabitants of New Netherland. Taking as a perspective the question how the colonists were able to support themselves, it becomes clear that for them cashcrop agriculture was by far the most important sector. In addition trades and industry with local functions emerged. The colonists relied on imports from the fatherland for many commodities, such as textiles, which were not allowed to be produced in the colony, and all imports had to be paid from the export of beaver pelts and tobacco. Gradually, simple products began to be produced in New Netherland, but for specialized goods the colony continued to rely on imports. An example is that of tailors and the import of leather and shoes. Shoemakers in New Netherland took care of the production

133 Enthoven, Zeeland en de opkomst van de Republiek, 268; Van den Boogaart, La expansión holandesa, 139.

262

chapter four

of ordinary shoes, made from locally tanned leather, while special footwear such as rain shoes and girls’ slippers, and Russian leather were imported. For alcoholic beverages the situation is clearer: beer for everyday consumption was brewed in the colony; more luxurious drinks, such as wine and liqueurs, were imported. Besides the growth of economic independence, the growth in population in New Netherland also fueled the differentiation in trades. As a result the prosperity in the colony increased. Besides the absence of a textile industry, the economy of the colony differed from that of the Dutch Republic in a few other aspects, such as the use of sewant and beavers as means of payment and the absence of guilds. Also exceptional was the dependence on imports from the fatherland. Especially in agriculture and industry it is evident that with the growth of the colony the regulations for the economy came to be more in line with what the colonists were used to in patria. Naturally new elements existed, but these were to some extent inherent in the colonial situation and, as such, in essence not unique to New Netherland. The manner in which the new elements were encapsulated in economic life was determined by the pattern of thought which the colonists had brought with them from the Dutch Republic.

CHAPTER FIVE

‘GOD’S CHURCH AND HONOR SHOULD BE CARED FOR’1

Religious considerations played an important role in the establishment of the West India Company in 1621. A considerable proportion of the shareholders and directors, including a number of merchants who had fled the southern Netherlands, were strict Calvinistic, in any case they were in the first decades of the Company’s existence. Further, the founding of the Company was prompted by the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce between the Dutch Republic and Catholic Spain. As hostilities resumed, the wic was envisioned as an overseas weapon that could take the war to the Spanish colonies in America. Finally, yet another of its aims was of a religious nature: the Christianization of the native Indians. It is therefore remarkable that the wic’s charter does not refer to religion. Neither was a reference to religion included in the charter of the East India Company.2 The omission was put right to some extent in the Provisional Regulations given to the first colonists of New Netherland in 1624, which stipulated that the colonists were not allowed to practice any other divine worship than that of the Reformed religion in the way it is at present practiced here in this country [. . .], without however persecuting anyone on account of his religion, but leaving to everyone the freedom of his conscience.3

Other than this, religion received scant official mention in the early years of New Netherland, the explanation being that, as a government-sanctioned institution, it was evident to the directors that the West India Company was obliged to see to it that the Reformed

1

GAA, ACA, inv. no. 6, p. 33; inv. no. 19, p. 25 (3 October 1656; ER 1: 357). Den Heijer, De geschiedenis van de WIC, 21–22; Frijhoff, Wegen, 495–496; Van Hoboken, ‘The Dutch West India Company’; Van Dillen ‘De West-Indische Compagnie’; Van Hoboken, ‘Wederwoord’; Groenhuis, De predikanten, 35–36; Van Winter, De Westindische Compagnie ter kamer Stad en Lande, 13–14; Van Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam, De gereformeerde kerken, 17–18; Joosse, ‘Scoone dingen sijn swaere dingen’, 224. 3 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 112 (DRNN, 2–5). 2

264

chapter five

religion played an important role in the colony, as it did in patria. There was no need to confirm this in writing. The East India Company and the Admiralties employed an ordained minister or at least a ziekentrooster [comforter of the sick] on board their ships and on the trading posts in the East Indies. The wic took the first step in its responsibility to provide religious content to New Netherland in 1625, when it decided to send Bastiaen Jansz. Krol, a ziekentrooster, to New Netherland with Director Willem Verhulst. Although the West India Company bore a responsibility for the spiritual care of its employees, initially little clarity existed on which organizations were responsible for appointments, what procedures had to be followed and how the costs were to be met. Furthermore, the situation changed when New Netherland gradually developed into a settlement colony. This chapter will deal with the organization of religion both in the Dutch Republic and in New Netherland, with the presence of faiths other than the Reformed religion in the colony, and with missionary activity among the Africans and Indians.

Classis and Directors The supervision of religious matters in the colonies was more the result of ad hoc decisions than of preconceived plans. It shares this with the development of the administrative apparatus. Initial measures included having a minister or comforter of the sick accompany a ship to the colony, but as the colony became more firmly established, further steps towards the creation of a fullyfledged church were necessary. During the entire existence of New Netherland, the secular and religious authorities, both in the fatherland and in the colony, maintained a stable relationship in appointing comforters of the sick and ministers, even though they differed over other points. During the first decades of the seventeenth century, the consistory of Amsterdam took upon itself the task of appointing comforters of the sick and ministers for the areas under control of the East India Company chamber in Amsterdam. The consistory made a selection from the available candidates, examined them, then recommended them to the directors, and, on receiving the approval of the Company, provided them with their instructions. Initially, the Amsterdam consistory acted on its own authority, but it quickly obtained the explicit

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

265

permission of the Amsterdam classis. In 1621, the Amsterdam consistory decided to transfer the executive tasks of administering the religious affairs overseas, including the East Indies, to a separate committee, the deputati ad res Indicas [deputies for Indian matters]. This committee maintained the correspondence with most of the colonial churches under its wing and oversaw the relations with other classes in cities in which a company chamber was located. When the West India Company was founded later in 1621, the committee also took charge of the religious affairs of the colonies of the wic chamber of Amsterdam.4 After a couple of years, however, its authority was challenged. The question of which body should undertake the religious supervision of the colonies was discussed in 1624 at the synod of North Holland, with the provisional outcome that the churches and the classes in areas with voc chambers were the designated bodies. This was merely a continuation of the status quo, and the decision to request the advice of the States of Holland on the provisional solution shows that the issue had not yet been resolved. The issue was raised by the delegates of the synods of the rural provinces of Gelderland, Overijssel, and Utrecht, who voiced the opinion that this was a matter that concerned all the reformed churches in the Dutch Republic and not just a few classes in the large cities. In the beginning of the 1620s the conflict pertained only to the religious situation in the East Indies, but it was just a matter of time before comforters of the sick and ministers had to be sent to the West Indies as well. As long as no definitive ruling had been made, the Amsterdam consistory continued to send ministers and comforters of the sick to New Netherland.5 The Amsterdam consistory lost its dominant position in the mid1630s. Without an explicit decision having been made, supervision of the churches in areas under the authority of the Amsterdam chambers of the East India Company and West India Company was transferred in 1635 and 1636 from the Amsterdam consistory to the classis of Amsterdam. The reluctance of the synods of Gelderland, Utrecht,

4 Eekhof, Bastiaen Jansz. Krol, 8–24; Van Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam, De gereformeerde kerken, 19–50; Van Troostenburg de Bruyn, De hervormde kerk in Nederlandsch Oost-Indië, 113–121. 5 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 82, sub dato 6 August 1624 and 12 August 1625 (ER 1: 38–40; Grothe, Archief, 1: 2–3).

266

chapter five

and Overijssel to accept the Amsterdam position reappeared in 1639, and for a number of years it was a recurring item on the agenda of the North Holland synod. The other synods’ displeasure reached such a pitch that in 1642, when the renewal of the patents of the wic and voc was due, they asked the States General to create a coetus correspondentium. This body, to consist of delegates from the synods of all the provinces, would, they hoped, take over the supervision of the colonial churches. The synod of North Holland did not like the idea of giving up the authority gained by the Amsterdam classis, and ultimately it persuaded the other synods to abandon their opposition. However, the synod of North Holland had to make a number of concessions in return. For example, the delegates of the Amsterdam classis had to attend the annual North Holland synodal meeting to present a report of their activities in the presence of representatives of the other synods. Permission was also granted for candidates for the colonial churches to originate from other provinces. In this way, the authority of the Amsterdam classis over North America was confirmed, and it would last until far into the eighteenth century. It was only in 1772 that the Dutch Reformed Church in America gained its full independence from the mother church in the Netherlands.6 Just as the Amsterdam consistory had done earlier, the Amsterdam classis transferred some duties to a committee from within its own ranks, which operated under several different names: deputati ad res Indicas, ad res exteras, ad res maritimas, and ad causas Indicas [deputies for Indian matters, for foreign matters, for maritime matters, and for Indian affairs]. To an extent their work consisted of preparing and executing decisions made by the full classis, of which the most important was the appointment of ministers. It is possible that prior to 1636 the candidates first applied to the directors and were examined by the classis only afterwards. In the procedure established in 1636, a continual interaction took place between the Company directors, the classis, and the deputies. First of all, it was up to the directors of the wic to decide whether

6 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 83, sub dato 12 August 1642 (ER 1: 158–161; Grothe, Archief, 1: 16–18), inv. no. 84, sub dato 16 August 1650, art. 18, pp. 31–32 (ER 1: 277–278; Grothe, Archief, 1: 31–32); De Jong, The Dutch Reformed Church, 1; Eekhof, Bastiaen Jansz. Krol, 22–23; Niemeijer, Calvinisme en koloniale stadscultuur, 97; Van Boetzelaer, De gereformeerde kerken, 72–92.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

267

a minister should be appointed for a particular place under the government of the Company. For patroonships this right belonged to the patroon, whereas for New Amstel on the South River the city of Amsterdam held the authority. The classis then summoned potential candidates to report to it, although this task was sometimes left to the deputies. The full meeting of the classis checked the references of the candidates and examined them. After the classis had made its choice, the two oldest deputies, one from Amsterdam and another from the congregations in towns surrounding the city, presented the candidate to the directors. These had the right to either accept or reject the candidate: the so-called right of approbation. This was a customary right of the Amsterdam city government and the Amsterdam chamber adopted it as well. After a trial sermon in the classical meeting, the candidate’s definitive examination, the laying on of hands and the confirmation of the appointment took place. The deputies drew up the instruction and issued a letter of call, both of which signed by the two oldest of them and by the elders of the Amsterdam church. It is awkward that the latter were also signatories, but this was a relic of the time when the Amsterdam consistory still had matters under its control. The procedure for comforters of the sick and schoolmasters was roughly the same. The role of the Amsterdam directors was not written down, but can be deduced from subsequent events.7 A second responsibility of the deputies was to maintain the correspondence with the colonial churches. When letters arrived from the east or the west, they were opened by the deputies, who reported their content at the next classical meeting. If the classis considered that decisions needed to be made as a result of their content, it was the duty of the deputies to formulate answers to them. After the classis had approved of the replies, they were signed and dispatched by the two oldest deputies. A similar procedure was applied to correspondence with the Companies and with other churches, in so far as this concerned colonial matters.8

7 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 163, pp. 1–2 (5 May 1636; ER 1: 89–91), inv. no. 158, p. 3 (4 April 1663; ER: 1: 529–530); Vryheden ende Exemptiën, art. 27 (VRBM, 151); Van Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam, De gereformeerde kerken, 93–125; Frijhoff, Wegen, 208, 545–546; Groenhuis, De predikanten, 22; Roodenburg, Onder censuur, 106–107. 8 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 163, pp. 1–2 (5 May 1636; ER 1: 89–91).

268

chapter five

The procedures on the calling of ministers, although they were generally adhered to, paint a rosier picture of the relations between the various bodies than in actual fact existed. The relationship between the religious authorities and the secular authorities in Amsterdam, i.e. between the classis and the West India Company directors, had its ups and downs. In general, the directors agreed to the choice of the classis, with only a few exceptions. During the first quarter of the seventeenth century the procedures became more clearly defined, and after the West India Company started its work in 1623 such incidents became rare. Occasionally disagreement arose over the necessity to appoint a new minister, which the directors usually considered less pressing than the classis thought it, in part because of the costs involved. Sometimes the directors rejected a candidate nominated by the classis, as was the case with Jonas Michaëlius in 1637. Michaëlius was minister on Manhattan from 1628 to 1631, but became involved in the conflict between Pieter Minuit and Jan van Remunde, and as a result he incurred the displeasure of the directors. Regardless of whether he was right or wrong at that time, it was clear to the directors that such problems in the colony could have disastrous consequences. When in 1637 a new minister had to be found for New Netherland, the classis asked Michaëlius to make himself available as candidate. The deputies subsequently recommended him to the directors, who answered that they would invite him if they needed him. The classis was dissatisfied with the answer, and the deputies pressed the directors again, but in vain.9 The classis did get its own way in other cases. The Amsterdam directors had their doubts about Johannes Cornelisz. Backer or Backerus, who had been recommended as candidate for the ministry on Curaçao. Their hesitancy was caused by the fact that Backer, contrary to what the Latinization of his name suggests, had not studied theology at university. Shortly before, the Heren XIX had deter-

9 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 163, p. 137 (1644; ER 1: 186–187), p. 33 (7 September 1637; ER 1: 111), p. 34 (5 October 1637; ER 1: 111), p. 37 (16 November 1637; ER 1: 113), p. 40 (15 May 1638; ER 1: 114), p. 41 (7 June 1638; ER 1: 116), p. 42 (5 July 1638; ER 1: 116), inv. no. 4, p. 103 (7 September 1637; ER 1: 111), p. 107 (5 October 1637; ER 1: 111), p. 113 (16 November 1637; ER 1: 113), p. 125 (7 June 1638; ER 1: 116), p. 129 (5 July 1638; ER 1: 116); NSMA, VRBMs, 2 (16 September 1630; VRBM, 169–170); GAA, NA, inv. no. 943, not paginated (17 July 1632); Eekhof, Bastiaen Jansz. Krol, 13.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

269

mined no longer to appoint ‘idiots’ [preachers without a university education] as ministers, a decision that accorded with a development over the course of the seventeenth century to set higher standards for ministers. Nevertheless, in 1642 the directors accepted Johannes Backer for the post of minister for Curaçao. Later he went to New Netherland. Another situation in which friction between the classis and the directors played a role occurred in 1662 and concerned Samuel Megapolensis, son of the New Amsterdam predikant Johannes Megapolensis. The directors selected him over a few other candidates even before he had been examined by the classis. According to the classis the directors were ‘deviating therein from the old and commendable regulation observed before this’. The directors agreed to comply with this in future and the matter was swiftly put to rights.10 The appointment of ministers in New Netherland was not always exclusively the result of a joint decision by the classis and directors in Amsterdam. In some instances, the director general and council in New Netherland played a role, as in the case of Johannes Backer, and later of Johannes Megapolensis. When in 1647 Backer, who was traveling from Curaçao, arrived in New Netherland on the same ship as Stuyvesant, the incumbent predikant, Everardus Bogardus, was on the point of leaving for the fatherland to continue his conflict with Director Kieft. Because it was undesirable to leave the congregation in New Amsterdam without a minister, Backer allowed himself to be persuaded by the director general and council to stay. The post proved not to his liking, and a year later the classis and the directors permitted him to return to patria. In Backer’s case the initiative was taken by the director general and council, but this was not so in the case of Johannes Megapolensis. The directors hoped to persuade Megapolensis, who had recently left his ministry in Rensselaerswijck, to fill the vacancy left by Backer in New Amsterdam. They instructed Stuyvesant to try to persuade Megapolensis to stay there as the chances of quickly finding a new minister were small. However, Megapolensis was unwilling, and the fear that there would not be a single minister left in New Netherland caused the director

10 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, pp. 84–85 (19 August 1642; ER 1: 161–162), p. 437 (25 September 1662; ER 1: 527–528); Frijhoff, Wegen, 549–550; Groenhuis, De predikanten, 164–165.

270

chapter five

general and council to keep him in the colony ‘blanda vi et quasi nolens volens’ [with friendly force and almost willy-nilly].11 The incident with Backer was exceptional. It was more customary that, as with Megapolensis, decisions on the appointment of ministers were made in the Dutch Republic, and that the secular authorities in New Netherland simply carried out instructions. The role of various secular and religious authorities can be seen in the call of Henricus Selijns to Breuckelen on Long Island. This is one of the few cases in which all the steps in the procedure are documented. Selijns was graduated from Leiden University and was provisionally examined by the Amsterdam classis in 1657. Three years later the directors asked the deputies to select a minister for New Netherland. The deputies passed on the request to the classical meeting, reporting at the same time that they had heard about Selijns’s good qualities and recommended him to the classis, ‘however in such a way that they leave everything to the free disposal and selection of the honorable classis’. Selijns was indeed selected, the choice was approved by the directors, and after a trial sermon he took his final examination. A letter of call was drawn up that was signed by three of the deputies and then furnished with the approbation of the wic chamber in Amsterdam. The task of the religious and secular authorities in the Netherlands was now completed, and Selijns was ready to depart for New Netherland, where he arrived in June. His formal installation was delayed because of the peace negotiations at the Esopus that summer, and Selijns made use of the delay to preach there and at Fort Orange. Back in New Amsterdam by the end of August, Stuyvesant gave him a letter of recommendation, and he was accompanied to Breuckelen by council member Nicasius de Sille and Marten Kregier, burgemeester of New Amsterdam, to be introduced to the consistory and to have his ministry confirmed. Only at this point did the local consistory exert some influence. In Stuyvesant’s letter, reference was made to the request from Breuckelen for a minister. But the citizens of Breuckelen had no input on the

11 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, fol. 200 (29 June 1648; ER 1: 232), p. 193 (27 January 1648; ER 1: 226); NYSA, NYCM 4: 317 (22 July 1647; NYHM 4: 412), 444 (2 August 1649; NYHM 4: 611–613), 11: 14, p. 16 (27 January 1649; Corres. 1647–1653, 71), 12 (7 April 1648; Corres. 1647–1653, 56–57); Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 82–83.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

271

choice of their minister, although they would have little reason to complain about someone of Selijns’s qualities. Selijns’s call shows a continuous interaction between religious and secular authorities in the Dutch Republic and in the colony, all of whom wanted to have a part in it to emphasize their power and position.12 If ministers wanted to return home, they informed the classis, which then tried to obtain their discharge from the Company directors. Of the eleven ordained ministers who arrived in New Netherland before 1664, five returned to patria after their contract expired: Johannes Backer, Hermannus Blom, Jonas Michaëlius, Henricus Selijns, and Samuel Megapolensis. The five who stayed were Johannes Megapolensis, Samuel Drisius, Johannes Polhemius, Gideon Schaets, and Everardus Welius, who died soon after his arrival. Johannes Megapolensis had to be persuaded to stay in New Amsterdam. Everardus Bogardus drowned on the return voyage, but presumably did not intend to leave New Netherland for ever. Wilhelmus Grasmeer, who went to New Netherland against the wishes of the classis and stayed only a short while, is not included in these numbers.13 One of the reasons ministers wanted to leave New Netherland was because of problems with their pay. The salary promised in patria turned out to be difficult to obtain once the ministers had arrived in the colony, and it was generally insufficient. In the first decades of the existence of New Netherland the salary was paid in its entirety by the directors in Amsterdam, but in later years director general and council in the colony were charged with arranging the income, which they did for a part via the tenths. Another part of the salaries of the ministers had to be provided by the community, and collection was seldom an easy matter. Salary concerns also played a role in the recruitment of ministers in the Netherlands. In 1649 in a letter to Backer concerning his succession, the classis wrote that only a few people had shown interest in the vacancy, ‘as because of the bad situation of the Company there is little desire among

12 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 6, p. 74 (3 September 1657; ER 1: 405), p. 79 (2 October 1657; ER 1: 405), p. 172 (5 January 1660; ER 1: 462–463), p. 176 (16 February 1660; ER 1: 464–465), inv. no. 19, pp. 59–60 (5 January 1660; ER 1: 462–463), p. 60 (16 February 1660; ER 1: 464–465); OFDRCB, 4–6 (16 February 1660), 2–3 (3 and 5 September 1660), 226–227 (4 October 1660); NYSA, NYCM 13: 69b (16 February 1660; ER 1: 466–468); Van der Linde, ‘Selijns’. 13 Appendix 10.

272

chapter five

trained predicanten and also proponenten [candidates] to accept such a long journey’. On a number of occasions the help of the classis was called for in attempts to obtain payment of overdue salaries.14 The procedures for calling ministers to the colonies, the interventions regarding their return, and their salary problems were without doubt the most important tasks of the classis and the deputies insofar as New Netherland was concerned. In addition, several other matters are to be found in the correspondence, such as the appeal made by the Fiscael Lubbert van Dincklagen against the disciplinary measures that were imposed upon him in New Netherland. In the Dutch Republic, such an appeal fell under the jurisdiction of the classes, but as no classis had been formed in New Netherland, the classical meeting in Amsterdam was the appropriate body. In addition, the classis provided answers to questions concerning a catechismal book written by Megapolensis and about the baptismal and marriage procedures. And the classis also involved itself in the battle with other religions in New Netherland. The correspondence between the ministers and the classis could cause problems for the West India Company, as it did in the case of the Lutherans. It is therefore not surprising that at a certain moment the directors in Amsterdam made it known that they wished to examine the correspondence. They even sent a letter to predikanten Megapolensis and Drisius in which they expressed their surprise that they had not received a copy of their letters to the classis. The classis had no objection to the directors examining the letters, and even went so far as to encourage the ministers in New Netherland to correspond actively with the wic authorities in the Dutch Republic, thus underlining the fact that in these years the ecclesiastical authorities were subordinate to the secular authorities. In later years the church in New Netherland had fewer problems with the supervision of the religious and secular authorities in the fatherland than the church in the East Indies. Part of the explanation for this is that the correspondence between New Netherland and the Netherlands was swifter than that with Batavia, and that as a result the relationship was closer. Another factor was the good relationship between

14 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 164, p. 39 (26 April 1649; ER 1: 250–252), inv. no. 157, p. 215 (26 April 1649; ER 1: 250), inv. no. 6, p. 120 (7 October 1658; ER 1: 439), inv. no. 19, p. 120 (7 October 1658; ER 1: 439).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

273

the ministers and the magistrates in the colony after 1648. It is nonetheless evident that the primacy over religious matters lay in Amsterdam, with the classis and the directors.15

Magistrates, Ministers, Consistories, and Members In the Dutch Republic, the Reformed Church was the official public church, but not a state church. The government provided it with all the facilities necessary to carry out its tasks. The civic authorities were charged with protecting it, which included prohibiting public worship by nonconformists. But although the Reformed Church occupied a privileged position, the Dutch Republic did not follow the rule of cuius regio, eius religio [whose the rule, his the religion] established at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. While that rule could apply in areas where the rulers were individual kings and princes, it was much more difficult when no single ruler was present, as in the Dutch Republic with its governmental elite of about two thousand regents. Yet the ties between church and state were close. Although some theocratically inclined ministers would continue to disagree, the Reformed Church was in practice under the supervision of the regents, not only on the provincial level, as in the approval of the convening of synods, but also on the local level, through the appointment by the city government of commissarissen-politiek [political commissioners], who attended the ecclesiastical meetings. Within this general framework, the extent of supervision and with it the character of the relations between church and state were of course dependent on local and personal circumstances, in which the inclinations of magistrates and consistories and the characters of regents and ministers played an important role.16 The relations between the ministers and the authorities in New Netherland were not always smooth. Particularly in the early period,

15 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 6, p. 97 (6 May 1658; ER 1: 422), inv. no. 19, p. 5 (6 May 1658; ER 1: 422); NYSA, NYCM 13: 18 (13 February 1659); Joosse, ‘Scoone dingen sijn swaere dingen’, 461; Niemeijer, Calvinisme en koloniale stadscultuur, §§ 14 and 15. 16 Groenhuis, De predikanten, chapter 1; Hsia and Van Nierop, Calvinism and Religious Toleration; Bergsma, ‘Church, State and People’; Jacobs, ‘Between Repression and Approval’.

chapter five

274

when only a few ministers served in the colony, conflicts got out of hand. The colonial isolation, in which the ministers had no opportunity for swift consultations with colleagues or classis, catalyzed the escalation of conflicts. From the 1650s, when the number of ministers in the colony increased, the relationship between the church and the civic authorities improved. Undoubtedly the character of Director General Stuyvesant played a role, just as the characters of those involved in earlier conflicts had to some extent determined the course of events. However, another factor puts a different complexion on the conflicts in the early period, as the religious developments in the Dutch Republic show. In the early part of the seventeenth century the Reformed religion was still in the early stages of its development and displayed a variety of schools of thought, one of which was a movement of popular Pietism that was strongly influenced by English Puritanism, and which was later to develop into the Further Reformation. Its aim was further purification in religion and society than the Reformation had so far provided, particularly as to life style and morals. Willem Frijhoff has distinguished two movements in the Further Reformation: the first militant, theocratic and externally oriented, the second much more internally oriented. Because in the course of the seventeenth century the Reformed Church consolidated itself and displayed bureaucratization, the office of minister became less accessible to ambitious comforters of the sick, and a university education became indispensable for aspiring ministers.17 Some ministers in New Netherland, certainly Bogardus and Backer, but also to a certain extent Michaëlius, were influenced by the theocratic version of the Further Reformation, and tried to establish ecclesiastical primacy. In contrast, later ministers, such as Selijns, Megapolensis, and Drisius, were less inclined to demonstrate public their opposition to the secular authorities for alleged misconduct, and followed more faithfully the authority model propagated by the colonial authorities. Also, later ministers had more links with the higher classes than ever before. Selijns came from a family of Amsterdam merchants, Megapolensis’s daughter married Cornelis van Ruyven, secretary to the director general and council, and Drisius married a daughter

17

Frijhoff, Wegen, 358–361.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

275

from a prominent Amsterdam-New Netherland merchant family. Partly as a result of these factors, differences of opinion no longer escalated into all-embracing conflicts in the later years. It is pointless to examine in depth all the conflicts between ministers and secular authorities in New Netherland, such as that between Michaëlius and Minuit and between Bogardus and Kieft. Furthermore, this subject has already been explored by other authors, in particular by Albert Eekhof and Willem Frijhoff.18 However, several aspects of the conflicts shed light on the relationship between church and state in New Netherland. First, the problems between Minuit and Michaëlius. The latter had arrived in 1628 as the first minister in New Netherland, and soon began to form a consistory. In addition to Bastiaen Jansz. Krol, who shortly before had taken over the command of Fort Orange and was seldom in New Amsterdam, two elders were chosen, Minuit himself and his brother-in-law Jan Huygen. According to Michaëlius these were both ‘persons of very good fame’, who had already gained experience in religious functions in Wesel. Of the four members of the consistory, Krol, Minuit, Huygen, and Michaëlius himself, three held public office, which was of considerable concern to the predikant. He hoped nevertheless to separate carefully the occurring ecclesiastical from the civil matters, so that each may be occupied with his own subject. And although many things are mixti generis [of a mixed nature], and political and ecclesiastical persons can greatly assist each other, nevertheless the matters and offices, proceeding together, must not be mixed but kept separate, in order to prevent all confusion and disorder.19

The desire for the separation of religious and secular matters had also been manifest earlier in the 1620s in Batavia, where it led to a confrontation between Governor General Jan Pietersz. Coen and predikant Jacob Anthonysz. Dubbeltrijck.20 However, in Batavia the consistory on which no governmental representatives sat, was relieved of its duties, whereas in New Netherland the consistory was neither formally disbanded nor, as far as is known, was its structure changed,

18 19 20

Eekhof, Michaëlius; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, chapter 2; Frijhoff, Wegen, chapter 17. Eekhof, Michaëlius, 117–119, 129–131 (11 August 1628; NNN, 124–126). Niemeijer, Calvinisme en koloniale stadscultuur, 91–92.

276

chapter five

when confusion and disorder arose. It is doubtful whether the consistory meetings under Michaëlius were very frequent. The atmosphere cannot have been ideal, in the light of the far from amicable Latin terms used in 1630 by Michaëlius when describing Minuit: Praefectum habemus, qu[i] praefectura indignissimus est, homo versipellis, et sub fucata probitatis larva, omnis iniquitatis et nequitiae quasi compages. Nam et mendaciis, quibus scatet, et dejerationibus atque diris execrationibus assuevit, a scortatione non est immunis, oppressor insontium crudelissimus, et qui neminem, qui non ejusdem secum farinae est, suo favore aut patrocinio dignatur. [We have a leader, who is most unworthy of his leadership: a slippery man, who under the treacherous mark of honesty is a compound of all iniquity and wickedness. For he is accustomed to the lies, of which he is full, and to the imprecations and most awful execrations; he is not free from fornication, the most cruel oppressor of the innocent and deems no one worthy of his favor and protection, who is not of the same kidney as he is.]21

Furthermore, Minuit and some members of his council, tried to enrich himself at the cost of the Company. After a while, Michaëlius spoke out about Minuit’s practices, but the latter tried to silence him, and tried to convince the directors in Amsterdam that Michaëlius should be recalled. The minister also contacted the directors and, together with the secretary, Jan van Remunde, formed the core of the opposition to Minuit.22 Doubts whether the director was the only one to blame can arise on the basis of remarks made by Sijmen Dircksz. Pos: The predikant Jonas Michielsz, is very busy here in stirring up the fire between them both; the same ought to be a mediator in God’s church and community, but I think he is the contrary.23

It was not just a lack of chemistry, as the letter from Michaëlius shows. In his opinion, Minuit did not fulfill his duties properly as representative of the Company’s interests. This was the standard accusation of disobedience and self-interest, frequently made of employees of both East and West India Company, and it should not be taken at face value. Yet open criticism by the minister of the high-

21 22 23

Eekhof, Michaëlius, 63, 68 (13 September 1630). Eekhof, Michaëlius, 63–65, 68–70 (13 September 1630). NSMA, VRBMs, 2 (16 September 1630; VRBM, 169–170).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

277

est placed Company employee in a small, isolated community such as a colony could escalate all too quickly into a vendetta, especially as neither the religious nor the secular authorities in the Netherlands could intervene swiftly. Furthermore, it was difficult to determine from the fatherland which party had the right on his side. Hence both Michaëlius and Minuit were recalled in 1631. Their successors were Everardus Bogardus and Wouter van Twiller. During his youth spent in the orphanage at Woerden, Bogardus had had a mystical experience, after which he was given the opportunity to study theology at Leiden. He soon had enough of university, and was dispatched to Guinea as comforter of the sick, thus gaining experience in other Dutch colonies, as did several other ministers of New Netherland. After his return to patria he was examined and ordained by the Amsterdam classis and sent to New Netherland as predikant. Bogardus figured prominently in the conflicts of the 1630s and 1640s, which have been analyzed by Frijhoff.24 Before long, Bogardus and Van Twiller were at loggerheads. In the eyes of the predikant, Van Twiller’s incompetent performance of his duties, his taste for alcohol and his improper behavior did not set a good example for the community. Like Michaëlius before him, Bogardus was unequivocal in his criticism of Van Twiller. In a letter of 17 June 1634, Bogardus called Van Twiller ‘a devil’s child, a villain in his skin’, to which several threats were added for good measure. Even so, these sparks did not kindle a major fire and there are indications that Van Twiller’s behavior improved later on. In any event, the number of complaints about him grew fewer in the later years of his time in New Netherland.25 Van Twiller and Bogardus had a good opportunity to bury the hatchet when they were both attacked by Lubbert van Dincklagen, who in 1634 was appointed as fiscael. Van Dincklagen shared Bogardus’s criticism of Van Twiller: the director neglected his duties and was unfaithful to the Company. However, his motives in seeking a conflict with the minister are unknown. Frijhoff suggests that the conflict between Van Dincklagen and Bogardus was concentrated on the question of what was more important in the colony: the religious or

24 25

Frijhoff, Wegen. Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’.

278

chapter five

the secular authority. Van Dincklagen was suspended from his church membership by Bogardus and his consistory, the most severe disciplinary sanction that the Reformed Church could inflict upon its members. But Van Dincklagen was not a man to take this lying down. He returned to patria in 1635, full of resentment towards Van Twiller and Bogardus. He turned first to the consistory of Amsterdam, to which he presented his complaints ‘about the procedures instigated against his person by the consistory of the mentioned place, and especially about D. [domine, minister] Bogardum, predicant there’. The consistory referred him to the classis, the normal body of appeal for such matters. Initially, he was strung along, as it was expected that Bogardus would shortly return from New Netherland. In August 1635, Wouter van Twiller and his council requested the Company directors to dispatch a new minister to the colony to replace Bogardus ‘as he is not at all inclined to continue for whatever reason’. The consistory also asked the classis for a replacement. It is not clear why Bogardus did not follow up on his intention to leave, but it is possible that the classis and the Amsterdam chamber did not want to let him return to patria until his replacement had been arranged. When it became apparent that Bogardus would not return to patria in the near future, Van Dincklagen once again urged for his rehabilitation, but again his request fell upon deaf ears. The classis continued to stand by Bogardus. Because Van Dincklagen was back in the Netherlands quite soon, the conflict had few repercussions in New Netherland, although it remained a thorn in the flesh in the fatherland for quite some time as a result both of the time-consuming correspondence with the colony and of the persistence of Van Dincklagen himself. He managed to gain the support of friends in high places, such as Hendrick Feith, burgemeester of Elburg, and Hendrick van der Capellen, who were later to bring about his appointment as vice-director. The conflict between the predikant and the fiscael did not sour relations in the colony for a long time, as Van Dincklagen left New Netherland shortly afterwards. Much more drastic was the controversy between Bogardus and Kieft, the most important in the history of New Netherland, and because of the tragic outcome certainly the most dramatic.26

26

NYSA, NYCM 4: 242 (2 January 1646; NYHM 4: 291); GAA, archive con-

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

279

The conflict between Bogardus and Kieft was catalyzed by the wars with the Indians and its dire consequences for those colonists who had chosen to build a permanent existence in the New World. Bogardus was part of that group, and acted as its spokesman. In the early years Bogardus and Kieft got on with each other reasonably well. It was not until after the massacre of the Indians in February 1643 that Bogardus decided to take action. Although he had not previously opposed the policy of imposing contributions on the Indians, Bogardus turned against Kieft when he took on the defence of Marijn Adriaensz. van Veere, a tobacco planter in the service of Kiliaen van Rensselaer. In March 1643 Marijn Adriaensz. attempted to murder Kieft, believing that the director tried to blame him for the bloodbath. Kieft retaliated by sending Adriaensz. back to Holland in captivity for trial. According to Kieft, Bogardus had protested against this from the pulpit, thereby making his conflict with the secular authorities public and in a way defaming the director. In 1644 Bogardus took another opponent of Kieft under his protection: Laurens Cornelisz., who was accused of having slandered the director. Kieft in turn accused the minister of having appeared drunk in the pulpit, of having cursed at the consistory members, and of having behaved in such a way that it would lead to ‘a general ruin of the land, both in ecclesiastical and in political matters’. Kieft and his council warned Bogardus in writing that he should not resist the ‘magistrature, placed over you by God’, but initially the minister refused to answer and only after repeated pressure wrote a few letters in reply which, according to the director, were unsatisfactory. Kieft subsequently refused to attend church, and persuaded various other employees of the Company to do the same. He even tried to obstruct the services by ordering his soldiers to beat their drums loudly and to fire cannons outside the church.27

sistory Amsterdam, inv. no. 7, p. 123 (8 November 1635), ACA, inv. no. 4, p. 71 (7 April 1636; ER 1: 87–88), pp. 193–194 (19 March 1640; ER 1: 126–127), p. 67 (3 December 1635; ER 1: 87), inv. no. 163, pp. 69–70 (19 March 1640; ER 1: 126–127); Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 50, doc. 32 (20 August 1635), inv. no. 14, fol. 137v (19 May 1636); Roodenburg, Onder censuur, 115–116; Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’; Frijhoff, Wegen, 664–698; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 55–59. 27 NYSA, NYCM 4: 164–165 (28 March 1643; NYHM 4: 189–192), 242–244 (2 January 1646; NYHM 4: 291–297), 245 (4 January 1646; NYHM 4: 296–297); BreedenRaedt, C 4v; Frijhoff, Wegen, 732.

280

chapter five

Of course, such measures ensured that the conflict took on a dramatic character, with reconciliation becoming ever more difficult. But it is worth taking a closer look at Bogardus’s motives. Apart from the fact that he was on the side of those colonists who were trying to put down roots in the colony, he regarded the Reformed Church, and therefore himself as the main exponent thereof, as the sole source of moral authority, a source that he held to be higher than the secular authority of the wic and its director, even if Kieft was of the belief that his authority also stemmed from God. Just as in the conflict with Van Dincklagen, the theocratic bias of Bogardus’s religious convictions manifested itself.28 Thus the question of authority became the central issue in the conflict, which could be resolved only by the authorities in the Dutch Republic. In 1644 the Amsterdam directors had already decided to recall Kieft to the fatherland. For various reasons it was not until August 1647 that the director boarded the ship Prinses. Also aboard was Bogardus, who wanted to gain justification in Holland. Both lost their lives when the Prinses was wrecked on the south coast of Wales. So, in 1647, as in 1631, both the minister and the director left the colony. Their successors were Stuyvesant and Backer. As has been mentioned earlier, the latter’s name was put forward to the classis in June 1640 by Johannes Megapolensis and, after a relatively lengthy period of exercise and examinations, he was recommended to the wic for the recently vacated post of minister on Curaçao. He arrived there in 1644 and left again three years later for New Netherland on the ship Groote Gerrit, on board of which was also the new director general of New Netherland, Petrus Stuyvesant. Backer had no intention of remaining in New Netherland any longer than was strictly necessary. Any initial enthusiasm for extending his stay was quenched when on 8 May 1649 he was warned by Stuyvesant not to read or have read to the community from the pulpit in the church or elsewhere any writing or proposal regarding political affairs and the general government, be it in general or in particular, at the request of anyone of the inhabitants.29

28 29

Frijhoff, Wegen, 749–756. NYSA, NYCM 4: 437 (8 May 1649; NYHM 4: 600).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

281

It later emerged that Backer had ‘made common cause with the complainants’, i.e. the 1649 delegation of the Nine Men to the States General. It was at the same time, during the first half of 1649, that the tension between Stuyvesant and the Nine Men escalated. By visiting Backer privately and giving him this warning, Stuyvesant tried to deny the Nine Men an easy means of communicating with the community. But by keeping the warning private, Stuyvesant also avoided an open breach with the predikant, rather a change from the policy of his predecessor. Since Backer repatriated soon after, his antagonism with Stuyvesant had no sequel.30 Stuyvesant was a staunch Calvinist. In 1661, the classis in Amsterdam described him as ‘a great liefhebber [devotee] and advocate of the true reformed religion’. Right from the start of his period as director general, Stuyvesant became a member of the consistory in New Amsterdam, and remained an elder after the English conquered New Netherland. His predecessor Minuit had also been an elder. Whether the same was true for Van Twiller and Kieft is unknown. Director Jacob Alrichs of New Amstel was an elder in the city-colony in 1659, as he had been before in Brazil. Neither in the minutes of the director general and council, nor in those of the authorities of New Amsterdam or other places is anything to be found of the formal institution of political commissioners, who in the Dutch Republic represented the city government on the consistory. However, since some of the directors in New Netherland were elders in a personal capacity, the situation did not need to be formalized.31 Generally, Stuyvesant enjoyed a good relationship with the ministers in the colony, in particular with those in New Amsterdam. Apart from this, a few slight disagreements arose, such as that with Gideon Schaets. Schaets was a Duits klerk [Dutch clerk, a minister without university training] and had served as schoolmaster in Beesd

30

NYSA, NYCM 11: 18, p. 10 (16 February 1650; Corres. 1647–1653, 82); Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 88. 31 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, p. 432 (15 December 1661; ER 1: 515); NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 4 (1 October 1649; ER 1: 261–262; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 87), no. 52 (24 January 1670; ER 1: 607–608; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 177), no. 53 (5 June 1670; ER 1: 610–611; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 182, 205), no. 37 (12 December 1659; ER 1: 457–458; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 263–264); Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 40–41 (NNN, 342–343); Schalkwijk, The Reformed Church in Dutch Brazil, 120; Frijhoff, Wegen, 701; Groenhuis, De predikanten, 26–29.

282

chapter five

in Gelderland. After being ordained by the Amsterdam classis, he was in 1652 enlisted by the Van Rensselaers to succeed Megapolensis as minister in Rensselaerswijck. Two years later Schaets interfered in the conflict between the wic and Rensselaerswijck. After a number of months imprisonment in New Amsterdam, the director of Rensselaerswijck, Brant van Slichtenhorst, had recently returned to the patroonship. During his sermon on the morning of Sunday 25 January 1654, Schaets proclaimed that whosoever had any complaints about Van Slichtenhorst should go immediately to the court in Rensselaerswijck or must thereafter remain silent. This did not please the commies of Fort Orange, Johannes Dijckman. On leaving the church after the afternoon sermon he read out a protest, in which Schaets’s proclamation was declared invalid since, among other reasons, it tended ‘to make the good inhabitants disobedient and rebellious against their just government’. Schaets was forbidden to make any further announcements of that nature. A conflict of authority may have played a part. Van Slichtenhorst had been summoned to appear before the court of Fort Orange on a number of occasions but had refused to do so since, according to him, that court had no jurisdiction over him. Yet Schaets referred his audience to the other court, that of Rensselaerswijck. The commies of Fort Orange felt it necessary to bring the matter to the attention of Stuyvesant, who visited Beverwijck in March 1654. It is not known what action the director general undertook then, but matters were then apparently smoothed over.32 After 1650 scarcely any conflicts erupted between the authorities and ministers. Quite the reverse, in fact. Stuyvesant and the ministers acted in unison when problems with the Lutherans, Quakers, and Jews arose. The relationship between the director general and the ministers was such that Stuyvesant used one of them, Samuel Drisius, as an envoy to Virginia during the First Anglo-Dutch War. It was a well-considered choice in view of Drisius’s background. Prior to his journey to New Netherland in 1652 he had been a minister in England, and his command of both English and Dutch convinced

32 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, p. 295 (15 April 1652; ER 1: 308), NA, inv. no. 1100, fol. 23v, 26 (8 May 1652); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, 86–88 (25 January 1654; FOCM, 84–86), pp. 106–107 (3 March 1654; FOCM, 102–103), pp. 110–111 (17 March 1654; FOCM, 106–107).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

283

the directors in Amsterdam that he was the right man for New Netherland at the time. Drisius had left England in 1649, at the time that the English king, Charles I, was on the point of losing the Civil War and his head, and it is likely that Drisius had royalist sympathies. This made him an ideal candidate for an embassy to the royalist Virginia.33 Stuyvesant’s benevolence towards the ministers and his concern for religious affairs also shows in his attitude toward Henricus Selijns. When Selijns arrived in New Netherland in 1660 as the new minister for Breuckelen, it turned out that the population of the town could not raise their share of his pay. Beforehand, he had been promised 1200 guilders per year, but Breuckelen could barely scratch together 300 guilders, plus free accommodation. The inhabitants were told by Stuyvesant in no uncertain terms that they should have thought of this before requesting the services of a predikant. As a temporary measure, the West India Company would pay part of Selijns’s salary from the proceeds of the tenths, in the hope that the town would eventually be able to raise the whole sum. However, since the local tenths did not provide sufficient revenue, Stuyvesant offered to personally pay 250 guilders annually to the wic, with the provision that Selijns would preach on Sunday evenings at the Director’s Bowery on Manhattan. This money was passed on to Selijns, as a result of which his salary consisting of 300 guilders from Breuckelen, 600 guilders from the wic and 250 guilders via Stuyvesant totalled 1,150 guilders, slightly less than the 1,200 guilders promised. In this way Selijns was able to remain in Breuckelen, while at the Bowery Stuyvesant’s farm hands and some colonists living nearby formed the congregation. People from New Amsterdam also joined the service when he preached. As Selijns himself put it: the bowery was ‘the place for recreation and pleasure on Manhattan where people from the city come for evening prayers as well’. This arrangement meant that Selijns had to travel each Sunday from Breuckelen to Manhattan, which involved crossing the East River, easy enough in summer, but rather trying in winter. Hence the services at the farm were discontinued during the winter months.34 33 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 5, fol. 235r (12 February 1652; ER 1: 301–302), inv. no. 164, p. 121 (12 February 1652; ER 1: 301–302); Corwin, Manual, 433–435; Jacobs, ‘Hartford Treaty’, 76–77. 34 NYSA, NYCM 9: 384–385 (30 August 1660; DRCHNY 14: 479); De Jong,

284

chapter five

It was not only the inhabitants of Breuckelen who had difficulties in paying the salary of a predikant; it was a problem in other towns as well, and it persisted throughout the existence of New Netherland. In the first decades the salary and board and lodging were paid entirely by the West India Company. However, the Company was a notoriously bad and slow payer, as Michaëlius had already discovered in 1628. In lieu of the customary free board, the directors in patria had promised him six or seven morgens of land, but the promise was worthless, as there were no horses, cows or farm laborers to work the land. In the early days of the colony it was the Company’s custom to pay the salaries when the minister, or any other employee, had returned to the Dutch Republic at the end of the contract period. However, since the directors in Amsterdam waited for details to arrive from the colony concerning the exact period of office and of the predikant’s behavior, the directors always had an excuse to delay payment.35 The help of the classis had to be called in regularly. In the case of Bogardus, who died in the shipwreck of the Prinses, his heirs had great difficulty in obtaining his overdue salary, which had been 46 guilders per month, plus 150 guilders for board and lodging per year. Later, the ministers were paid 100 guilders per month and 250 to 300 guilders per year board and lodging. Nominally, ministers in the Dutch Republic were paid substantially less, with an average of 600 guilders per year, although the salaries varied considerably, for instance between city and country congregations. However, taking into account the level of prices in New Netherland together with payment in beavers or sewant, the later ministers, who received their pay in the colony, were worse off than their colleagues in the fatherland. Consequently countless complaints were made. In 1656 the minister on Long Island, Johannes Polhemius, even threatened to leave if his salary was not increased and its payment made on a more regular basis.36

The Dutch Reformed Church, 41; OFDRCB, 226 (4 October 1660), 30 (27 November 1661). 35 Eekhof, Michaëlius, 103, 111 (11 August 1628; NNN, 130). 36 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 3 (25 August 1648; ER 1: 237–239; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 121); NYPL, Bontemantel Papers ‘Official list of New Netherland’ (1650; Guide, no. 551); NYSA, NYCM 11: 53, pp. 21–22 (4 April 1652; Corres. 1647–1653, 156), 6: 345 (28 March 1656; CM 1655–1656, 285–286); Groenhuis,

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

285

When after 1650 increasing numbers of towns acquired their own administrative bodies, the custom grew that the congregation paid a portion of the pay, generally one half. In contrast to the practice in the Dutch Republic, this was not usually paid from general funds, such as the tenths, but by separate voluntary contributions. The collection was a predictable source of problems, particularly in small towns such as Breuckelen, Midwout, and Wiltwijck. If the amounts raised proved to be insufficient, the director general and council granted the local benches of justice the power to impose a tax on all inhabitants, including the non-members of the Reformed Church, who protested against this. For instance, in 1658 Nicolaes de Fransman and Abraham Jansz. in Breuckelen refused to pay their share, the first because he was Roman Catholic, the other because he did not understand Dutch and thus could not benefit from the sermons. Both reasons were rejected as ‘frivolous’ by the director general and council. It is tempting to infer from this incident that religious reasons were prominent in the problems concerning the salaries of ministers, but it is more likely that the small towns were simply not wealthy or populated enough. It was much less of a problem in New Amsterdam, which from 1652 onwards had two ministers: Megapolensis and Drisius, who presumably preached in English as well. In general the difficulties about the collection of the salaries of the ministers were rather of economic than religious origin. Besides this, an aversion to such special taxes, which were a break from the practice in the Dutch Republic, may have played a role.37 The growth in the population led to the existence of eleven congregations with a total of six ministers at the time of the surrender to the English. However, in contrast with Brazil, in New Netherland the growth did not lead to the formation of a classis. Johannes Polhemius, who had gained experience of a colonial classis in Brazil, in 1662 in a letter to the Amsterdam classis argued that ‘communication, after the style of our fatherland, in the form of classis’ was

De predikanten, 133–150; Wouters and Abels, Nieuw en ongezien, 1: 506–514; Rooijakkers, Rituele repertoires, 128. 37 NYSA, NYCM 13: 32, pp. 2–3 (17 September 1659; DRCHNY 13: 111), 16–1: 137 (4 March 1658; LWA, 99), 8: 463–465 (7 February 1657; LO, 304–307), 789 (26 March 1654), 804 (2 April 1658; DRCHNY 14: 414); GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, pp. 357–360 (26 May 1656; ER 1: 350); Balmer, A Perfect Babel of Confusion, 11–13; Wouters and Abels, Nieuw en ongezien, 1: 100–104 and 506–514.

286

chapter five

desirable, although he thought the long distances would make regular meetings difficult. Although Polhemius once again voiced his opinion in 1664, the classis in Amsterdam did not fall in with this. The opportunity of forming a classis was reduced when after 1664 the number of ministers in the colony declined. It was not until the eighteenth century that a co-ordinating body was formed.38 Below the level of the classis, the religious organization was similar to that in the Netherlands: a consistory per congregation, consisting of the minister, several ouderlingen [elders], and a few diakenen [deacons]. Since only sparse minutes of the consistories in New Netherland survive, full lists of members of the consistories are not available. However, some conclusions can be drawn from other sources. Reference has already been made to the role of Minuit and Stuyvesant as members of consistories, but consistory members were also recruited from a lower administrative level of the Company as well as from the city government. Burgemeester Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt was an elder in New Amsterdam, while later the merchants and city magistrates Johannes Pietersz. van Brugh and Gerrit van Tricht also served in the consistory. For example, schepen Rutger Jacobsz. was an elder in Beverwijck in 1654, while Anthony de Hooges, secretary of Rensselaerswijck, was a deacon. In the period 1654 to 1702 in Midwout, later known as Flatbush, half the people in the town’s administration were also members of the consistory at one time or another. It is probable that local magistrates in the other towns regularly held positions in the consistory. An overlap in religious and secular administration existed in New Netherland, just as in the Dutch Republic. The overlap was continued through the use of co-option by the consistory to make up its numbers, which did not change after the English takeover.39 One of the tasks of the consistory was to exercise discipline over the church members, but unfortunately little is known about this. A

38 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 42 (8 August 1662; ER 1: 525–526; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 203); De Jong, The Dutch Reformed Church, chapter 10; Jacobs, ‘Dutch Protestant Churches’, 63. 39 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 226 (4 May 1654; RNA 1: 191); NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 5 (24 January 1670; ER 1: 607–608; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 177, 182); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, 171–173 (1 December 1654; FOCM, 162–164); Venema, Kinderen van weelde en armoede, 18; Venema, Beverwijck, 442; Nooter, ‘Between Heaven and Earth’, 126; Goodfriend, ‘Social Dimensions’, 257.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

287

few reports from Beverwijck and New Amsterdam indicate that the court was sometimes consulted on delicate matters. For example, in 1654 the Beverwijck consistory turned to the court in the question of Claes Ripsz., who had made a woman pregnant. Indeed, the illegitimate child had already been born. Claes Ripsz. had no objection to marrying the mother, but he had put it off because he was expecting a message in writing from his father, presumably the explicit paternal agreement to the marriage. The court agreed with the consistory that this was an absurd excuse and ruled that Claes should marry the same day. Since the woman was too ill to leave the house, predikant Gideon Schaets was requested to perform the wedding ceremony in her house. If Claes refused, he would be locked up. In such a serious matter the consistory turned to the court to apply powers that it did not possess itself. The church membership lists for Beverwijck begin decades later, and therefore it is unknown whether Claes Ripsz. or the woman, were members. As the help of the court was enlisted in only a few cases, much of the enforcement of discipline remains shrouded in mystery.40 In fact, only the minutes of the consistory of Breuckelen in the period from 1660 to 1664 provide a clear picture of the supervision of the church members’ conduct. Included in matters that were examined were the sale of another man’s pigs, the use of bad language, fighting, prolonged absences from church services, drunkenness, marital differences, child neglect, and precipitate remarriage. Extensive attention was devoted in the protocol of the consistory of Breuckelen to one case, because the position of the minister itself was at stake. In April 1662 Gerrit Dircksz. Croesen, born in Winschoten, had predikant Henricus Selijns summoned to the court in Breuckelen. Selijns, together with elder Willem Bredenbent, had called Croesen to account outside his house (‘not inside the house, lest he be embarrassed in front of his wife’) because of the rumor that on the previous day of prayer, Wednesday 15 March, he had dug up and taken away several fruit trees that were not his. The rumor was confirmed, and Croesen was denied participation in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper for the time being. He reacted by summoning Selijns to the court. The consistory, in which Selijns’s vote was of great influence,

40

ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, pp. 171–173 (1 December 1654; FOCM, 162–164).

288

chapter five

was ‘very displeased with the aforementioned improper procedures and with the unheard-of citation’, but did not know exactly what action to take in this serious issue. It therefore asked Selijns to seek the advice of Johannes Megapolensis. The latter found that Croesen should appear before the consistory. The court was also to be requested to obtain further information about the matter. And so it came about. Croesen was asked by the consistory why he had had Selijns summoned, to which he replied ‘that it was due to his own dullness’ and ‘that he had sought his honor, the sooner the better’. He denied stealing the trees, and stated that it was rather those who had gossiped about him that should be denied participation in the Lord’s Supper. As the court in Breuckelen would not hold session prior to the next communion, Croesen believed that by making this complaint he could deny the entire congregation that had gossiped about him participation in the Last Supper. The consistory was especially vexed by the fact that, with this accusation against Selijns, Croesen had tried to make ecclesiastical discipline subordinate to a secular court, ‘where, according to Christ’s precepts, no Church disputes can nor may be settled, neither [those] between members and the consistory or its delegate’. The consistory decided to deny Croesen participation and asked the court to annul the complaint.41 The importance of honor and the role of malicious gossip are illustrated by this incident. It also shows the dividing lines between the spheres of influence of religious and secular authority, in any event as viewed by the minister and the consistory, and to a lesser extent by Gerrit Dircksz. Croesen. In addition, the incident emphasizes the importance of unity and peace within the community, symbolized in the Lord’s Supper. Prior to the celebration of Lord’s Supper, church members were required, according to the Rules of Church Government adopted at the Synod of Dort in 1619, to examine themselves on their worthiness to partake in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, the minister, accompanied by an elder, was required to visit the homes of church members prior to communion to instruct them, and inquire whether there were any obstacles for participation.42 Such visits are not mentioned in the 41

OFDRCB, 36–38 (2 April 1662), 40–44 (5 April 1662). Roodenburg, Onder censuur, 100, 118; Fabend, Zion on the Hudson, chapter 2; Fabend, ‘Church and State, Hand in Hand’. 42

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

289

consistory minutes of Breuckelen, although they undoubtedly took place. In his rather summary notes predikant Hermannus Blom of Wiltwijck does note the visitation: On July 3 [we] have again held the Lord’s Supper with the congregation in our village Wiltwijck, which was announced three weeks prior to the congregation as admonition. [There] are twenty church members, and those who still may become it through God’s grace. And [I] did visitation with my elder and [found] no obstacles among the church members.43

In the visits that Blom describes, he seldom reports any difficulties or conflicts among his flock, which is remarkable. The contrast with the minutes of the Breuckelen consistory is such that I suspect that Blom chose to exclude negatives from his notes, with a few exceptions. The weeks prior to the Lord’s Supper were the period in which new members of the church were admitted. Stringent requirements were placed on the conduct of members, and becoming a full member and partake in the Lord’s Supper was quite a major step. The correspondence between Jeremias van Rensselaer and his mother, Anna van Rensselaer, in Amsterdam illustrates this. In 1658 Jeremias complained about misfortune in trade and with his cattle. In answer, she wrote that the best advice that she could give was ‘that you question and examine yourself whether it is not your own fault, that perhaps you do not serve God as you should’. His mother had heard from his brother Jan Baptist, who had recently returned from New Netherland, that he tried to persuade Jeremias on several occasions to become a church member, but without success. That made his mother unhappy: It is, namely, plainly written that God wants to be found by those who seek him and that one must first of all seek the kingdom of God and his justice and that all other things will be bestowed upon us. Therefore, let the fear of the Lord be planted in your heart, for that is the beginning of all wisdom.

His membership in the church was also important because Jeremias, as director of Rensselaerswijck, now occupied the place of the patroon, and it was necessary for him to set a good example in his conduct

43 Kingston, Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, Church Records vol. 1, p. 22 (3 July 1661).

290

chapter five

and church attendance, following the saying ‘soo de heer is soo de knechten’ [as the master is, so are the servants]. A year later, Jeremias reported to his mother that he had been admitted as a member and regularly participated in the Lord’s Supper.44 The minutes of the Breuckelen consistory indicate that the confession of faith had to be carried out in the presence of the consistory and several witnesses. Those who were members upon their emigration to New Netherland, or when they removed within the colony, had to produce a certificate of membership from their previous congregation. This provided an additional means of checking the conduct of the church members. When Janneken Pieters communicated her wish to become a member in Breuckelen she produced a certificate from predikant Polhemius of Midwout, but one that stated that she had not been diligent in church attendance. Janneken was called to account by the consistory and gave as the reason for her poor attendance that, because she lived in Boswijck, she had little opportunity of going to church. That was why she wanted to become a member in Breuckelen, which was closer. ‘After [we] had taken this into consideration in the name of love and had accepted the sincerity of [her] promises to behave better in future’, the consistory of Breuckelen accepted her as a member.45 Who became members of the church? In principle, the services of the Reformed Church were open to all. The ordinary faithful (often called ‘liefhebbers [devotees] of the true religion’) attended those services and availed themselves of baptism and marriage, as provided by the minister. Lidmaten [full members] made a public confession of their faith, put themselves under the discipline of the consistory and were eligible to partake in the Lord’s Supper. Anna van Rensselaer thought that it was fitting for Jeremias to be a lidmaat, since she considered it appropriate for the position the director of Rensselaerswijck held in the local society. This opinion was reflected by the magistrates of New Amsterdam. At the installation of the magistrates in 1653 a reference was included to the rule that burgemeesters and schepenen must be members of the Reformed Church.

44 NYSL, VRMP, box 48, III, folder 12 (19 February 1659; CJVR 131), box 50 B, folder 3 (pp. 11–12) (8 June 1660; CJVR 230); Roodenburg, Onder censuur, 31. 45 OFDRCB, 20 (29 May 1661).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

291

Of the twenty-eight men who were burgemeester or schepen between 1653 and 1664 only three are not on the list of members; one of these, Jochem Pietersz. Kuijter, had been an elder at an earlier stage, and thus must have been a member. The other two, Arent van Hattem and Maximilianus van Geel, left New Netherland prior to 1655. It is unlikely that they were not members, and it is possible that the source is defective. The New Amsterdam membership list is known through a later copy from the hand of Selijns, possibly because the earlier version was in a fragile state. The opening words of the first part read: ‘’t Ledematen boeck Oft Register der Ledematen alhier ’t Sedert de Jare 1649’ [The Membership book Or Register of Members here Since the Year 1649]. The second part contains the admission of new members as of 1660. The first part of the record for the year 1649 may be incorrect. The absence of Kuijter, who was killed by Indians in 1654, is one of these indications. Another is the beginning of the list, in which the most important people in New Netherland are named. After Director General Stuyvesant and his wife follow both predikanten, Megapolensis and Drisius. In Drisius’s entry Elisabeth Grevenraet is named as his wife. However, they did not marry until 1659. This leads me to believe that the first part of the list was drawn up much later than 1649 as an overview of the members who were there at that time. The reference to 1649 probably emanates from the fact that Megapolensis became minister on Manhattan in that year.46 Although these factors limit the value of this source to some extent, it does provide some information about the proportion of women to men in the membership. Until 1660 a small majority of members were women: 202 of the 371 (54.5 percent). From 1660 up to and including 1664 260 new members joined, of whom again a small majority (53.5 percent) were women. The proportion of women increased gradually after the English takeover: of the members admitted between 1665 and 1695, 59 percent were female. Another membership list of 1686 shows that at that time 62 percent of the membership were women, and that they generally joined the church

46 NYPL, Bontemantel collection, New Netherland Papers box 1 folder ‘Official promulgation of New Amsterdam as a municipality’ (2 February 1653; Phelps Stokes, Iconography 2: 133–135); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 174 (1 February 1658; RNA 2: 323); De Waard, Zeeuwsche expeditie, 131; Van der Linde, ‘Selijns’, 46.

292

chapter five

before their twentieth birthday. In comparison, in the Dutch Republic a small majority of church members were women, while in Batavia in 1674 it reached two-thirds of the membership. Considering the ratio of the sexes in New Netherland the female preponderance becomes even more surprising. Even in the last years of Dutch administration, 1657–1664, considerably more men than women went to New Netherland. It follows that a considerably higher percentage of the females of New Netherland were members than of the men. Apart from their numbers, women in the Reformed Church were also important in other respects. Their loyalty to the denomination continued when their husbands adopted a different religious persuasion. During the commotion about the Lutheran attempts to call a minister many women continued to attend the Reformed services even though their husbands had become Lutheran. The research of Joyce Goodfriend for the period after 1664 shows that Dutch women whose husbands were English remained members of the Reformed Church and did not convert to the Anglican Church.47 What the New Amsterdam membership list does not reveal is what percentage of the total population were members of the Reformed Church, because the list does not tell us how many members the congregation had at a given moment. Some information about this can be gleaned from other sources, but the matter is complicated by the lack of reliable population figures. So, there is sufficient reason for caution. The first figures for Manhattan date from the time of Michaëlius. He reported that in 1628 ‘fully fifty communicants, both Walloons and Dutch’ attended the services. In Bogardus’s period little increase had taken place: the pamphlet Breeden-Raedt [a pun, meaning both broad council, as in extended ship’s council, as well as broad advice] states that prior to the minister’s conflict with Kieft, around 1644, the community consisted of more than seventy members, and thereafter roughly half as many. This is a low estimate, as Backer reported in 1648 that the New Amsterdam church had 170 members,

47 Goodfriend, ‘Recovering the Religious History of Dutch Reformed Women in Colonial New York’, 55; Kloek, Wie hij zij, 91; Wouters and Abels, Nieuw en ongezien, 1: 261–266; Niemeijer, Calvinisme en koloniale stadscultuur, 214; Rothschild, ‘Sociale afstand’, 190–191; Potter, ‘Demographic Development’, 149; NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 10 (6 July 1657; ER 1: 387; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 16); De Baar, ‘“Let Your Women Keep Silence in the Churches”’; Goodfriend, ‘Social Dimensions’, 257–258.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

293

‘most of them very ignorant concerning religion and much inclined to drunkenness’. In 1666 the number had increased to between three and four hundred members, according to Megapolensis. Eight years later his successor Wilhelmus van Nieuwenhuysen counted between four hundred and five hundred in New York.48 More detailed than the information above about New Amsterdam is what Gideon Schaets in 1657 reported to the classis about Beverwijck. When he arrived there in 1652 the congregation had 130 members, and since then their numbers had increased by 30, although not all of these behaved as the minister wished. Schaets then gives a number of interesting details about church attendance. Normally 300 to 400 people were present at the services. If everyone were to attend, there would be some 600 people in the church. In addition many so-called ‘liefhebbers [devotees] of the true religion’ attended the services of the Reformed Church as non-members, but did not join the church. In 1660 the number of members in Beverwijck had grown to 200, an increase of 30 in three years. Twenty-one years later in Albany it had doubled to 400 members.49 Information about the other places is sparse. The congregation on the South River shows some growth. At the end of 1659 Jacob Alrichs reported that church membership there had increased from 19 to 60. When Selijns arrived in 1660 in Breuckelen 24 of the 134 inhabitants were members. After four years the number of members had quadrupled. In Wiltwijck Hermannus Blom had seen to it that the congregation had grown in 1663 from 16 to 60 members, before the Indians wreaked a bloodbath that cost the lives of a number of colonists.50 To transform these figures into percentages we need to set them off against the estimates of the size of the population. In 1629 New Amsterdam had some 300 inhabitants, of whom 17 percent were 48 Eekhof, Michaëlius, 117, 130 (11 August 1628; NNN, 124); Breeden-Raedt, D 1; NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 2 (2 September 1648; ER 1: 236; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 84), no. 56 (26 July 1674; ER 1: 654; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 183); GAA, ACA, inv. no. 168, p. 32 (18 October 1666; ER 1: 583). 49 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 9 (26 June 1657; ER 1: 383; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 147–149), no. 38 (22 September 1660; ER 1: 483; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 156, 2: 35), no. unknown (7 June 1681; ER 2: 770; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 142, 162); GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, p. 421 (23 May 1661; ER 1: 482–483). 50 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 37 (12 December 1659; ER 1: 457; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 263–264), no. 44 (18 September 1663; ER 1: 534; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 234–237); OFDRCB, 228 (9 June 1664), 226 (4 October 1660).

294

chapter five

members. Taking the revised estimate of 2,500 for New Amsterdam in 1664, the percentage there drops to about fifteen. Beverwijck and the surrounding area had 1,051 inhabitants in 1664, which is the result of a calculation by Martha Shattuck, so the percentage of members there was nineteen. For New Amstel, Jacob Alrichs gives the figure of eight hundred. But as the result of an epidemic the city-colony had recently lost at least hundred colonists. It is safer to estimate the population there at six hundred, and as a result the percentage of members comes out at the rather low figure of 10 percent. On the basis of Selijns’s figures the membership at Breuckelen stood at 18 percent in 1660. No data exist on the population numbers there in 1664, but it is unlikely that the total population in that town quadrupled in four years. This implies that the percentage of church members must have risen. And finally Wiltwijck: the total number of inhabitants was two to three hundred, and so the percentage of members was between 20 and 30 percent.51 These figures are not exact, and the percentages may have been somewhat lower than my calculations suggest. Even so, they provide a sufficient basis for comparison. In general, the percentage of members in New Netherland in its entirety rarely reached 20 percent in the 1650s and 1660s. This is lower than in the Dutch Republic, where in the first half of the seventeenth century the proportion of members of the Reformed Church in the total population grew gradually to approximately 37 percent around 1650, with variations according to place and time. Of course, the percentage of members in the total population is not the same as the percentage belonging to the Reformed congregation, which also included children of members. In Haarlem in 1617, for instance, about four thousand members partook in the Lord’s Supper. Doubling this figure to include the children and setting it off against an estimated total population of forty thousand, Joke Spaans calculated that about 20 percent of the total population belonged to the Reformed congregation. Janny Venema, using the same figures as I do, comes to the conclusion that 40 percent of the adult population of Beverwijck ‘belonged to the group of people who participated in communion’ and thus were members of the Reformed Church. However, the adult-minor ratio

51

Van den Boogaart, ‘Servant Migration’, appendix 1; Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 11.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

295

that she implicitly applies is unfounded. Extrapolation on the basis of an average family size for the colony is not possible, since as yet no reliable demographic study of New Netherland has been carried out, and applying the average family size of the Netherlands is dangerous as the specific colonial situation may have resulted in a quite different composition of the population. The New Netherland population may have included fewer old people, as these were less likely to emigrate. All of this does not simplify the comparison. Yet it is safe to say that a general percentage of twenty for church membership in New Netherland around 1660 is quite low in comparison with the Dutch Republic. Goodfriend’s statement that ‘most residents belonged to a church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’ does not hold true for the period before 1664, in any event not if church membership is equated with belonging to a church. However, as Schaets’s figures for Beverwijck indicate, the number of church attendees was considerably larger than that of church members. These were not all devotees of the Reformed Church. A number of them were sufficiently God-fearing to attend the Reformed services, but may have preferred other churches if these had been available.52

Lutherans and Quakers For the magistrates in New Netherland, both at central and local level, the situation was clear cut. The oath that the new commissaries of Beverwijck had to swear in May 1656 shows what was expected of them. Besides loyalty to the States General, the Company directors and the director general, the magistrates had to swear that we shall help to maintain here the Reformed Religion according to God’s Word and the regulations of the Synod of Dordrecht and not publicly tolerate any sect.53

52 Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 158; Spaans, Haarlem na de Reformatie, 89; Groenveld, Was de Nederlandse Republiek verzuild?, 6; Kloek, Wie hij zij, 91; Wouters and Abels, Nieuw en ongezien, 1: 228–246; Venema, Beverwijck, 132; Goodfriend, ‘Social Dimensions’, 252. 53 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 269 (1 May 1656; FOCM, 236–237).

296

chapter five

The last six words were added in 1656 and were connected with the first ordinance against ‘conventicles’, which had been proclaimed earlier that year. The ordinance stipulated a fine of one hundred Flemish pounds for preaching at such illegal religious gatherings and a fine of twenty-five Flemish pounds for those attending. The measures were taken to prevent ‘disasters, heresies and schisms’, as well as God’s wrath, that would occur if public exercise of a religion different from the Reformed was permitted. Freedom of conscience was allowed, as well as ‘the reading of God’s holy word, family prayers and worship, each in his household’, but not public worship. The ban on conventicles was repeated in 1662, on this occasion also in English.54 Both decrees went back to policy documents that were conceived in about 1640, when colonization was in the ascendant. They contain an interesting motivation for countering religious diversity: it was ‘highly necessary [. . .] that in the first beginnings and fostering of this population proper order on religion is established’ without inflicting on anyone ‘in his conscience any constraint or burden’. The view of New Netherland as a young and growing society was seen as an additional argument for permitting no other public exercise of religion other than that of the Reformed Church. On the other hand, freedom of conscience was guaranteed, and everyone was allowed to believe his own in peace and quiet, provided he takes care not to frequent any forbidden meetings or conventicles, much less to gather or instigate the same; and further to abstain from any public scandals and annoyances, which the magistrates are ordered to prevent with appropriate warnings and punishments.55

Seventeenth century authorities thought that an unmanageable, disorderly situation would arise more quickly in a colonial situation, and that permitting religious diversity could have detrimental consequences. The growth of the colony would be best served by order

54 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 66–68 (1 February 1656; LWA, 55–56), 6: 260–263 (1 February 1656; CM 1655–1656, 209–210; LO, 211–212), 10–1: 217–222 (21 September 1662; LO, 428–430); NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 32–33 (1 February 1656; RNA 1: 20–21). 55 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 I C. 646 (30 August 1640; DRCHNY 1: 110–111).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

297

and peace. Public manifestations by those of religions other than the Reformed Church were forbidden, but other than that everyone in New Netherland was allowed to think and do what he or she wished in peace and quiet. However, this was not enough for some colonists. On the same day in 1656 that the director general and council proclaimed a decree against conventicles in New Amsterdam, Tjerck Claesz. was fined six guilders in Beverwijck, ‘for having been found last Sunday in the company of the Lutherans, performing divine service’.56 Tjerck was sentenced on the basis of ‘the ordinances promulgated on this subject’. But as the above mentioned ordinance of 1656 was promulgated by director general and council that same day, the sentence cannot refer to it. It is unclear which earlier ordinance the court had in mind. Tjerck Claesz. was not the first Lutheran in New Netherland, and many of the Scandinavians and Germans in New Netherland adhered to the Unaltered Augsburgh Confession of 1530. For instance, several Lutheran books can be found in the 1643 inventory of the estate of Jonas Bronck.57 The Lutherans first attempted to obtain their own minister in 1649. Quite likely it was only then that the number of Lutherans in the colony was large enough to pay the salary of a Lutheran predikant, for which a contribution from the government could not be expected. The first attempt consisted of a letter of the Lutheran community in New Netherland to the Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam, where a Lutheran church had been established for some decades. As the Amsterdam Lutheran community was the largest in the Dutch Republic, its consistory acted as a coordinating body for various Lutheran communities in the Netherlands. The Lutherans in Amsterdam were allowed public worship, albeit by connivance, and yet the Amsterdam Lutheran consistory hesitated to take any action after reading the letter from New Netherland,

56

ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 245 (1 February 1656; FOCM, 216). NYSA, NYCM 2: 54 (6 May 1643; NYHM 2: 121–125); literature on the Lutherans: Kreider, The Beginnings of Lutheranism in New York; Piwonka, ‘The Lutheran Presence in New Netherland’; Kooiman, Luthersche gemeenten; Brandt, ‘Eenige opmerkingen aangaande de Luthersche kerk in Amerika’; Nicum, ‘The Beginnings of the Lutheran Church on Manhattan Island’; Lurix, ‘The Lutheran Struggle for Toleration in New Amsterdam’; Hart and Kreider, Protocol of the Lutheran Church in New York City. 57

298

chapter five as it is a matter of far-reaching consequence and the most serious consideration to engage therein, in view of the state of the country and the situation of our churches at this juncture in time.58

It was four years before the next attempt was made to secure a minister. In early October 1653, the Lutheran community in New Netherland, which according to its own statement amounted to approximately 150 families, drew up petitions to the States General and the directors of the Amsterdam chamber, requesting freedom of religion and permission to appoint their own predikant. The petitions were handed to Stuyvesant, who said that, in view of his oath and instructions, he could not allow them. He promised to send the petitions to the authorities in Amsterdam. At the same time the Lutheran community sent a letter with copies of the petitions to the Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam, so that the latter could present them to the directors and the States General in the event that Stuyvesant did not keep his promise. If the decision of the authorities was favorable to them, the Lutherans in the colony could subsequently request the consistory in Amsterdam to enlist a suitable predikant, for whom they offered a salary of eight hundred guilders per year and free accommodation.59 Acting as intermediary was merchant Paulus Schrick, who had arrived in New Netherland in 1651 and, as the most prominent among the Lutherans there, was pre-eminently suitable to be their spokesman. He originated from the German city of Nürnberg and in 1658 married Maria Varleth, daughter of the Amsterdam silk merchant Casper Varleth, whose brother Pieter was a wic director. A son of Casper Varleth, Nicolaes, was commies of the wic in New Netherland and in 1656 married Anna Stuyvesant, sister of the director general. Although all the marriages date from after 1653, it shows that Schrick was well connected. This made him an exception among the Lutherans. Both the signatories of the letters to the Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam and the list of sixty-six people who signed a petition in 1659, show that a large number of them had a background in farming and soldiering rather than trade.60

58

GAA, AELG, inv. no. 19, fol. 81 (19 October 1649; LCNY, 13). GAA, AELG, inv. no. 232 (1 October 1653; LCNY, 13–14), (1 October 1653; LCNY, 14–15), (4 October 1653; LCNY, 15–18). 60 MDC, 29 November 1658, 14 October 1656; GAA, AELG, inv. no. 232 (20 May 1659; LCNY, 38–40). 59

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

299

The initiative of the Lutherans caused the authorities in New Netherland to contact their superiors in the Dutch Republic. Stuyvesant and his council wrote a letter to the directors, and the predikanten Megapolensis and Drisius stepped in by writing letters to the classis and also to the directors. In their letter to the classis the ministers emphasized that granting the Lutherans’ request would be disadvantageous to the advancement of the Reformed Church in New Netherland, since it would considerably reduce the size of the congregations. Furthermore, some leading Lutherans had been made a confession of faith, and participated in the Lord’s Supper. In addition, their permission would also create a precedent. All sorts of sects would be encouraged by it, resulting in New Amsterdam becoming a haven of refuge for heresies. Their only comfort was Stuyvesant, who according to the ministers, was good of the religion and says rather to quit his position than to allow the same [i.e., public worship by Lutherans], as it would be in contravention to the first article of his commission, which was sworn to by him with an oath, not to admit any other than the true reformed faith.61

The maintenance of order and peace was not mentioned by Megapolensis and Drisius, but that argument was used by the directors in Amsterdam in a letter to the director general and council. They refused the request, ‘because of the consequences which could follow from it’. Also, it was ‘against the custom observed by us and the East India Company’. The director general and council were instructed not to accept any such petitions, but ‘to turn these down in the most decent and least offensive way’. They added that attempts should be made to convert the Lutherans to the Reformed religion, ‘to thus stay and remain in greater love and concord among each other’.62 Established practice, fear of the creation of precedents, a preference for the Reformed Church, and the desire for unity in the colony played a role in the decision. The decision of the West India Company was the result of a process of lobbying in which the Amsterdam classis had also played

61 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 5 (6 October 1653; ER 1: 317–318; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 170; 2: 2). 62 NYSA, NYCM 12: 1, p. 9 (12 March 1654; Corres. 1654–1658, 6).

300

chapter five

a role. On receipt of the letter from the ministers in New Netherland the classis immediately sent the deputies for Indian affairs to the Heren XIX to express their concern. On 23 February 1654 the deputies were able to report to the classis that the wic had decided the same day not to allow Lutheran ministers, and shortly afterwards that decision was communicated by letter to Megapolensis and Drisius.63 In the meantime, Paulus Schrick had called at the Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam with the letter from the Lutherans in New Netherland and the copies of the petitions. The consistory advised that the petitions be withheld, as they could be counterproductive. The consistory was right in thinking that the petitions would not achieve their objective, but the advice came too late. The formal request had already been denied, and that made it less likely that a blind eye would be turned towards public Lutheran services. Nonetheless, this was the course that the Lutherans subsequently followed. Over a year later Schrick again met with the Amsterdam Lutheran consistory. He was about to return to New Netherland, and requested a written reply to the letter of October 1654. Upon that, the Amsterdam consistory wrote to their co-religionists in the colony that formal permission for the public exercise of religion in the Dutch Republic was almost never given, but that informal permission by connivance might be possible after some time. The consistory advised the Lutherans in New Netherland to follow this route, and they would look out for a suitable predikant.64 As a result of the petitions and of the subsequent refusal of the West India Company to formally approve the public exercise of the Lutheran religion the relationship between the government in the colony and the Lutherans in New Netherland polarized. The proclamation of the decrees against conventicles and the punishment of Tjerck Claesz. in 1656 are signs of this. A problem with the wording of the baptismal formula used by New Netherland’s Reformed ministers played a role as well. The parents of the child to be baptized were asked whether they believed in the doctrine such as was taught ‘here’ in the Christian church. The small word ‘here’ was

63 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 164, p. 148 (1 January 1654; ER 1: 320–321), p. 158 (23 February 1654; ER 1: 322), pp. 158–159 (26 February 1654; ER 1: 322–323). 64 GAA, AELG, inv. no. 19, fol. 212v (20 January 1654; LCNY, 18), fol. 247 (13 April 1655; LCNY, 18), inv. no. 92 (4 May 1655; LCNY, 19).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

301

the stumbling block, as it referred to the Calvinist rather than to the Lutheran doctrine. If that word had not been used, most of the Lutherans would have had no problem in having their child baptized by a minister of the Reformed Church. In mid-1656 the Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam received complaints about persecution of Lutherans in New Netherland. The news prompted the consistory to approach informally several people who were friendly with the Company directors to request freedom of worship. The directors were also dissatisfied. They deplored the promulgation of the decree against conventicles, because it had always been their intention ‘to deal with them [the Lutherans] in all quietness and peacefulness’. The director general and council were ordered to allow the practice of religion in their houses and not to issue any further ordinances on the subject without prior permission. Yet this reaction of the Amsterdam chamber gave the Amsterdam classis reason for concern, since they had heard a rumor that the Lutherans had again asked for the freedom of public worship. The deputies were informed by the directors that this would certainly not be allowed, but the answer did not dismiss their fears completely, even though they were handed an extract of the letter the directors had sent to director general and council. Vigilance remained their watchword.65 In the meantime, the Lutheran consistory had acquainted the Lutherans in New Netherland of its efforts, and they petitioned Stuyvesant once again. Rather prematurely, the Lutherans stated that their friends in the Dutch Republic had obtained the promise from the directors that ‘the faith of the Unaltered Augsburgh Confession should also be tolerated, as happens in the fatherland under the laudable government there’. They therefore requested that they no longer be obstructed in the exercise of their faith, especially as that they were shortly expecting the arrival of a predikant. Stuyvesant promised to send the petition to the directors in Amsterdam, but until an answer had been received the decree would remain fully in force, although ‘household readings, prayers, saying grace, and singing’

65 GAA, AELG, inv. no. 20, p. 10 (13 June 1656; LCNY, 20), ACA, inv. no. 157, p. 361 (10 July 1656; ER 1: 354), inv. no. 6, p. 20 (7 August 1656; ER 1: 354–355), pp. 25–26 (8 August 1656; ER 1: 355), inv. no. 165, p. 14 (7 August 1656; ER 1: 354–355), p. 15 (8 August 1656; ER 1: 355), inv. no. 230, p. 1 (14 June 1656); NYSA, NYCM 12: 39, p. 2 (14 June 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 93); Olthuis, De doopspraktijk der gereformeerde kerken, 151–153, 161–164.

302

chapter five

were permitted. Since Paulus Schrick was once more departing to patria, the Lutherans sent a letter via him to the Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam, in which they informed the latter of Stuyvesant’s answer. They also asked for a good preacher, ‘eloquent and Godfearing, since among the Reformed here there is one who formerly was a Jesuit and who on that account is very politic and disputatious’. This fanatical apostate was Johannes Megapolensis.66 The expectations of the Lutheran community were too optimistic. The pressure of the classis made it impossible for the Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam to gain for their co-religionists explicit freedom of public worship from the directors. However, it was by one person and another [. . .] suggested in private that in case we sent a prædicant thither, public worship would be tolerated by connivance and winking of the eye.67

In a letter to the Lutherans in New Netherland it was even stated that the majority of the directors had so promised. In view of the practice in the Dutch Republic it is not strange that the Lutheran consistory, in consultation with Paulus Schrick, decided to send a Lutheran minister to the colony. Their expectation may have been fueled by the fact that, despite the opposition of the New Netherland ministers and the classis, the presence of a Lutheran minister was tolerated in the former Swedish colony on the South River, which in the meantime had been taken over by the Dutch. The Amsterdam Lutheran consistory chose Johannes Ernestus Gutwasser, who sailed to New Netherland aboard the ship Vergulde Meulen almost at once.68 Immediately after Gutwasser’s arrival, Megapolensis and Drisius came into action and submitted a petition to the burgemeesters and schepenen of New Amsterdam in which they expounded their objections to the Lutheran minister at some length. The magistrates agreed with the ministers and in turn addressed the director general and council, in whom they found a ready ear. The director general and council warned Gutwasser to adhere strictly to the decree against conventicles, which caused him to request the Lutheran consistory

66 NYSA, NYCM 8: 240–241 and NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 8 (24 October 1656; ER 1: 358–360; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 11); GAA, AELG, inv. no. 232 (1 November 1656; LCNY, 20–21). 67 GAA, AELG, inv. no. 20, pp. 88, 89 (2 April 1657; LCNY, 22). 68 GAA, AELG, inv. no. 93 (10 April 1657; LCNY, 23).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

303

in Amsterdam to obtain formal freedom of worship as quickly as possible. In the meantime, Megapolensis and Drisius urged that Gutwasser be sent back to patria. On 4 September 1657 the director general and council decided that Gutwasser had to depart at the first available opportunity. The reason they gave was that he posed as a Lutheran minister, ‘without, however, exhibiting for that qualification any proof from political or ecclesiastical authorities in our fatherland (in conformity with the practice and order observable there and also here)’. This was of course a formalistic argument, but no less valid, as the admission of a minister without formal appointment, regardless of the denomination, would impugn on the government’s right of approbation and counteract the powers of the secular authorities over religious appointments, Reformed or otherwise. ‘Other pregnant reasons’, which as always remained unspecified, also played a role. Gutwasser delayed his departure in the hope that in the meantime permission would still arrive from the Dutch Republic. He was supported by a new petition from twenty-five Lutherans, who stated that Gutwasser had obeyed the content of the decree to the letter, and that further orders were expected from the fatherland. The answer from director general and council was that Gutwasser’s failure to depart, although two ships had already left New Amsterdam for the Dutch Republic, displayed contempt for the rightful authorities. This alone was sufficient to refuse the Lutheran request and to order Gutwasser once more to embark as quickly as possible.69 The conflict escalated further when Gutwasser went into hiding outside New Amsterdam at a farm on Long Island, from where he could easily flee to English territory if that was necessary to avoid deportation. In the meantime, reports of the proceedings had reached Amsterdam, where the Lutheran consistory continued its efforts to obtain the support of highly placed persons. The consistory wrote an optimistic letter to the Lutheran community in New Netherland, in which it stated that patience and endurance were necessary, and

69 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 10 (6 July 1657; ER 1: 386–388; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 16), no. 11 (14 July 1657; ER 1: 388–390; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 17); GAA, AELG, inv. no. 232 (14 July 1657; LCNY, 24), (14 August 1657; LCNY, 24–26), (4 September 1657; LCNY, 26), (10 October 1657; LCNY, 30–31), (16 October 1657; LCNY, 31).

304

chapter five

that freedom of worship would be permitted eventually, even though this would be the result of a blind eye having been turned to it. It was a rather optimistic assessment. The classis, egged on by Megapolensis and Drisius, was also active, and continually pressured the directors in Amsterdam. In May 1658 the Amsterdam chamber approved the decision to deport Gutwasser, ‘although the procedures used herein could have been applied with less sharpness’. However, at the same time the directors in patria tried to meet the Lutherans halfway by giving them their own way on the issue of the wording of the baptismal form.70 Megapolensis and Drisius were not pleased with this, but in a separate letter to the ministers, the directors indicated that the measure was necessary to prevent schism and separation, and to win over the dull and resentful emotions hereto in due time, which is especially necessary in such a tender and newly developing church.71

The attitude of the directors gave director general and council a free rein to deport the Lutheran predikant. After some delay because of illness, Gutwasser boarded the Bruinvis for repatriation in the summer of 1659. A petition from sixty-six Lutherans, in which they emphasized that they were good and loyal subjects, and that a serious risk existed that without freedom of worship many farmers would leave the country, was to no avail. It was only after the takeover of New Netherland by the English that the Lutherans were given permission to appoint their own predikant.72 Six different groups played a role in the Lutheran attempt to gain freedom of worship: the Lutherans in the colony and the Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam, the ministers in New Amsterdam and the classis in the Netherlands, and director general and council and their superiors in the Dutch Republic. The Lutherans in the colony made

70

GAA, AELG, inv. no. 232 (21 October 1657; LCNY, 31–32), inv. no. 93 (26 December 1657; LCNY, 35–36), ACA, inv. no. 6, pp. 94–95 (2 April 1658; ER 1: 420–421), p. 97 (6 May 1658; ER 1: 422–423), inv. no. 165, p. 50 (2 April 1658; ER 1: 420–421), p. 50 (6 May 1658; ER 1: 422–423), inv. no. 157, p. 387 (15 April 1658; ER 1: 422); NYSA, NYCM 12: 80, no. 4 (20 May 1658; Corres. 1654–1658, 174–175). 71 NYSA, NYCM 13: 18, p. 1 (13 February 1659). 72 GAA, AELG, inv. no. 232 (20 May 1659; LCNY, 38–40), (15 December 1664; LCNY, 48–49), (16 December 1664; LCNY, 49).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

305

the wrong choice in requesting freedom of worship by means of petitions. The Lutheran consistory in Amsterdam, which based its opinion on its experience in the Dutch Republic, thought that formal permission was not a realistic goal. It believed it was more likely that a blind eye would be turned. However, the ministers in the colony, with the support of the classis, also tried to prevent that, with the result that the decision ended up in the hands of the directors in Amsterdam. Their constant wish for unity and harmony in the young and fragile colony is evident from their actions. They were not very strict, as their decision on the baptismal formula shows. Although they did not explicitly say so, it is conceivable that they would have turned a blind eye to the presence of a Lutheran minister provided that it did not lead to troubles. However, the attitude of the ministers and the provincial government made this option impossible, and because of the pressure put to bear by the classis, the directors in patria could do nothing but subsequently approve the decision of the director general to deport Gutwasser. The attempts to exclude Quakers from New Netherland were of an entirely different nature. The Quakers were one of the most radical among the various religious movements that sprang up during the English Civil War. Their belief in the rebirth of God’s truth and the mercy and light within each human individual led to their eschewing all forms of authority that did not directly stem from God. Thus the Quakers posed a much more direct threat to the established order than the Lutherans. In the first decades of their existence, when the Quakers were still mainly a radical prophetic movement, this was more so than later in the seventeenth century, when they had become an institutionalized sect. Their anti-authoritarian attitude became clear immediately when a ship with Quakers arrived in New Amsterdam in August 1657. The ship flew no flags to indicate its origin, and it did not fire its guns in the customary salute. When the captain was summoned to Stuyvesant’s presence, he showed ‘no respect at all, but stood there with his hat firm on his head, like a goat’, according to Megapolensis, whose account in a letter to the classis is the only source of information about these events. The following day the ship left the roadstead of New Amsterdam via the East River. Megapolensis thought it headed for Rhode Island, ‘where all kind of rabble lives and which is nothing but the latrine of New England; all the bandits of New England retire thither’. Two female passengers from the ship remained in New Amsterdam, and

306

chapter five these began to quake, putting their fury at work, preaching and calling out in the streets that the last day was near. The people got excited and assembled, not knowing what to do; the one called fire, the other something else.

The two women were locked up by the fiscael, and after a few days imprisonment were expelled from the colony.73 Without doubt the turmoil in New Amsterdam caused by the Quakers’ first activities played an important role in the decision to arrest the two women and to expel them from the colony. In addition, two other points are worthy of note: Megapolensis’s evident animosity, and the absence of the normal expressions of respect by the Quakers for secular authority, which played a central role in the following incident. A couple of months later, Robert Hodgson, a young Quaker of twenty-three or twenty-four years of age, began to hold conventicles in Heemstede on Long Island. One of the magistrates of the English town, Richard Gildersleeve, thereupon decided to imprison the man in his house. That did not prevent Hodgson from continuing to preach, so Gildersleeve decided to inform Stuyvesant, who sent the fiscael with twelve soldiers to the town. Two women to whom Hodgson had provided accommodation were also taken prisoner, and the three were transported to New Amsterdam by cart, the two women in the cart while Hodgson was dragged along behind on a rope. On arrival in New Amsterdam the women were quickly set free, while Hodgson was thrown into the dungeon. He was sentenced to a fine of six hundred guilders ‘or forced labor for two years at the wheelbarrow with the negers [Negroes]’. During the reading of his sentence in Dutch, which he did not understand, his hat was pulled from his head. When Hodgson was chained to the wheelbarrow he refused to work, upon which he was beaten on the back and fell to the ground. After he had been helped up he was beaten again, and fell down once more. Meanwhile he shouted that he had done no harm, and if anyone believed that he had, they should produce evidence of it to him. He was locked up without either bread or water, and was again beaten. Ultimately he was given permission to have his wounds attended to. The treatment meted out to Hodgson aroused

73 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 13, 14 (5 August 1657; ER 1: 393–400; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 77–78).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

307

the pity of many of the New Amsterdam burghers, including Stuyvesant’s sister Anna, who tried to have the man banished from New Netherland. Thereupon he was freed on condition that he should leave New Amsterdam immediately.74 This is the version of events as presented in the nineteenth century by Brodhead and O’Callaghan, and which has generally been adopted in the literature.75 It is largely based on hagiographic Quaker publications from the beginning of the eighteenth century, forty years later. Although the broad outlines are in agreement with what Megapolensis and Drisius wrote in their letter to the classis, some details give the impression that the account has been embroidered upon here and there to emphasize the parallel with Christ’s Passion. Undoubtedly, Hodgson refused to carry out the penalty that was imposed upon him, and was flogged for it. George Smith writes in his Religion and Trade in New Netherland that this was the ‘only use of physical force to coerce conscience’ in the history of New Netherland.76 I believe this to be incorrect. Hodgson was not asked to renounce his religious persuasions, and it was not the intention to force his conscience. His crime was organizing conventicles, and excessive violence was applied in the attempts to carry out the sentence. In the view of the authorities his refusal to obey legal authority was much more important than his Quaker convictions, from which the refusal stemmed. In this the New Netherland authorities concurred with the opinion of the classis. Earlier in 1657 the classis had asked the burgemeesters of Amsterdam and the commissioners of New Amstel to prevent the emergence of Quakerism there. As the classis informed Megapolensis and Drisius, the answer was that they could not force the conscience of people (which we also expressly said not to request by any means), but that if there was news that the sects committed their public exercises and religions, that they would then see and according to the circumstances prevent it.77

74

The events cannot be dated exactly. The incident must have taken place between the arrival of the Quaker ship, on which Hodgson presumably traveled to America, in New Amsterdam in August and 22 October 1657 when Megapolensis and Drisius reported it to the classis. 75 O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 2: 347–350; Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 636–637; Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland, 215–219; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 79–81. 76 Smith, Religion and Trade, 222; Smith, ‘Guilders and Godliness’, 25–26. 77 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, pp. 373–377 (7 May 1657; ER 1: 378–381).

308

chapter five

There yet remains the question why excessive violence was used in this particular case. In earlier situations, such as that of the women from the Quaker ship, banishment had been sufficient, though their gender may have played a role. In another case a shoemaker who had left his wife and children to organize conventicles was banished as he was unable to pay the fine imposed on him. In both cases no corporal punishment was used, so why was Hodgson subjected to this? The answer lies in the fact that in his case the authorities in New Netherland decided to stop the ‘evil at the first opportunity’. In the background the coinciding incidents with the Lutherans also played a role. Furthermore, William Hallett, the schout of Vlissingen, had been sacked, fined, and banned a short time before for allowing Baptist conventicles. In Hodgson’s case it was decided that enough was enough and that an example had to be set. However, in doing so director general and council overplayed their hand by applying methods that were considered out of proportion by the population of New Amsterdam.78 Furthermore, making an example of Hodgson failed to achieve its objective, and it was in fact counterproductive. It was no coincidence that Hodgson held his conventicles in one of the English towns on Long Island under Dutch rule, which were a rich breeding ground for dissidents, as the absence of ministers left the way clear for them. At the end of December 1657 the magistrates and populace of Vlissingen protested against the new edict against the Quakers that had been proclaimed. In what has come to be called the Flushing Remonstrance, they refused to carry out the ordinance: wee desire therefore in this case not to iudge least wee be iudged neither to Condem least wee bee Condemed but rather let every man stand and fall to his own.79

If, in all its muddied phraseology, this remonstrance was intended as a plea for freedom of conscience, it was out of place, for it was never the intention of director general and council to hamper freedom of conscience. But as the stance of the magistrates of Vlissingen

78 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 19 (22 October 1657; ER 1: 409–412; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 170; 2; 78–80); NYSA, NYCM 8: 273–274 (8 November 1656; DRCHNY 14: 369–370). 79 NYSA, NYCM 8: 625 (27 December 1657; DRCHNY 14: 402–403).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

309

constituted a refusal to carry out an ordinance, there was no doubt that, after the earlier incidents, director general and council could not allow it to pass without repercussions. The local schout, Tobias Feake, who was the first signatory and had presented the Flushing Remonstrance, was arrested, as were several magistrates of the town. The clerk, Edwart Hart, was interrogated to discover whether the insubordination was instigated by a specific individual, but he answered that he did not know.80 It turned out that part of the motivation for the remonstrance from Vlissingen was the presence of Quakers on Long Island. They had been given accommodation in Rustdorp by Henry Townsend, who had earlier been fined for this. Quakers were also spotted in ’s-Gravesande, in the house of John Tilton. Measures had to be taken. Tilton was fined twelve Flemish pounds, and Townsend three hundred guilders. In the meantime, Tobias Feake had admitted that he was the author of the remonstrance, in which they supported ‘the abominable sect of the queeckers [Quakers] who vilify both the political regents and the teachers of God’s word’. He was to be removed from office and banished from New Netherland unless he paid a fine of two hundred guilders and kept his promise to behave himself in a proper manner. Edward Hart received the lightest punishment. After the intercession of the inhabitants of Vlissingen and on his promise of better behavior, also taking into account his history of good service and his age, he was forgiven and had to pay only the costs of his trial.81 Of course, this was not the end of the problems with the Quakers; a number of them were arrested and expelled from the colony. Several years later, Henry Townsend was again caught harboring Quakers. After investigation, he was fined and banished. In other cases, soldiers were billeted with various inhabitants of Rustdorp to ensure that Quakers were not provided with lodgings. It was only after a number of the inhabitants had signed a written promise to no longer offer accommodation to Quakers and to inform the authorities

80

NYSA, NYCM 8: 632 (1–3 January 1658; DRCHNY 14: 403–405). NYSA, NYCM 8: 633 (8 January 1658; DRCHNY 14: 405–406), 634 (8 January 1658; DRCHNY 14: 406), 635–636 (10 January 1658; DRCHNY 14: 406), 642 (15 January 1658; DRCHNY 14: 407), 689 (28 January 1658; DRCHNY 14: 409), 671 (23 January 1658; DRCHNY 14: 408–409). 81

310

chapter five

if the Quakers turned up that the billeting was partially lifted. The soldiers were then billeted exclusively with those who had not signed the undertaking. These probably decided to sign before long.82 After the incident with Townsend a few more banishments followed, one of which deserves special attention. Quaker John Bowne was arrested in September 1662 for holding conventicles. Because he refused to take his hat off in the presence of the director general, as had others before him, and furthermore refused to pay the fine imposed upon him, he was banished. It is remarkable that he was not just expelled from New Netherland but was sent to the Dutch Republic. Perhaps director general and council intended this punishment to be a deterrent example. But in Amsterdam Bowne appealed to the Company directors, who were not inclined to show him that they did not support their director general. However, when Bowne wanted to return to New Netherland he encountered no obstacle. A little while later the directors wrote to Stuyvesant and his council that, although it was their desire that New Netherland be rid of such sects, they did not believe that rigorous action could be taken ‘without impoverishing and diminishing the population, which on the contrary in such tender beginnings of a state must be continued by all suitable means’. The authorities in New Netherland must therefore be moderate, ‘leaving everyone free in his conscience’, as long as the inhabitants behaved themselves and did not create any difficulties. Such ‘moderation’ was always practiced in Amsterdam, and the directors did not doubt that New Netherland would also be the better for it.83 With this, the directors in patria instructed the authorities in the colony to follow the Dutch practice of ‘connivance’, turning a blind eye, the custom in some places in the Netherlands. It did not amount to explicit permission for the public exercise of religion, but after the arrival of this letter from the directors no more arrests on religious grounds were made in New Netherland. Formally, the edict on conventicles was still in force, but the need to increase popula-

82 NYSA, NYCM 9: 486 (8 January 1661; DRCHNY 14: 489), 505 (20 January 1661), 509 (20 January 1661), 513 (24 January 1661; DRCHNY 14: 491–492), 525 (11 February 1661; DRCHNY 14: 492), 537–538 (3 March 1661). 83 NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 213–214 (14 September 1662), 291 (14 December 1662), 10–2: 14 (8 January 1663), 15: 12, pp. 6–7 (16 April 1663; DRCHNY 14: 526); Kessler and Rachlis, Peter Stuyvesant and his New York, 193–196.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

311

tion numbers had taken precedence over it in moving the directors to instruct director general and council to turn a blind eye to matters, as long as no offence was given. Also, the continued arrest and persecution of Quakers would have disturbed the peace and order more than allowing conventicles, especially in the English towns on Long Island. The increasing pressure from the English in Connecticut on Long Island may have played a role, as it added a political dimension to the religious and ethnic differences between the Quakers and the provincial authorities in New Netherland. The directors may have decided to temper their activities against the Quakers so as not to antagonize the inhabitants of the English towns under Dutch rule any further, as this would drive them into the arms of their New England neighbors. In addition to Lutherans and Quakers two smaller denominations featured among the Dutch in New Netherland: the Mennonites and the Roman Catholics, and among the English on Long Island various religious movements, ‘many Puritans, Independents, many Atheists, and various other dwaalgeesten [erring spirits]’ could be found.84 In general they caused little public disorder, although Megapolensis in particular saw their presence as a threat. Action had to be taken in only a few cases, as in 1652. Undoubtedly more Anabaptists lived in New Netherland than just Anna Smith, who at the request of Megapolensis in that year had to answer to the religious and secular authorities for ‘her slanderous and ill-speaking mouth with which she slanders God’s word and the servants thereof ’.85 The result is unknown. Another case was that of William Wickendam, a fortytwo-year-old Englishman from Oxfordshire, who held Baptist conventicles in the autumn of 1656 in Vlissingen with the permission of the local schout, William Hallett. During these meetings, Wickendam preached and also baptized adults in the river. Both Wickendam and Hallett were fined and banished. Their trial took place at the same time that the Lutherans were campaigning for their freedom of worship. Megapolensis believed that the Lutheran example encouraged others to hold meetings as well. Yet no further problems with the Anabaptists arose.86 84 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 7 (18 March 1655; ER 1: 334–336; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 5). 85 NYSA, NYCM 5: 19 (12 February 1652; NYHM 5: 103). 86 NYSA, NYCM 8: 273–274 (8 November 1656; DRCHNY 14: 369–370), 276

312

chapter five

Such incidents did not take place with the Roman Catholics. Only a few of them lived in New Netherland, and they seem to have obeyed the edicts against conventicles and probably limited their worship to the family circle. They had the opportunity of contact with a priest only occasionally, such as when Canadian Jesuits were captured by the Indians and brought to Fort Orange. In 1642 the French Jesuit Isaac Jogues was taken by the Mohawks to Rensselaerswijck. He managed to escape and went into hiding with the Dutch. Ultimately, Joques was able to return via New Amsterdam and France to Canada, where he was murdered by Indians a few years later. Another Jesuit, Guiseppe Bressani, regained his freedom thanks to the Dutch. Both were helped by Megapolensis, who at the time was minister in Rensselaerswijck. It is not known whether Jogues and Bressani came across any Roman Catholics in Fort Orange. Joseph Poncet, who arrived in Beverwijck in 1653, found at least two: a merchant originating from Brussels and a young Frenchman who worked as an interpreter. Megapolensis wrote of Simon Le Moyne, who in 1657 visited Fort Orange and New Amsterdam from Canada, that he had come ‘without doubt to encourage the Papists, both Dutch and French, and to examine the situation of the land’. Megapolensis was held in high esteem by the Jesuits due to his role in freeing the priests captured by the Indians and he had a relatively friendly relationship with them, which was not put to the test since they did not react to his attempts to get into discussion with them on religious matters.87

The Conversion of Blacks and Indians New Netherland was not a plantation colony like the English colonies Virginia and Maryland or the colonies in the Caribbean. Partly because of this, the number of blacks, most of them slaves, remained

(11 November 1656; DRCHNY 14: 370); NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 13, 14 (5 August 1657; ER 1: 393–400; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: 56, 58). 87 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 35 (28 September 1657; ER 1: 436–439; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 2: appendix 7), no. 26 (24 September 1658; ER 1: 432–434; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: appendix 7); Christoph, ‘The Time and Place of Jan van Loon’, I, 8; Thwaites, Travels and Explorations, 40: 142–147 (ER 1: 315–316); GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, p. 391 (13 January 1659); Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: appendix 6.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

313

relatively small. In 1639 about one hundred blacks worked in the colony, a number that grew to approximately five hundred in 1664. In that year, blacks, both free and enslaved, made up between 5 and 10 percent of the total population, with a concentration in New Amsterdam where it can have been as high as 15 percent. With this, the proportion of slaves in the population of New Netherland was considerably lower than in Batavia, where in 1632 approximately 30 percent of the population consisted of slaves. Subsequently it grew to 52 percent in 1679. In the eighteenth century more than half the population on the Cape consisted of slaves.88 Although slavery was permitted in the colonies, in contrast to the fatherland, many people in the Dutch Republic had their doubts about its legitimacy. Various tracts were written against the growth of slavery, in particular by Pietist ministers. In some of these the existence of slavery was grudgingly accepted, but the duty of the slave owners to bring their slaves in contact with the gospel remained intact. It is difficult to establish whether the ministers and colonists in New Netherland shared such doubts. However, attempts were made to impart the basic principles of Christianity, and more particularly of the Reformed Church, to the slaves and the free blacks in the colony. This had far-reaching consequences, because of the belief that Christians could not hold fellow Christians in slavery.89 The conversion of blacks had to begin with knowledge of the gospel, and education was the appropriate tool for this. As early as 1636 Bogardus asked ‘for a schoolmaster to teach and train the youth both Dutch and blacks in the knowledge of Jesus Christ’. Adam Roelantsz. van Dokkum, who had in 1633 been in the service of the wic as bosschieter [able seaman] in the colony, was appointed for this task and was from 1638 employed as schoolmaster on Manhattan for a number of years. Whether this first schoolmaster on Manhattan was able to teach much to the blacks is unknown, but that Bogardus attempted to promote the teaching of black children is indicative of

88 Frijhoff, Wegen, 768–769; Goodfriend, Before the Melting Pot, 10; Potter, ‘Demographic Development’, 138; Berlin, ‘From Creole to African’, 268–269; Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, 51; Niemeijer, Calvinisme en koloniale stadscultuur, 26; personal communication of Ad Biewenga, Free University, Amsterdam. 89 Schutte, ‘Bij het schemerlicht van hun tijd’; De Jong, ‘The Dutch Reformed Church and Negro Slavery in Colonial America’; Boxer, Nederlanders in Brazilië, 108; Joosse, ‘Scoone dingen sijn swaere dingen’.

314

chapter five

the missionary zeal in general of the early ministers. Other indications of this are the marriages and baptisms of blacks.90 The majority of marriages in New Netherland were carried out by ministers, although as in the fatherland religious marriage was not the only legal manner in which to marry. Secular magistrates, such as the director general and council or local schepenen, had the authority to marry, and usually did so in the absence of a minister. Even if the marriage ceremony was carried out by the predikant, this does not necessarily imply that it was an indication of conversion to Christianity. Rather, it could be an indication of the social acceptance of blacks and slaves and thus points at the degree of racial conviviality in New Netherland. If free blacks or slaves, with or without their owner’s permission, manifestly lived together outside formal wedlock and procreated, this could be regarded by the white colonists as a threatening departure from the normal pattern. The blacks’ participation in the celebration of marriage according to the Dutch model made the union more acceptable for the colonists. However, there are some arguments against this. The number of marriages between blacks recorded in the New Amsterdam register of marriages until the English takeover is relatively small: approximately twenty-seven out of 441.91 When looking at this figure it must be taken into account that the register of marriages prior to 1639 is lost, and that it only refers to New Amsterdam. In addition, a number of free blacks and slaves may have cohabited without being formally married, as Goodfriend suggests. Yet the annual number of

90 Van Deursen, Mensen van klein vermogen, 138–139; Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 51, doc. 28 (14 August 1636; Van Laer, ‘Letters of Wouter van Twiller’); GAA, NA, inv. no. 915, fol. 213v (29 September 1633); NYHM 1: 69 (13 October 1638). The date of the arrival of Adam Roelantsz. on Manhattan plays an important role in the discussion over the year in which Collegiate School in New York City was founded: Dunshee, History of the School of the Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, 15, Kilpatrick, The Dutch Schools of New Netherland, 39–50, Frost, ‘356 Years of Formal Education in New York City’ and Maglione, ‘The Evidence for the Establishment of Collegiate School in 1628’. In my opinion, 1638 is the best defendable year for the formal establishment of an institution of education on Manhattan. 91 On the basis of the information in the marriage register it is not always possible to ascertain that it concerns blacks. Of twenty-four marriages I am sure, but another three are less clear. I suspect that those are interracial marriages. Goodfriend in ‘Black Families in New Netherland’, 151, gives the number of twenty-six marriages. Christoph in ‘The Freedmen of New Amsterdam’, 168, note 24 gives twentyseven.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

315

black marriages displays scarcely any increase, while the number of blacks in New Netherland grew. The black marriages that took place in New Amsterdam involved both free blacks and slaves. The first group was in the majority, but there also is, for example, a marriage between Franciscus Neger and Catharina Negrinne, slaves belonging to Cornelis de Potter. From this it appears that marriage did not automatically lead to freedom. A question that remains is whether it was expected that the parents of any resulting children would bring them up in the Reformed religion, although it is not known if a clause of this nature was included in the marriage ceremony in New Netherland. A better indicator of the intention of a Christian upbringing is the baptism of blacks. It is here that the conflict between slavery and the conversion to Christianity becomes evident. Up to the takeover in 1664 a total of fifty-six children of black parentage were baptized.92 However, it is not always clear whether these were the children of slaves or of free blacks. What is noticeable is that all fifty-six baptisms took place prior to 1656. In Bogardus’s time, up to the middle of August 1647, at least forty black children were baptized. After his departure, at least sixteen baptisms took place, the majority before 1652, the last in 1655. After that it was not until 1665 that a black baptism is shown in the baptismal register. This does not mean that in the whole period between 1656 and 1664 no blacks were baptized, but it definitely can be an indication that a change had taken place. The motivation for the possible change comes to the fore in a letter that Henricus Selijns wrote to the classis in Amsterdam in 1664, shortly before his departure from New Netherland: As for the Holy Baptism, [we] were sometimes asked by the negers [Negroes] to baptize their children, but [we] refused, partly because of their lack of knowledge and faith, and partly because of the physical and wrong aim on the part of the afore-mentioned negers who

92 The baptismal register (BDC ) does not always provide sufficient information and many times the name or the place of origin of the parents must be relied upon. The baptism of five children from mixed marriages have not been included in the count and this may be the cause of the discrepancy between my figures and those of Goodfriend, ‘Black Families in New Netherland’ 151, who provides a number of ‘at least’ sixty-one and Christoph, ‘The Freedmen of New Amsterdam’, 160, who counted fifty-eight. Frijhoff, Wegen, 772, states that prior to the departure of Bogardus forty-two black children were baptized.

316

chapter five sought nothing else by it than the freeing of their children from corporeal slavery, without pursuing piety and Christian virtues.93

Selijns added that the other ministers in New Netherland did not baptize black children either. The two elements of his motivation touch on two different aspects of the baptism of blacks. The first point, the lack of knowledge and faith, applied both to slaves and to free blacks. Selijns had indeed made some efforts towards catechism, but had little success with ‘the old people, who do not understand’. Things went slightly better with the black children. The second point is more important. The baptism of the children of slaves generally implied that they could no longer be slaves. I found at least one exception to this, the manumission of Christina, who had been baptized on 18 February 1645. Although at the Cape of Good Hope many baptized blacks remained in slavery, this was regarded impossible in New Netherland after 1650, as is emphasized by an incident in 1664. Stuyvesant had sent a number of slaves with children to Curaçao, from where they were sold to Spanish colonies. Only later it turned out that a mistake had been made. The children had been ‘presented for baptism with good intentions by Mrs. Stuyvesant, your honor’s beloved’ and as Christians should never have been sold. Vice-Director Matthias Beck wrote to Stuyvesant that he would do everything to buy the children back, but he feared that this would be extremely difficult. The incident raises several questions. If the children had been baptized at the insistence of Judith Bayard, Stuyvesant’s wife, then the baptism may have taken place either in New Amsterdam or at Stuyvesant’s bowery. No record of this can be found in the New Amsterdam register of baptisms, nor in the list of those baptized at the bowery. If these small children were baptized there, it must have been done by Selijns, who from 1660 to 1664 provided the church services there. But it was Selijns who in June 1664, shortly before he returned to patria, spoke out against the baptism of blacks. Possibly the 1664 remark reflects a very recent change in attitude. On the whole, the incident implies that the number of baptisms of black children after 1655 might well have been larger than can be assumed on the basis of the baptismal registers. A possibility is that at a given moment a separate register of baptisms for

93

OFDRCB, 230 (9 June 1664).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

317

blacks was kept in New Amsterdam, and that this was lost at a later stage.94 One step further than baptism was the confession of faith and the taking on membership. Although later in the seventeenth century a small number of blacks became church members in New York, prior to 1664 I have found only one: Susanna Negrin. Too little is known to be sure about this, but it is tempting to presume that this is the same woman who as a seventeen-year-old was baptized on 14 April 1647 and who thirteen days later as ‘Susanna van Nieuw Nederlandt’ entered into matrimony with Jan Augustinus.95 That all the missionary work led only to the membership of one black woman indicates where the problems lay. The conversion of heathens may have been advocated with enthusiasm in the Dutch Republic, but in the colony practical objections stood in the way. Many, if not all, ministers made attempts to catechize blacks, but instruction and the teaching of religious knowledge was not easy. It was for good reason that in children Selijns vested any remaining hope. Complete conversion was a question of extreme patience and required answering all 129 questions in the Heidelberg catechism, the Reformed Church’s primary teaching tool. It is in particular in the reduction in numbers of the baptism of blacks that the changing ideas on conversion become evident. It is true that the change in 1655 was not absolute; nonetheless the abruptness of the disappearance of black baptisms from the baptismal register raises some questions. Willem Frijhoff has interpreted the change in baptismal practice as a result of the crumbling of the convivial societal model believed in by some of the early Pietist ministers. It is evident that the later ministers were less inclined to baptize blacks, even though the difference may not have been as great as the figures in the incomplete baptismal registers might suggest. Whether it may be

94

NYSA, NYCM 10–2: 416–417 (6 December 1663); BDC 1: 18 (18 February 1645); Elphick and Shell, ‘Intergroup Relations’, 120–121; Gehring and Schiltkamp, Curacao Papers, 198–199, 451 (15 November 1664); OFDRCB, 226 (4 October 1660), 109–114 (31 October 1660–20 July 1664); personal communication of Ad Biewenga, Free University, Amsterdam, who suggested the possible loss of a separate baptismal register. 95 Christoph, ‘The Freedmen of New Amsterdam’, 164; Frijhoff, Wegen, 775, 778; Goodfriend, Before the Melting Pot, 116. BDC 1 (14 April 1647); MDC, 27 April 1647. ‘“t Ledematen boeck”’, first part.

chapter five

318

concluded from this that, as Frijhoff argues, a change took place from a humanitarian outlook on slavery towards a productivistic view remains to be seen. The possible change in baptismal practice shows that the social distance between colonists and blacks in New Netherland increased, but to draw further conclusions on the changing Dutch attitudes towards slavery comparative research encompassing the whole of the Dutch colonial world, including the pertinent theological discussions in patria, is required.96 The situation of the conversion of the Indians was entirely different from that of the blacks. A variety of differences existed, mostly emanating from the geographical and cultural distance between the Indians and colonists. The consequence of the Dutch pattern of settlement, which meant that after 1650 the population was mostly concentrated in towns and villages, coupled with prohibitions on going into the woods to engage in trade, resulted in a limited contact mainly during the trading season, when the Indians came to the Dutch settlements. This was in sharp contrast to the situation in Canada, where the French coureurs de bois, with Jesuit priests in their wake, visited the Indians in their settlements. The cultural distance between colonists and Indians was greater than that with the blacks. This was partly due to the fact that the blacks were part of the colonial society and the Indians were not. Both the language problems and the absence of sufficient common ground for getting across the ideas of Calvinism were obstacles. This does not mean that no enthusiasm existed for the conversion of the Indians, or that ‘the Dutch made virtually no missionary effort’, as has been suggested by some historians. As early as 1624 the Provisional Regulations stated that the colonists must ‘by their Christian life and conduct seek to draw the Indianen and other blind people to the knowledge of God and His Word’. The colonists’ role to act as examples of Christianity was emphasized in Verhulst’s instruction a year later. Such expressions of missionary zeal also occur in the wic’s 1638 instruction for ministers, and it became a trope in many pamphlets. The Amsterdam classis continued to point out to the West India Company that the ‘propagation of the true religion among the blinde heijdenen [blind heathens] under the authority of your Honorable Company’ was of great importance. The

96

Frijhoff, Wegen, 766–767.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

319

patroons too considered the conversion of Indians to be one of their duties. The contract that Johannes Megapolensis entered into with Kiliaen van Rensselaer included a reference to ‘the edification and instruction of the inhabitants and the Indiaenen’. On the appointment of his successor, Gideon Schaets, it was specified that he should employ ‘all Christian effort [. . .] to encourage the heijdenen and also the heijdense kinderen [heathen children] in the Christian religion’. If it was necessary to board Indian children in his house in order to catechize them, the costs would be reimbursed by the patroon.97 So the classis and the patroon in Rensselaerswijck clearly wished to convert the Indians in New Netherland. But did the directors in Amsterdam share this desire? The early instructions suggest this, but in 1650 the directors were accused of not having made sufficient efforts to promote the conversion of Indians and blacks. Their reaction was revealing: Everyone who has been in the company of the indianen in and around New Netherland will be able to say that it is not humanly possible to bring the adults to the christian faith, also it belongs to the position of the predicant to make an effort in that, and it is the duty of the director to assist him therein.98

The directors considered it the duty of the ministers to take this in hand. With the appointment of ministers their contribution to the missionary activities was ended. Naturally this sharp division of tasks was a point on which differences of opinion arose. Johannes Polhemius, who had experienced in Brazil that some ministers were exempted from other ecclesiastical duties to apply themselves exclusively to missionary work, was of the opinion that the Company showed too little

97 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 112, 122 (DRNN, 2–5, 36–37); Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755, I C. 539–542, art. 5 (not dated, probably 1638). GAA, ACA, inv. no. 4, p. 391; inv. no. 163, pp. 141–143 (9 July 1646; ER 1: 203–209); NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 1 (6 March 1642; ER 1: 143–145; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 2: appendix 3); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 156–156v (6 April 1642; VRBM, 606–608); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1100, fol. 23v, 26 (8 May 1652); Dennis, Cultivating a Landscape of Peace, 142; Trelease, Indian Affairs, 38–40, 169–172; Rink, ‘Private Interest and Godly Gain’, 252–256; Taylor, American Colonies, 252; Rothschild, Colonial Encounters in a Native American Landscape, 30. 98 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Antwoort opde remonstrantie overgelevert bijde gecommitteerde van Nieu Nederlandt’, punt 18 (31 January 1650; DRCHNY 1: 340), ‘Kort begrijp van d’excessen en hoochschadelijck versuijm’, point 18 (27 January 1650; DRCHNY 1: 334).

320

chapter five

zeal. That does not alter the fact that in the first part of their reaction the directors recognized that considerable practical drawbacks had to be overcome.99 The reports of the ministers about their contacts with the Indians provide evidence of the same problem. Michaëlius wrote in 1628, when he had only been in New Netherland a couple of months, that he was surprised that many in the Dutch Republic thought that the ‘docility’ and the ‘good nature’ of the Indians would make conversion a relatively simple matter. His experience indicated otherwise: ‘if we want to speak to them of God, it seems a dream to them’. Of course, poor communication was part of the problem. Many colonists talked with the Indians about trade, ‘but this is done almost as much in pointing with thumb and fingers as by speaking, which in matters of religion could not be done’. Even if the language difficulties could be overcome, the cultural differences between the Dutch and the Indians were still such that Michaëlius proposed a rather drastic solution, namely to separate a few Indian children from their parents at an early age and bring them up as Christians. These children would later be used ‘to spreading the knowledge of religion amongst the entire nation’. This plan encountered obvious practical difficulties: the Indians were not inclined to give up their children. Michaëlius remained in the colony for only a few years, and it is unlikely that he achieved any success.100 In all probability his successor Bogardus also made attempts to convert the Indians, but no sign of any success can be found. The minister had made some progress among the blacks, but it was an uphill struggle as far as the Indians were concerned. While the names of various blacks appear in the New Amsterdam baptismal register, no signs of any Indians appear whatsoever. The wars with the Indians in the 1640s did not help the missionary efforts, of course.101 Whether Bogardus took the trouble to learn any of the Indian languages is unknown, but Megapolensis, who worked in Rensselaerswijck in the 1640s, did. His observations indicate that he did not find it an easy

99 Joosse, ‘Scoone dingen sijn swaere dingen’, 465; GAA, ACA, inv. no. 158, p. 15 (23 June 1664; ER 1: 551). 100 Eekhof, Michaëlius, 120–123, 132–135 (11 August 1628; NNN, 126–129), possibly a reference to Johannes de Laet in his Nieuwe wereldt, 89 (NNN, 50). 101 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 163, pp. 103–104 (22 April 1642; ER 1: 150–151).

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

321

task, but his description of the mythological origin of the Iroquois shows that he was able to discuss such abstract subjects. However, listening to and understanding stories such as this was quite different from explaining the fundamental principles of Calvinism. Megapolensis had the intention of preaching among the Indians: When we hold a sermon, they sometimes come with ten or twelve, more or less, each with a large long tobacco pipe, made by themselves, in the mouth and stand around and look. Afterwards they ask me what I am doing and what I want, that I stand there alone and make so many words while no one of the rest may speak? I tell them that I admonish the Christians that they should not steal, fornicate, get drunk, murder and that they should also not do it. And that I intend to preach the same to them and come to them in their land and castles (about three days’ journey from here, lying further inland), when I know their speech. Then they say it is good that I teach the Christians, but immediately add diatennon jawij assyreoni hagiouisk, that is, why do so many Christians do it?102

The bad example set by some of the colonists did not make the task of the ministers any easier. Yet the ‘propagation of Christ’s realm among the blinde heydenen’ was continued, ‘although not with such success as could be wished’, as was remarked by the classis as a reaction to the meagre results that Megapolensis and Drisius achieved with a specific Indian.103 They had instructed the Indian for two years, so that he was able to read and speak good Dutch. He also received instruction in the basic principles of religion, and had even attended church services. He was given a Bible, so that he could work among the Indians, but it has all turned to nought, he has lapsed to drinking brandy, sold the Bible and turned into a rechte bestia [true animal], who is doing more harm than good among the Indianen.104

102 Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 48 (NNN, 177–178). According to Mohawk scholar Gunther Michelson, Megapolensis’s rendition of what was said to him is garbled. Tyaten’:ro? is ‘friend’. The second Mohawk term in the statement seems to be tsyaha’:wi?, ‘you (plural) are led (to do something)’. The third term is ahsiron’:ni: literally ‘clothmakers’, referring to the Dutch. Hagiousk is unidentifiable. Personal communication, 25 June 2004. 103 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, p. 357 (26 May 1656; ER 1: 348). 104 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 13, 14 (5 August 1657; ER 1: 398–399; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 171); NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 6 (25 July 1654: ER 1: 326–327; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 170–171).

322

chapter five

The result was such that Megapolensis and Drisius saw no more opportunities of converting the Indians, until the time that they are subdued by the number and power of our nation and reduced to some government, and that our people provides them a better example than they have done before.105

In this, Megapolensis and Drisius create an interesting link between conquest and missionary work. It was also the experience in the East Indian colonies that the propagation of the Christian religion could only be brought about successfully under the protection of a Christian government. No success could ever be achieved as long as the Indians were outside the sphere of authority of the Dutch, as had been learned from the experience of thirty years of fruitless work among the Indians. During the existence of New Netherland, no attempt was made to subdue the Indians in such a way that attempts to proselytize were feasible.106 The reports of early ministers of New Netherland make clear that the spread of the Christian religion, by which they meant their specific brand of Calvinism, among the blind heathens was no unstoppable tidal wave which simply rolled on. The Indians did not automatically, upon hearing the ministers preach, see the light of Christianity. But the lack of Indian converts should not be mistaken for a lack of effort from the part of the Dutch. The result is hardly surprising, especially when taking into account the situation of the Dutch Reformed church in the first part of the seventeenth century. In the Dutch Republic, as in New Netherland, it was in many ways a vanguard church, not intended to encompass all of the population. It set high standards for its members, standards that many could not or would not meet. For the Indians, the conditions attached to becoming a member of the Dutch Reformed Church were simply not attainable within one or even two generations. Later in the seventeenth, and especially the eighteenth, century, the Dutch Reformed Church in the Dutch Republic gradually became more inclusive: its membership as a percentage of the total population grew, while at the same time the exercise of discipline over members relaxed. The

105 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 13, 14 (5 August 1657; ER 1: 398; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 171). 106 Niemeijer, Calvinisme en koloniale stadscultuur, 16.

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

323

same development took place in New York, and it allowed for a change in attitude towards the proselytization of Indians. The work of Bernardus Freeman in Schenectady, who over the course of years baptized a number of Indians, is evidence of that. It was made possible by a change in the meaning attached to baptism as applied to children of non-Christian parents. No longer was it required for them to promise to rear their children in the Christian faith. In these cases baptism no longer functioned as the first step which via catechism and confession of faith would lead to membership of the Calvinist church. It became a sign of inclusion into a Christian society controlled by Europeans, rather than conversion, and thus it took on a role not unlike that which Catholic priests had already used it for in the seventeenth century. In New York, this development took place long after the Dutch had lost control of New Netherland.107

Conclusion The West India Company clearly had a duty in religious affairs, and the true Reformed religion was of course of prime importance. In addition to the religious motives in the founding of the Company, such as the conflict with the Spanish and the missionary works among heathen peoples, it was beyond question that the wic had to take measures for the spiritual care of its employees. From the outset, the primacy within the wic lay with the chambers, thus in the case of New Netherland with the Amsterdam chamber. However, on the ecclesiastical side it was not clear which body should be responsible. In the early years this task fell to the Amsterdam consistory, but during the course of the 1630s the supervision was transferred to the Amsterdam classis, which delegated it to a small committee, the deputati ad res Indicas. The authority of the Amsterdam classis was challenged by the synods in other provinces, which forced the North Holland synod to concede that it would keep the other synods informed about religious matters. With that, the authority of the Amsterdam classis may have been confirmed, but in various issues interplay between classis and directors took place. The procedure

107

Roodenburg, Onder censuur; Burke, Mohawk Frontier, 151–156.

324

chapter five

surrounding the appointment of ministers is a clear example of this. The influence of authorities and consistories in New Netherland remained limited. During the first decades a number of conflicts erupted in the colony between the ministers and the secular authorities. This was largely the result of the specific religious backgrounds of men such as Michaëlius, Bogardus, and Backer. However, the colonial isolation, with the consequential impossibility of swift contact with superiors in the fatherland, also played a role. Virtually no conflicts arose between church and state in the period after about 1650. Both the personalities of the ministers and the character of Director General Stuyvesant were important factors in nipping any potential disagreement in the bud. Nevertheless the ministers had another major problem, namely their pay. As a consequence of the wic’s financial problems the payment of salaries to the ministers was transferred to the colony, where it became customary that the community had to pay half the salary. Since such payment was not made from general funds, as was the case in the Dutch Republic, but from the imposition of specific taxes, it often led to problems, which were of an economic rather than a religious nature. The number of communities and ministers in New Netherland was not so large that the formation of a classis was feasible, as it had been in Brazil. Below the level of the classis, however, the organization of the church was almost the same as that in the Dutch Republic. Central and local magistrates usually were members of the consistory, but this partnership was not formalized, as no political commissioners were officially established. The tasks of the consistory included the maintenance of discipline in the membership. Also, house visits by the minister and an elder took place prior to each celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and attention was given to a good attestation in the event of removal to another community. Women were in the majority of the members in New Amsterdam, and this was a trend that continued after the administration of the colony became English. For the Dutch period, a cautious estimate is that approximately 20 percent of the population were members of the Reformed Church. Many liefhebbers also attended the services, but apart from the remark of Schaets, their numbers are unknown. In addition, various other denominations were adhered to in New Netherland. In the first decades of the colony’s existence little need arose to promulgate specific measures against other religions. However,

‘god’s

church and honor should be cared for’

325

it is evident that in the years thereafter the directors in patria viewed New Netherland as a growing society in which religious diversity could be a destabilizing factor. In the 1650s it became necessary to promulgate edicts against conventicles, and action was taken against the Lutheran attempts to gain freedom of worship. As long as no threat to peace and order in the colony existed there might have been a chance that a blind eye could be turned to a Lutheran predikant. However, in the interplay of forces between the various bodies in colony and fatherland it was ultimately the tough attitude of Stuyvesant and the ministers in New Amsterdam that stood in the way of tolerance in the colony. Where in the situation with the Lutherans the issue at stake in the first place was the maintenance of peace and order, in the persecution of the Quakers their lack of respect for the secular authorities created a danger of a different kind. However, the action taken against the Quakers was such that after a while the directors reached the conclusion that a certain degree of moderation was necessary, among other reasons to prevent further problems with the English on Long Island. Lastly, the missionary work. In the establishment of the West India Company, the desire to spread the word of God among the heathen peoples played an important role. The action of the first ministers in New Netherland bears evidence of that. However, the conversion of blacks brought with it an inherent conflict with the status of slavery. Both the desire on the part of slaves to have their children freed by baptism and the increasing demands the ministers placed on the converts’ religious knowledge reduced the number of blacks that were baptized in the 1650s to a minimum. An important difference between the blacks and the Indians was that the latter were not part of the colonial society. Attempts to convert the Indians bore even less fruit than in the case of the blacks. The wish to do so was there, but both the language problems and the major cultural differences were obstacles that were not easily overcome. This was sufficient for Megapolensis and Drisius to reach the conclusion in 1657 that missionary work was pointless so long as the Indians were not subordinated.

CHAPTER SIX

‘EACH ACCORDING TO HIS CONDITION, STATE, AND CIRCUMSTANCES’1

Among the motives for immigration to New Netherland, the chance of economic improvement played a significant role, especially after 1650, when the economic growth of the Dutch Republic had slowed. But did New Netherland offer immigrants better opportunities for social betterment than patria? Were the colonists really better off by going to New Netherland? These questions imply a comparison with the Dutch Republic, which makes answering them difficult. The fact that in the long run an individual immigrant achieved a position in the colony that was better than that which he had left behind in the Netherlands did not rest only on the opportunities open to him in the colony. Establishing a career and achieving a certain standard of living and position in society takes a number of years, irrespective of whether this occurs in a colony or in the fatherland. A valid evaluation therefore involves the comparison of the position of a colonist with that which he could have reached had he remained within his own province, elsewhere in the Dutch Republic, or indeed if he had pursued his fortune elsewhere in Europe. Yet, such a comparison is in many situations impossible, both because of its speculative nature and because in many instances far too little information on the individual is available. This means that the answers have to be sought not on an individual level but on a collective level. As a result the questions require some modification, and require an examination of the social stratification and status system of New Netherland. Status in the colonial society is related to, among other factors, material things, such as possessions and salary. In addition, status can be acquired by holding administrative functions. It can also be deduced from judicial regulations, such as those for civil rights. Further, a few groups with

1

NYMA, ODR 1, p. 402 (11 October 1655; RNA 1: 366).

328

chapter six

a different judicial status from that applying to Europeans existed, such as blacks (whether slaves or not), Jews, and Indians.

Wealth and Salaries For New Amsterdam, five separate tax or loan lists are available, from which differences in wealth can be deduced. These lists date from the years 1653, 1655, 1664, 1665, and 1674, and contain a wide diversity of numbers of people, not only residents of New Amsterdam. As the lists were compiled with different objectives in mind, it is necessary to examine each list closely. First the 1653 list. During the First Anglo-Dutch War an English attack on New Amsterdam was anticipated. The city’s defenses were, to put it mildly, not in optimal condition. In a joint meeting the director general and council and burgemeesters and schepenen took a number of measures to improve them, such as the reinforcement of Fort Amsterdam and the construction of a palisade on the landward side of the city, about where Wall Street now lies. To pay for the execution of these plans, burgemeesters and schepenen were prepared to contribute, collectively, four to five thousand guilders. Since the city’s coffers were not plenteously filled, and since speed was of the essence, a loan was issued that was to be repaid later from the income from taxes. An amount of slightly more than five thousand guilders was borrowed from a total of forty-three men, selected by the burgemeesters and schepenen.2 Undoubtedly, the small numbers who were asked to contribute to this fund were the wealthiest people in New Amsterdam, but it is doubtful whether the number includes all the rich inhabitants of the city. Also, the size of the amount lent by each individual may reveal more about the immediate availability of ready cash than about the distribution of wealth among the wealthiest citizens. What is immediately noticeable is that scarcely any WIC employees are among the forty-three contributors. Stuyvesant is missing, as are the majority of

2 NYSA, NYCM 5: 106–112 (13–15 March 1653; NYHM 5: 63–66); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 95 (13 March 1653; RNA 1: 65–67); Wagenaar, ‘“Dat de regeringe niet en bestaet bij het corpus van de magistraet van Den Hage alleen”’, 100–106.

each according to his condition

329

Table 6.1. List of loans, New Amsterdam, 1653 Amount in guilders

N

%

200 150 100 50

8 4 26 5

19 9 60 12

Total

43

100

Source: NYMA, ODR 1, p. 96 (13 March 1653; RNA 1: 66–67).

those of his council.3 On the other hand, all seven burgemeesters and schepenen contributed, each lending one hundred guilders. Among the forty-three lenders were various prominent city magistrates, such as Cornelis Steenwijck and Jacob Backer. The absence of both the ministers of New Amsterdam, Megapolensis and Drisius, underlines that the loan was clearly a matter for the city government, which was still in its infancy. The less rich do not feature on the list, so it contains no information on the differences between rich and poor, nor on the middling sort. Second, the majority of the donors were merchants, in many cases related to the merchant families in Amsterdam and Haarlem. This is true of Anthony van Hardenberg, for example, whose brother Arnoldus had carried out trading activities for his family on Manhattan in the 1640s. There are some exceptions, such as the Lutheran Sergeant Daniël Litscho, who contributed one hundred guilders, and Egbert van Borsum, originally a master carpenter, who from 1654 held the lease on the Breuckelen ferry. Third, some of the men on the list had been in New Netherland only a very short time, although the lack of sources for the years around 1650 makes it difficult to ascertain this. Many new names turn up in the early 1650s, both in the higher positions in the WIC and among the city government of New Amsterdam. The men that were to dominate New Amsterdam both commercially and administratively for a long period of years for the most part arrived in the

3 See appendix 2b. La Montagne, Newton, and Van Tienhoven did not contribute. Van Werckhoven did, and De Sille had not yet arrived in New Netherland.

330

chapter six

colony after 1647. These were men such as Cornelis Steenwijck, Johannes Pietersz. van Brugh, Jacob Backer, and Johannes de Peijster. Of those who had already been in New Netherland for a longer period and who had been part of the Twelve, Eight, and Nine Men in the 1640s and early 1650s, only six subsequently obtained a seat in the city government after it was established in 1653. Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt and Govert Loockermans were the most prominent of these. Jochem Pietersz. Kuijter, who did not appear on the 1653 list of lenders, was a schepen only once. Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift falls between the two categories: he was a member of the Nine Men in 1652, but arrived in New Netherland only in 1647. The other two were Marten Kregier, who was already in New Netherland in 1643, and Willem Beeckman, who probably arrived in the colony in 1649.4 That the 1653 list included only the most prominent citizens of New Amsterdam becomes clear when comparing it with the much longer list of taxpayers in 1655. Like the 1653 loan, this tax was intended to pay for the defense of New Amsterdam. On 15 September 1655 Indians unexpectedly attacked the city, but they were driven away quickly. Five days later the burgemeesters and schepenen, in consultation with Johannes La Montagne and Cornelis van Tienhoven, the only members of the council present (Stuyvesant and Nicasius de Sille had left with the expedition to the South River to capture the Swedish colony there), decided to repair and strengthen the palisade on the northern edge of the city. This was carried out within ten days, but a way then had to be found to raise the approximately four thousand guilders that the work had cost. The solution was to ask from the trading skippers, merchants, factors, passengers and from the common borgerije [citizenry] a voluntary subscription and contribution, each according to his condition, state, and circumstances.5

Not only the inhabitants of New Amsterdam were subject to the tax, but also itinerant traders and others. Although the contribution was voluntary, the burgemeesters and schepenen were granted the power to impose a levy. Indeed, the list shows that in some instances the

4 5

See appendix 5 and 6. NYMA, ODR 1, p. 402 (11 October 1655; RNA 1: 366).

each according to his condition

331

amount a man offered was increased or decreased. Those liable to pay tax were summoned by the gerechtsbode [court usher] to appear before the burgemeesters, Allard Anthony and Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt, at the city hall. Stuyvesant, who in the meantime had returned from the South River, was present at all the sessions, thus emphasizing that the provincial government worked hand in hand with the city government.6 The list includes a total of some 227 people, some of which are noted as absent. The amounts paid varied from zero to 150 guilders, and the total raised was 6305 guilders. Table 6.2. Taxation list, New Amsterdam, 1655 Amount in guilders

N

%

150 100 50–99 25–49 10–24 0–9

5 15 17 51 97 42

2 7 7 22 43 19

Total

227

100

Source: NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 404–409 (11–15 October 1655; RNA 1: 367–375).

The category of 150 guilders is exceptional. Four of the five men upon whom the tax was levied at this level were the captains of ships present in New Amsterdam at the time. No doubt the tax assessment was intended not as a personal levy. Rather, it was probably expected that they would discount it against the shipping charges that were to be collected. The fifth man in this category was Stuyvesant, who appears first on the list. He promised to contribute fifty guilders more than the highest contribution, emphasizing his position as the most prominent man in New Netherland. We also find a notable exception in the category of one hundred guilders. Five of the fifteen men in this category were Jewish merchants. The Jews encountered opposition in various ways, and the

6 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 399 (20 September 1655; RNA 1: 363), p. 401 (30 September 1655; RNA 1: 365), p. 402 (11 October 1655; RNA 1: 366–367).

332

chapter six

high tax imposed on them is unlikely to be a true reflection of their wealth. Of the remaining ten men that contributed one hundred guilders, only two do not feature on the 1653 list: Cornelis van Tienhoven, an employee of the Company rather than a citizen, and Cornelis Schut, a merchant who did not arrive in New Amsterdam until 1654. Of the other eight, seven were or later became members of the city government of New Amsterdam.7 The category from fifty up to and including ninety-nine guilders includes a number of city magistrates: Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift, Johannes Nevius, Johannes de Peijster, Hendrick Jansz. van der Vin, and Marten Kregier. Ministers Megapolensis and Drisius also fall within this category. In addition, two English merchants, Thomas Willett and Isaack Allerton, who had many contacts with New Amsterdam and who spent part of their lives there, made a contribution. Also listed is Daniël Litscho, in the meantime promoted to lieutenant. The remaining seven are prominent merchants, who never held office in the city government.8 The three highest categories are dominated by merchants. Excluding the exceptional cases of captains and Jews, the top three categories consist of twenty-eight men, of whom twenty-three were occupied in trade. The remainder are either Company employees or ministers, and thus partially in the service of the WIC. This top layer constitutes 12 percent of the taxation list, again excluding the exceptional cases. This does not imply that merchants, city magistrates, or senior employees of the Company are absent from the fourth category, twenty-five to forty-nine guilders, inclusive. This category includes Nicolaes de Meijer, merchant, and in 1664 schepen, together with Adriaen Bloemmaert, the captain-merchant, who in 1657 rose to the office of schepen. WIC employees such as Secretary Cornelis van Ruyven and Commies Carel van Bruggen feature in this category. However, in general this category contains rather less prominent men such as the minor merchants, of whom Pieter Jacobsz. Buys and Marcus Vogelsang are examples. Others are gerechtsbode Pieter Schaefbanck and surgeon Jacob Hendricksz. Varrevanger. With only one exception, no artisans are to be found in this category. Artisans feature

7 8

NYSA, NYCM 6: 321–322 (14 March 1656; CM 1655–1656, 261–262). On Allerton, see Van Zandt, ‘The Dutch Connection’.

each according to his condition

333

in the largest category of people, those who paid ten to twenty-four guilders inclusive. Craftsmen such as shoemaker Coenraet ten Eijck, surgeon Hans Kierstede, tapper Jan Peeck, and yacht captain Claes Bordingh are included in the ninety-seven people in this category, together with a number of masons, tailors, carpenters, and coopers. Probably these were well to do artisans, with one or more servants. This category also contains a number of minor merchants, notaries, and a small number of military personnel, mostly petty officers. The less prosperous artisans are to be found in the last category, those who paid zero to nine guilders. This category also contains a number of people about whom little is known as to how they supported themselves. Two examples: Cornelis van Langevelt, who originated from St. Laureins in East Flanders, paid eight guilders in 1655. He traded in tobacco for a number of years, but his further activities are unknown. Joost Goderis, born in Haarlem as the son of seascape artist Hans or Johannes Goderis, contributed four guilders. He had been in New Netherland for several years and was probably engaged in some minor trading activities. In 1657 he was appointed master of the weighhouse in New Amsterdam. Also in this category are a few people who provided a non-monetary contribution to the construction of the defensive works. A small number of them, principally carpenters, chose to work on the construction for several days without pay. The forty-two men in this category were self-employed, and not tradesmen’s hands, soldiers, sailors, or poor, who were also present in New Amsterdam. As was the case in the Netherlands, they were not liable to pay this tax and therefore not included in the list. The lowest layers of the New Amsterdam society are not represented in this taxation list.9 The next list, from 1664, does not provide much information on the lower layers of society either. Like the 1653 list, it was drawn up to provide a loan for the defense of New Amsterdam. Early in 1664 the threat of an English takeover hung like a shadow over New Amsterdam. The burgemeesters and schepenen, after consultation with the director general and council, believed that it was again

9

On Goderis, see Lyon, ‘Joost Goderis’; Giltaij and Kelch, Lof der zeevaart, 167.

chapter six

334

necessary to strengthen its defenses. They wanted to construct a stone wall on the landward or northern side of the community and wooden palisades along the river banks. After the incumbent burgemeesters and schepenen had made a contribution it was decided to ask their predecessors, together with other wealthy residents, to enlarge the loan. The total proceeds of 27,500 guilders were considerably higher than the 1653 loan, showing both the growth that New Amsterdam had undergone in the intervening years and the higher costs of stone defensive works. With 101 subscribers, the number on the 1664 list was more than twice that of 1653. Table 6.3. List of loans, New Amsterdam, 1664 Amount in guilders

N

%

1000–2000 250–800 150–200 100

7 25 21 48

7 25 21 48

101

100

Total

Source: NYMA, ODR 4, pp. 337–340 (22–24 February 1664; RNA 5: 29–33).

The highest category contains two exceptional cases: a loan of 2000 guilders from the deaconry and one from the guardians of the estate of Aeltje Bicker of 1500 guilders. But others also lent considerable sums: burgemeester Cornelis Steenwijck and former burgemeester Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt, each made 1500 guilders available, while three men, WIC employees Stuyvesant and Van Ruyven and the merchant-schepen Jacques Cousseau, invested a 1000 guilders each. In the category of 250 to 800 guilders both ministers and most of the other members of the city government, and a number of merchants who had not yet reached such office are included. The third category, from 150 to 200 guilders, similarly contains a number of city magistrates and merchants, but also a number of inhabitants of New Netherland who had managed to build up a small capital, like shoemaker Coenraet ten Eijck and notary Mattheus de Vos, together with a number of newcomers, such as merchant Jeronimus Ebbingh and Latin schoolmaster Ægidius Luyck. In the lowest category are, for example, newly starting shoemaker Abel Hardenbroeck and minor

each according to his condition

335

merchants such as Claes Bordingh and Pieter Jacobsz. Marius, schoolmaster Evert Pietersz., the earlier-mentioned Egbert van Borsum, and tax farmer Warnaer Wessels. As in 1653, the number of Company employees on the list is small. The differences in the amounts of money made available in 1664 were larger than those eleven and nine years earlier. Of course, in two cases this concerns voluntary loans, so the lists cannot be accepted simply as a reliable reflection of differences in wealth. Furthermore, inflation may have played a role. Nonetheless, the differences between the rich and the slightly less well to do clearly had increased in the intervening years. The way in which the fourth list was drawn up provides little additional information on this subject. This list was compiled in April 1665 in connection with the billeting of English soldiers. English Governor Richard Nicolls had ordered the burgemeesters to arrange the quartering of one hundred soldiers. Nicolls would provide the victuals, while the city government would pay citizens at whose homes soldiers were billeted two guilders per soldier per week. To raise funds, some 254 inhabitants were taxed according to their means. The amounts that had to be paid weekly for a total of six weeks ranged from zero to four guilders in sewant. The total proceeds amounted to 357 guilders per week; the costs of the garrison incurred up to then were to be paid from the surplus. Table 6.4. Taxation list, New Amsterdam, 1665 Amount in guilders and stivers

N

%

4 3 2 and 2:10 1 and 1:10 0

14 10 81 95 54

6 4 32 37 21

254

100

Total

Source: NYMA, ODR 4, pp. 585–587 (19 April 1665; RNA 5: 221–225). See also Goodfriend, Before the Melting Pot, 17–20.

Just as in the earlier lists, the two highest categories include the most prominent merchants and administrators, like Stuyvesant, Cornelis Steenwijck, Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt, and Paulus Leendertsz.

336

chapter six

van der Grift. But also listed are some men who had been in the colony for only a short length of time, such as Walraven Claerhout and Daniël de Hondecoutre. They had not amassed their capital in the colony, but had brought it with them from the Dutch Republic. The category of 2 and 2:10 guilders covers a large number of distinguished men, including greater and smaller merchants such as François Boon, Claes Bordingh, and Pieter Jacobsz. Marius, but also listed are well to do artisans such as shoemakers Coenraet ten Eijck and Abel Hardenbroeck, who had met with fairly rapid success, together with notary Mattheus de Vos and surgeon Hans Kierstede, for example. Former city magistrates, like schepenen Isaac Grevenraet and Isaac de Foreest and burgemeester Marten Kregier, also fall into this category. The next category, 1 and 1:10 guilders, includes a former schepen, Hendrick Jansz. van der Vin, but the majority are shopkeepers, bakers, millers, captains, a gerechtsbode, and a number of minor merchants. The category of those exempted from the tax is comprised of, among others, a wool spinner, a sawyer, a cooper, a clerk, a quarryman, and a porter, in addition to a small number of widows. These are evidently the less prestigious people in New Amsterdam, but former schepen and City Secretary Johannes Nevius, also in this category, was not, which suggests that his fortunes had declined. Once again, the lowest members of society are absent in this taxation list. For instance, the majority of the soldiers had returned to the Dutch Republic after the capitulation to the English. Farm hands, domestic personnel, and the like, are not included in any list. The last taxation list concerns the wealthiest people in what after the Dutch reconquest was renamed New Orange. On 16 January 1674 the burgemeesters and schepenen submitted a petition to Governor General Anthony Colve in which they explained that the government was continually badgered by creditors about the loans that had been entered into previously to pay for the city’s defenses. The governor was of the opinion that the best solution to this problem was to impose a tax on residents whose capital amounted to more than one thousand guilders in sewant. Two committees of six men were subsequently appointed to draw up a taxation list. A single list was then compiled on the basis of these two lists, which contained major differences. A compulsory loan of ‘the hundredth penny’ was then levied on the amounts shown on the list. The amount of the pro-

each according to his condition

337

ceeds is unknown, but it was insufficient to pay the outstanding debts. In August 1674, income from the weighhouse and the tappers’ excise was made available to the burgemeesters and schepenen to pay the remaining six thousand guilders.10 The 1674 loan concerned the sixty-two wealthiest men in New Orange. However, it is not clear exactly what possessions were taxed. In the case of Frederick Philipse, who with eighty thousand guilders was the most highly taxed, it is possible that the amount represents his stock of trading commodities, since his real estate in New Orange was not extensive. Other inhabitants, who owned land outside the city, do not appear on the list. Some merchants who had business contacts in English colonies, such as Jacob Leisler, also had property there. All this, in combination with the way in which the list was compiled, means that the amounts are not indicative of the value of someone’s total wealth. However, it does show relative differences in wealth. And these appear to have been considerable.11 Table 6.5. Taxation list, New Orange, 1674 Amount in guilders

N

%

15,000–80,000 6,000–14,000 2,500–5,000 1,100–2,000

8 12 19 23

13 19 31 37

Total

62

100

Source: NYSA, NYCM 23: 228–229 (19 February 1674; DRCHNY 2: 699–700).

Of those who were assessed at more than fifteen thousand guilders, the greatest number (six men) were magistrates, some in the city government, others in the council of Governor General Colve. The considerable differences in the first category are immediately noticeable.

10 NYMA, ORCC 6, pp. 301–302 (16 January 1674; RNA 7: 39), pp. 325–326 (6 February 1674; RNA 7: 51), p. 421 (12 June 1674; RNA 7: 97), pp. 430–431 (23 June 1674; RNA 7: 101), pp. 472–473 (21 August 1674; RNA 7: 116–117); NYSA, NYCM 23: 206–207 (1 February 1674; DRCHNY 2: 685), 211–212 (17 February 1674; DRCHNY 2: 688), 225–226 (17 March 1674; DRCHNY 2: 697). 11 Voorhees, ‘The “Fervent Zeale” of Jacob Leisler’, 457, note 52.

338

chapter six

After Frederick Philipse with eighty thousand guilders follow Cornelis Steenwijck and Nicolaes de Meijer with fifty thousand, Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt with forty-five thousand, Jeronimus Ebbingh with thirty thousand, Cornelis van Ruyven with eighteen thousand, and Johannes de Peijster and Jacob Leisler, each with fifteen thousand guilders. Few magistrates are included in the second category. The majority were merchants who did not have administrative positions, such as Gabriël Minvielle. It also includes a surgeon, Jacob Hendricksz. Varrevanger, who in the 1655 list fell under the fourth category. More magistrates are listed in the third category: Ægidius Luyck, Geleyn Verplanck, and François Rombouts, all of whom were appointed to the city government only in the second Dutch period. This category also includes a minor merchant, Pieter Jacobsz. Marius, and shoemaker Coenraet ten Eijck, for example. Some men in the fourth category at one time or another held an administrative position, such as former burgemeester Marten Kregier and former schepen Isaac de Foreest, but also surgeon Hans Kierstede, several ship captains, and a blacksmith. A number of general conclusions can be drawn. All five lists concern special direct taxes or loans, levied exclusively to meet the costs of defensive measures. There scarcely exist any records of the normal, indirect taxes and duties. The lists contain mostly white, selfemployed men, the ‘middle class’ citizens of New Amsterdam. Women’s names appear only sporadically in the lists, and these are almost exclusively widows. Blacks do not feature on the lists, and Indians were never taxed. The lists principally consisted of names; the trades mentioned above are mostly to be found in other sources. But many people did not confine themselves to a single economic occupation, and combined various activities. Apart from being brewers, men such as Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt and Nicolaes de Meijer were also merchants. It can seldom if ever be ascertained which occupation provided the major source of income. Nevertheless, it was the merchants in particular who were able to amass fortunes. Noticeable is that the differences in the wealth of the most prosperous inhabitants became greater as the seventeenth century progressed and the size of the colony’s population grew. The five lists provide no information about the lowest members of society. The ministers feature only on the early lists, except the 1653 one, and are not included in the 1665 and 1674 lists. It is likely that

each according to his condition

339

they were not considered liable for these taxes for other reasons. Another important point is that the link between wealth and the holding of administrative office was not very strong. Magistrates were not recruited exclusively from the richest inhabitants, and sometimes they can be found in the lower categories, although this was infrequent. The connection between wealth and holding office is stronger for the top level (burgemeesters and, after 1664, mayors) than for schepenen and aldermen. Finally, it is evident from the above that the elite in New Amsterdam was not a closed circle, and that it had a dynamic character. On the one hand the elite contained a number of older inhabitants including Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt and Govert Loockermans. They had been in the colony since the early 1640s, and took the opportunity to strengthen their personal position in tempo with the increase in population. On the other hand from the early 1650s, when New Amsterdam gained its own city government, a continuous stream of newcomers arrived who in many cases would have been well to do before they came in the colony. Cornelis Steenwijck is an early example, while men such as Jeronimus Ebbingh and Walraven Claerhout entered the picture at a later stage. The newcomers swiftly established their positions within the economic elite, but it generally took more time for them to join the governmental elite. All this applies only to New Amsterdam. Some tax lists are available for other places in New Netherland, but the only useful ones are a 1654 list of loans in Beverwijck and a 1657 taxation list for Breuckelen. The account of the excise of wine and beer for Wiltwijck for 1661–1662 is also extant, but as it is based on consumption, it is unsuitable as an indication of the distribution of wealth. Some later lists, such as for the villages on Long Island in 1675 or for New York for 1677 and 1703, date from after the Dutch time and thus are not included in my analysis.12 Just as in New Amsterdam a year earlier, in 1654 a loan was organized in Beverwijck to cover the costs of defense. It will not

12 NYSA, NYCM 14: 41 (15 November 1661; DRCHNY 13: 212); Christoph and Christoph, Andros Papers 1674–1676, 493–515 (August 1675); Archdeacon, New York City 1664–1710.

chapter six

340

have been an issue for the citizens of Beverwijck that this was for the construction of defensive works for New Amsterdam. They were conscious of the fact that, should the colony’s capital fall, the chance that they would remain under Dutch rule was nil. In Beverwijck some twenty-nine people contributed in loans a total of 2,233 guilders in beavers, sewant, and grain. Table 6.6. List of loans, Beverwijck, 1654 Amount in guilders

N

%

101–400 100 50–99 10–49

5 4 6 14

17 14 21 48

Total

29

100

Source: ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, pp. 147–148 (23 June 1654; FOCM, 139–140).

The remarks made earlier about the New Amsterdam list of loans also apply here. The 1654 Beverwijck list concerns a small number of wealthy people, although not all the well to do may be represented. Several people are missing, such as Rutger Jacobsz. and Sander Leendertsz. Glen, who later gained prominence. The list does not include any information on the poor. The amounts mentioned on the list diverge more than those of New Amsterdam. In view of the state of development of Beverwijck, it is unlikely that the differences in wealth in Beverwijck were greater than those in New Amsterdam. A possible explanation therefore is that the collection took place during the trading season, as a result of which a number of traders might have seen the loan as a way of shipping early to New Amsterdam some of the beavers they had already acquired. As in New Amsterdam, only few employees of the Company are listed: Commies Johannes Dijckman, the highest local WIC employee, is the only one. As in New Amsterdam, the economic and administrative elites in Beverwijck overlapped. Four of the five men in the first category from 1652 to 1664 fulfilled administrative functions. The fifth is Gerrit Jansz. Cuyper who took the first place with four hundred guilders in the form of fifty beavers. At the time he was agent for Jan Hendricksz. Sijbingh and, upon his return to the Dutch Republic, was to marry a daughter of the Amsterdam merchant Dirck de Wolff. Three of

each according to his condition

341

the four men in the second category were magistrates, and in the other two categories the magistrates were in the minority.13 While the Beverwijck list shows the importance of trade, the agricultural character of the towns on Long Island also is evident. The taxation of February 1657 was intended to pay for the population’s share of minister Polhemius’s salary. All the inhabitants of Breuckelen, together with the surrounding hamlets of The Ferry, the Walebocht, and Gouwanes, were assessed and had to pay half the tax within eight days in sewant or in the fruits of the land such as wheat, beans, or maize. The second half was to be paid in May 1657. Table 6.7. Taxation list, Breuckelen, 1657 Amount in guilders

N

%

12–15 10 8 6 4

5 11 7 13 3

13 28 18 33 8

Total

39

100

Source: NYSA, NYCM 8: 463 (7 February 1657; LO, 304–307).

This tax was based on land ownership. However, not all the landowners lived on their properties; in a number of cases tenants had been installed, while the owners lived elsewhere. This explains entries such as ‘Jan Evertsen’s tenant named Bartel Claesz., taxed at 10:–’ or ‘Theunis Jansen on the land of Frederick Lubbertsen, taxed at 10:–’. Local magistrates are included in the highest categories. In many cases these were independent farmers who for some time had been busy building up their farms, such as Joris Dircksz., Pieter Montfoort, and Elbert Elbertsz. Stoothof. In many instances they were elders, deacons or, as in the case of Joris Dircksz, schepenen. Lower down on the list men such as Zwarte Hans [Black Hans], Jan de Schoorsteenveeger [ Jan Chimneysweeper], and Outie Huystimmerman [Outie Carpenter] are listed. The appearance of these men on the list makes

13

133.

GAA, NA, inv. no. 1300, fol. 40v–41 (17 March 1651); Jansen, ‘De Wolff ’,

342

chapter six

the Breuckelen taxation list one of the few sources that provide information on the lowest strata of the community. These people, who are difficult to identify, were presumably no more than small farmers, who at the same time were occupied in another craft, and in hard times probably sought help from the deacons. Another way to gain insight into the differences in status within the communities in New Netherland is by examining differences in income, although this is also not without problems. Little is known about the amounts the independent merchants, craftsmen, and farmers in New Netherland earned from their labor. Better information is available when they were employed by someone else. The most important sources are then the contracts of employment, principally from the notarial archives in Amsterdam, together with a few lists from the West India Company and the city of Amsterdam concerning employees’ salaries. A comparison of salaries is not easy, because some employees were also given free board and lodging, and to place a value on this is difficult; other employees had their income supplemented. For example, in addition to their basic salary, many schoolmasters were paid a fixed sum per pupil by the parents, and it is rare that the number of pupils they had is known. Furthermore, some posts could easily be combined with other positions, such as that of precentor in the church. The people for whom information is available can be divided into four categories which, in general, correspond to the types of immigrants outlined in chapter two. First the higher employees of the Company. A list dating from 1644, when the WIC was occupied in reviewing the government of New Netherland, provides the monthly salaries of the most senior officials. The director would be paid 250 guilders. His ‘second’, the vice-director, who would also act as a merchant and collector, received less than half this amount, namely 120 guilders. The minister was on par with the vice-director, although the WIC was swift to try to transfer part of the burden of their salaries to the community. The fiscael and the secretary were each paid 60 guilders per month, as was the commies of the merchandise and of the store. A commander was to be appointed as military leader, and he would also receive 60 guilders per month.14 14 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Rapport ende advijs over de gelegentheijt van Nieu nederlant’ (15 December 1644; DRCHNY 1: 155–156); NYSA, NYCM 4: 10 (3 June 1638; NYHM 4: 13).

each according to his condition

343

Another list of monthly salaries exists for 1650, in which the amounts are generally similar to those of the previous list, although there were a few exceptions. Secretary Van Tienhoven earned only thirty-six guilders per month, while the salary of councilor La Montagne, who does not appear on the 1644 list, is noted at fifty guilders. Captain-Lieutenant Brian Newton received ten guilders less than was planned for the military commander in 1644. The director of New Amstel was paid much less than the director general in New Amsterdam, only a hundred guilders per month. The schout in that city-colony received forty guilders per month. All these officials were also given yearly money for board and lodging, which varied between three and five times their monthly salary.15 In the second category, the lesser Company employees, the salaries were significantly lower, as is to be expected. In 1638, the commies of the victuals had a salary of thirty-six guilders per month. A schoolmaster earned thirty guilders, as did the workmen’s supervisor, while an assistant commies, a surgeon and a captain of a sloop were a little lower down the ladder with twenty-five guilders per month. The majority of the craftsmen working for the Company earned twenty guilders or less per month: for example, a master mason received twenty guilders and a carpenter eighteen guilders. The less highly trained workers earned several guilders less per month. Common soldiers were not paid much, but their superiors did reasonably well. The 1644 list indicates that an ensign was paid forty-five guilders, a sergeant twenty-five, and a corporal eighteen guilders. The lower ranks appear on the list at a little more than ten guilders per month: the drummer received thirteen, adelborsten fifteen, and soldiers thirteen guilders per month. The 1650 list shows all these amounts at a couple of guilders less. The yearly board and lodging allowance was relatively high for the lower ranking employees: between five and eight times their monthly salary.16

15 NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official list of New Netherland’, (undated, ca. 1650; Guide, no. 551); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 (undated, ca. 1657). 16 NYSA, NYCM 4: 10 (3 June 1638; NYHM 4: 14); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Rapport ende advijs over de gelegentheijt van Nieu nederlant’ (15 December 1644; DRCHNY 1: 155–156); NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official list of New Netherland’ (undated, ca. 1650; Guide, no. 551).

344

chapter six

The third category consists of the Amsterdam merchants’ factors. Their salaries were at the same level as those of the second tier of Company employees, but display a greater range and development: experience and ability in private employment led to better pay. An example of this can be seen in the case of Johannes Pietersz. van Brugh. His uncle Gillis Verbrugge employed him in 1647 to trade under the supervision of Govert Loockermans in New Netherland at fifteen guilders per month in his first year, rising from twenty guilders in the second year to thirty guilders in the last year. His contract was renewed in 1651, this time for four years with a salary of fifty guilders per month. It is most likely that for the period of the first contract he remained apprenticed to Loockermans, while afterwards he was allowed to operate on his own. On the same day that Van Brugh was taken into service a contract was also entered into with Govert Loockermans. He was to serve the Verbrugges’ company as senior commies in New Netherland, and was paid a salary of sixty guilders per month. Fifty to seventy-five guilders per month were normal salaries for independent factors in New Netherland, which suggests that the income of a major merchant trading on his own account would have exceeded that. In New Amsterdam many of the greatest merchants were members of the city government. The remuneration for this work, which would have taken up one to one and-a-half days per week, was 350 guilders per year for burgemeesters and 250 guilders for schepenen. In Beverwijck and Rensselaerswijck the salary for the magistrates at 150 guilders and fifty guilders per year respectively was considerably lower.17 The fourth category consists of the contract workers. Here too experience and a higher age resulted in a higher salary. Yet in general the pay was lower than in the three previous categories. An adult farm laborer could expect eight to ten guilders per month, plus board and lodging; this was even less than soldiers were paid. Farm boys received a starting wage that was dependent on their age and that increased gradually. Exceptionally low were the twenty-five guilders per year that Cornelis Albertsz. van Gouda received. In

17 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1341, fol. 25v, 26 (17 April 1647), fol. 26, 26v (17 April 1647), inv. no. 1346, fol. 21 (16 March 1651); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 195 (26 January 1654; RNA 1: 157); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 270 (1 May 1656; FOCM, 237); VRBM, 824–825.

each according to his condition

345

many cases farmhands were given accommodation, and it was specified in their contracts that their board and lodging, together with their passage to the colony, were free. But other costs also took a sizable slice of a low salary. At the end of 1660, Gerrit Teunisz. van Westbroeck, twenty-one years old, was hired for four years by Jan Baptist van Rensselaer. He was to receive 120 guilders in the first two years, and 130 guilders for the last two. However, before he actually received the cash the costs made on his behalf were first deducted. In the first year this amounted to twenty-five guilders for a bolster, a blanket and pillow, three shirts, two pairs of stockings, three pairs of shoes, and a few other items of clothing. In spite of this, opportunities existed for farmhands to build up some capital. In 1651, Hendrick Jansz. van Schalkwijck took up employment for three years with Jan Jansz. Damen as a farmhand. A year later he married, and when his contract came to an end he acquired twenty-five morgens of land behind Staten Island so that he could begin for himself.18 In general, the social stratification in New Netherland was similar to that in the Dutch Republic. A classification made for Amsterdam in 1696 shows four categories: the common people as the lowest category, above that the shopkeepers and craftsmen, with one category higher the notables and rich merchants, the highest being the ‘gentlemen of the government’.19 The same categories can be distinguished for New Netherland. Little is known about the lowest order in the colony, the tramps and beggars, even though the people that appealed for charity made up a considerable proportion of the population, in Beverwijck as much as 10 percent. It is a little easier to gain a picture of the farmhands, laborers, and the soldiers who formed the following category, but its size is unknown. Above this are the broad category of burghers: artisans, notaries, shopkeepers, farmers with their own land, captains, and the like. The highest category is comprised of the relatively small group of merchants, from which the magistrates were recruited, flanked by several highly placed

18 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1346, fol. 14 (10 March 1651), fol. 14v (10 March 1651), inv. no. 1135, fol. 338–338v (8 December 1660); MDC, 4 December 1652; NYSL, VRMP, box 13, folder 32a (1661); NYSA, NYCM HH-2: 37 (5 December 1654; LP, 76). 19 Groenhuis, De predikanten, 66.

346

chapter six

Company employees. A wide range of degrees of wealth was to be found within the two highest categories.20 In comparison with the Dutch Republic, there was more social mobility in New Netherland, and many examples can be given of people who arrived in the colony in a low social position and managed to work their way up. Govert Loockermans and Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt are the most striking examples of this. In other cases, such as with some of the merchants, their careers were helped by family connections in the fatherland. Men such as Cornelis Steenwijck, Johannes Pietersz. van Brugh and Johannes de Peijster were unlikely ever to achieve office in the city government of Haarlem, from where all three originated. In New Amsterdam, however, they managed to become part of the magisterial elite. The same kind of mobility was available to farmhands in the various settlements that were established after 1650, such as Hendrick Jansz. van Schalkwijck. Another example is Cornelis Barentsz. Slecht, born in Woerden, who as a brewer in Wiltwijck was appointed schepen, whereas members of his family in patria would never have achieved such a high position.21 Abel Hardenbroeck is an example of the craftsmen who rose above their beginnings. From a simple shoemaker’s assistant, he worked himself up to the position of independent shoemaker with a certain amount of capital. The rapid increase in the population of New Netherland created economic circumstances that provided various people with the opportunity of reaching a social level that they might not have achieved in the Dutch Republic, although individual circumstances could have played a role in all these cases. This does not mean that the opportunities were limitless. The opportunity to gain a prominent position in a relatively flat society in the 1630s and 1640s was greater than in the 1650s and 1660s, when the social stratification began to show greater differences in levels. The development towards a more

20 De Vries and Van der Woude, Nederland 1500–1815, 647–651; Schöffer, ‘La stratification sociale de la Républicque des Provinces Unies au XVIIe siècle’; Van Dillen, Van rijkdom en regenten, chapter 14; Frijhoff and Spies, 1650. Bevochten eendracht, 188–190; Venema, Kinderen van weelde en armoede, 18. 21 Plomp, ‘Nieuw-Nederlanders en hun Europese achtergrond’, 143, 155–156. Another example is Pieter Claesz. Wijckoff: Wagman, ‘The Rise of Pieter Claessen Wyckoff ’.

each according to his condition

347

extensive stratification as the result of the increase in population was evident earlier in New Amsterdam than in Beverwijck, and the same applies to the settlements that were established in the mid-1650s. The more New Netherland’s population grew, the more the distinguishing mechanisms that were customary in the Dutch Republic became established and codified in the colony, such as membership in the burgher guard and burgher rights.

Magistrates and Judges In the seventeenth century, governmental authority was legitimized by an appeal to God, just as much in New Netherland as elsewhere. This was generally accepted to such an extent that only a few references to it can be found. Director Kieft referred to it when he attempted to reprimand Bogardus for cursing at ‘your magistrate, placed over you by God’.22 It features more clearly in the prayer that preceded the meeting of the burgemeesters and schepenen of New Amsterdam. It had pleased God ‘to promote us to the government of your people in this place’. God’s help was called upon for the execution of this task. The magistrates had to justify their decisions in the eyes of God, and it was not up to His subjects to question this: ‘incline the hearts of the subjects to proper obedience, that through their love and prayers our burden may be made lighter’. In protecting God’s laws, the city government implored God to arm it with ‘strength, courage, boldness, and frankness’.23 In the Dutch Republic, power was vested in the most prominent citizens, those men who were best qualified to wield it. The most important criterion for this was wealth, which was seen as a sign of God’s favor. The same mentality prevailed in New Netherland. In the establishment of the city government of New Amsterdam the WIC had stipulated extensively the criteria that magistrates had to satisfy. They were to be qualified, honest, rational, intelligent, and prosperous men, who were not opposed to the wic, but who were

22

NYSA, NYCM 4: 242 (2 January 1646; NYHM 4: 291). NYMA, ODR 1, p. 76 (undated, possibly 1653; RNA 1: 48–49), ORCC 6, pp. 462–463 (undated, possibly 1674; RNA 7: 110–111); De Bruin, Geheimhouding en verraad, 25; Pole, The Gift of Government. 23

348

chapter six

peace-loving people who owned property. They had to have been born either in the colony and, according to the customs of Amsterdam, have been citizens for at least seven years or to have been born and brought up in the Dutch Republic. And of course they had to be members of the Dutch Reformed Church.24 The first appointments were made unilaterally by decision of the director general and council, but after 1656 the city government was permitted to put forward a nomination. The names the burgemeesters and schepenen submitted to the director general and council had to be of people of good reputation, considered worthy to hold such a position, and who would be disposed to fulfill the office with honor.25 With a few exceptions, the burgemeesters and schepenen nominated people that met with all these criteria. In the early years of the city government, in 1653, director general and council were not convinced that the right people would achieve office if the WIC’s right to appoint magistrates were to be delegated. If nomination and election of magistrates shall depend on common people, whom it most concerns, then everyone would want for a magistrate his equal; for example, a thief would want a thief as magistrate, and a dishonest man, a drunkard, a smuggler etc. their equals, in order to commit crimes and frauds with so much more freedom.26

Undoubtedly, lingering resentment from the preceding years when the directors of the WIC locked horns with the advisory boards of Twelve, Eight, and Nine Men played a part here. Wealth played a prominent role in the appointment of burgemeesters and schepenen. Other criteria come to the fore in the appointment of the first city government in 1653. Selected as burgemeester were Arent van Hattem and Marten Kregier. The former was given the title of joncker [squire], was ‘former schepen of the city of Culemborg’, and steward and ‘heemraeden [member of dike boards] of the same earldom’. Furthermore, he was captain of the burgher guard of New Amsterdam. This also applied to Marten Kregier, who was ‘geweesen gemeensman’, former member of the Nine Men. In the case of two

24 Van Deursen, Mensen van klein vermogen, 183–186; NYPL, Bontemantel collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official promulgation of New Amsterdam as a municipality’ (2 February 1653; Phelps Stokes, Iconography 2: 133–135). 25 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 493 (31 January 1656; RNA 2: 25). 26 NYSA, NYCM 5: 173 (12 December 1653; NYHM 5: 98).

each according to his condition

349

schepenen, Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift and Willem Beeckman, the same combination can be found, albeit in a lower position: they were lieutenants of the burgher guard. Pieter Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven, who was appointed schepen, had been a deacon. The other schepenen, Maximilianus van Geel and Allard Anthony, were each ‘burghers and merchants here’.27 Besides wealth, governmental experience, either in the fatherland or in the colony, also played a role in the appointment to office, as did having held a position in the burgher guard, the civic guard of New Amsterdam. Although it was explicitly stated of only two men that they were merchants, this was actually true of most of the others. Trade was the quickest way to wealth, and thus to a seat in New Amsterdam’s city government. The people best qualified were also appointed as magistrates in other places in New Netherland. In general the magistrates in the towns were less well to do than their colleagues in New Amsterdam; nor were most of them of the merchant classes, with the exception of some of the magistrates in Beverwijck. Once a merchant had sufficient success to become a member of the elite from which the city magistrates were selected, he usually stayed in it unless he left the colony. An exception was Jeronimus Ebbingh. He was appointed schepen in 1659, but in the same year he resigned from this position to travel to the Dutch Republic. After his return, he was once again appointed to the office of schepen in 1661. However, in October of that year an abrupt end came to his period of office. At an extraordinary meeting of burgemeesters and schepenen at the home of Schout Tonneman, at which Ebbingh was not present, the schout reported that Ebbingh had tried to avoid paying the export duty on beavers. Tonneman demanded that Ebbingh temporarily resign his seat in the city government. The matter was discussed in Ebbingh’s presence during the normal meeting in the city hall a day later. It was the last time that he would attend a meeting, as he was ousted and not reappointed to the city government

27 NYPL, Bontemantel collection, New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official promulgation of New Amsterdam as a municipality’ (2 February 1653; Phelps Stokes, Iconography 2: 133–135).

350

chapter six

until 1673. The suspicion of smuggling had rendered him unfit for office.28 A distinction in rank existed between burgemeesters and schepenen in the New Amsterdam city government. All burgemeesters had first gained experience either as a schepen or as a member of the Nine Men, which earlier administered civil law. However, once a man had been burgemeester, he was never again appointed as a schepen. Former burgemeesters often graduated to the office of orphan master. In the Dutch period the office of burgemeester rotated among only six men. Two of them were in office for only a few terms. Arent van Hattem was burgemeester in 1653 and 1654, but then left the colony. Cornelis Steenwijck was appointed as burgemeester in 1664, and thus served only one term, but he also held administrative positions on several occasions in the English period. The other four were appointed five or six times, and their appointments show a clear pattern: in most cases they were in office for two years, as was the norm in patria. During the second year they were the senior burgemeester. Before a new term as burgemeester, they usually served for two years as orphan master. Only a few exceptions to this pattern occurred.29 No such system is ascertainable for the position of schepen. Twentysix men, four of whom went on to become burgemeester, were appointed as schepen a total of sixty-three times. Some did not serve very long. Johannes Nevius was appointed as secretary of the city government after one term as schepen, and Adriaen Bloemmaert left the colony shortly after his appointment. It is not clear on what basis the nominations of burgemeesters and schepenen or the appointments of director general and council were made, but all of them belonged to the most prominent citizens. In New Amsterdam no subordinate posts existed that could function as a springboard to the office of schepen. The office of orphan master, which could have been used in that way, was performed almost exclusively by former burgemeesters and schepenen. The office of orphan master was often alternated with that of schepen, while it was exceptional if a former burgemeester was not among the two, and later three, orphan masters.30

28 NYMA, ODR 3, p. 311 (10 October 1661; RNA 3: 378), p. 318 (11 October 1661; RNA 3: 382); NYSA, NYCM 9: 851 (13 October 1661), 933 (22 December 1661). 29 Appendix 6. 30 Ibid.

each according to his condition

351

A general explanation for the alternation of appointments is that the function of burgemeester or schepen was very time-consuming. Although the positions carried an honorarium, time considerations made it hardly surprising that some people were not keen to be nominated. However, taking on a role in government was considered a duty if a prominent position in society had been attained, as set down in 1638: every inhabitant will be holden and bound to take on willingly in the place of their residence all public charges and offices, such as magistrate’s duty, and others of honor or esteem, also those concerning pious duties such as of poor houses, and to carry these out devoutly and obediently according to their oath and duty, as well as to the instruction issued thereto, to the best of the common good, without having any claim to recognition or reward therefore.31

In New Amsterdam no appointments were ever refused, but it did happen in Rensselaerswijck. In 1648, Goosen Gerritsz. van Schaick, who later served a number of times as a magistrate in Beverwijck, refused to serve on the patroon’s court because he did not consider himself suitable. Furthermore, he claimed he did not have a house in the patroonship, and was therefore not bound to serve. Another argument was that he was not ‘on a free basis with the patroon’. These arguments fell on stony ground with the other magistrates, who kindly requested him once more and for the last time, [. . .] to accept the charge laid upon him voluntarily; otherwise though very reluctantly, we find ourselves forced to resort to other means.

Which was sufficient to persuade Goosen.32 The case of Jan Evertsz. Bout shows what a possible penalty was. In 1654 he refused to accept his appointment as schepen in Breuckelen, and said that he would rather depart for Holland than fulfill such obligations. That was no remark with which director general and council could be fobbed off, especially as Stuyvesant did not have good experiences with him. Bout was told:

31 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 I, C. 646, item 6 (30 August 1638; DRCHNY 1: 111). 32 NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder 14 (22 October 1648; MCR, 40–41).

352

chapter six If you will not accept to serve as scheepen for the welfare of the town of Breuckelen with others, your fellow inhabitants, then you must prepare yourself to sail in the ship Coninck Salomon, agreeable to your own statement.33

Such cases are exceptional. In general, those nominated accepted their appointments without objection, not only because it was seen as a duty, but also because it was a public recognition of the status a person had achieved in society. This was symbolized in the decorations in the chamber in which justice was administered. The city magistrates had special cushions made, and in 1659 the windows of the city hall were decorated with the city’s coat of arms in stained glass.34 The magistrates’ clothing was also an expression of their authority. In Rensselaerswijck the magistrates wore black hats with a silver ribbon, while the patroon equipped the schout with ‘a silverplated rapier with baldric and a black hat with plume’.35 Under the English administration, the English Governor Francis Lovelace, on behalf of the Duke of York, gave the city magistrates a city seal, a silver sceptre, and ‘Gownes both for the Mayor & Alderman’, as a ‘Perticular Testimony of his R. Highnesse grace and fauour to this his Citty of New Yorke’.36 The magistrates also displayed symbols of their status beyond the confines of the court building. The city magistrates had their own pews in the church. The Nine Men had been granted this honor earlier. The importance attached to this status symbol is shown by their angry reaction when in 1650 Stuyvesant withdrew their right to this pew and used it himself. In a letter to the States General the Nine Men stated that this was a considerable affront to them. The Amsterdam directors were of the opinion that this sort of action did little to help the relationships in the colony and wrote to Stuyvesant that they trusted that as the church is large enough to accommodate every one according to their quality, so it seems to us that such small matters are not very important, especially in these troubled times.37

33

NYSA, NYCM 5: 245 (9 April 1654; NYHM 5: 130). NYMA, ODR 1, p. 197 (9 February 1654; RNA 1: 158). 35 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 14v (20 July 1632; VRBM, 204–205), fol. 21 (20 July 1632; VRBM, 214). 36 NYMA, ORCC 5, p. 526 (5 October 1669; RNA 6: 198). 37 NYSA, NYCM 11: 29b, p. 12 (21 March 1651; Corres. 1647–1653, 110). 34

each according to his condition

353

Another status symbol of the city government were the stained-glass windows in the church that Evert Duyckingh placed in 1656 to honor schout, burgemeesters, and schepenen. The costs were not paid for by the city; each magistrate was obliged to contribute two-and-a-half beavers to defray the costs. In Beverwijck too, stained-glass windows showing the coats of arms of the magistrates were installed.38 Apart from in the church, the status of administrators of city and Company was indicated by various other means. Gun salutes were fired for both Kieft and Stuyvesant, sometimes with disastrous consequences, as in 1636. When Kieft and a few others returned to Manhattan from Pavonia, Cornelis van Vorst organized a gun salute. A spark landed on the thatched roof of a house, causing it to burn down in half an hour. Every time Stuyvesant arrived at or departed from New Amsterdam a gun salute was fired from the fort, each shot consuming sixteen pounds of gunpowder. Another expression of status can be found in the titles with which the magistrates were addressed. Director Kieft was addressed as ‘Mijn Heer Directeur’ [‘My Lord director’], and in the register of baptisms he was registered as ‘the Lord Willem Kieft’, with as suffix ‘commander’ or ‘governor’. Prior to 1647 no one else was given the title of ‘Lord’ in the baptismal register. Shortly after his arrival, Stuyvesant instituted the form of address ‘My Lord General’, causing Van der Donck in the Vertoogh to complain that such titles were never used before. The members of the city government were sometimes distinguished from other citizens, although this was done in a less prominent manner than with the highest WIC officials. From the 1650s onwards the magistrates of New Amsterdam are referred to as schepen or former schepen whenever they appear in notarial acts.39 Although the position in society of officials and magistrates was manifested in various ways, they were not always treated with the

38 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.36 (29 August 1650; DRCHNY 1: 448–449); Valck Lucassen, ‘Familieaantekeningen Ebbinck en Gerbade’, 221; Blackburn and Piwonka, Remembrance of Patria, 53; Dilliard, Album of New Netherland, 62; NYMA, ODR 2, p. 27 (9 October 1656; RNA 2: 183). The windows made for Rutger Jacobsz. and Andries Herpertsz. are now in the Albany Institute of History and Art. 39 De Vries, Korte Historiael, 222 (NNN, 198); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.57 (1 November 1666; DRCHNY 2: 460–469); NYSA, NYCM 2: 157b (13 June 1647; NYHM 2: 406–407); Beernink, Arend van Slichtenhorst, 276 (1648; MCR, 211); Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 40 (NNN, 342).

354

chapter six

respect they felt they were entitled to. In various instances criticism was expressed about judicial decisions, and magistrates were sometimes insulted or even threatened. It usually happened in anger over a judgment considered unjust by the person involved, but the magistrates nevertheless took the incidents very seriously. Insulting a government that was approved by God was a form of blasphemy and therefore fell within the category of offences that the local bench of schepenen itself could not try, but which had to be passed on to the director general and council. Yet this did not occur in every case. In Beverwijck in particular, the court regularly dealt with these situations itself. In the case of baker Thomas Paulusz. and his wife, who were caught infringing the ordinance on baking and who then called the inspecting magistrates extortionists and devils, the customary fine was increased. Even more serious than insults were the incidents in which a judgment of the court was explicitly criticized. In such situations, fines of six hundred or even twelve hundred guilders, sometimes in combination with a number of years banishment, were imposed.40 In New Amsterdam too, distinction was made between major and minor incidents. A double fine was imposed in a case of a fight between two men in 1660, since it had taken place in the presence of the schout and his deputy.41 In another case, the burgemeesters and schepenen had to invoke the power of the director general and council. In a matter concerning a bill of exchange, Walewijn van der Veen had made known his displeasure to schepen Jacob Backer by announcing that the magistrates did not know what they were doing, adding some insults for good measure. Schout Pieter Tonneman demanded that Walewijn van der Veen be condemned to make amends for the insult, honorably and profitably; honorably, by praying with uncovered head God, justice, and this government for forgiveness; profitably, by paying as a fine the sum of twelve hundred guilders with costs.

Since Van der Veen refused to do this, the burgemeesters and schepenen asked the director general and council to confirm the sentence,

40 NYSA, NYCM 9: 611 (16 May 1661; DRCHNY 13: 198); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 282 (29 June 1656; FOCM, 246), p. 227 (20 July 1655; FOCM, 202–203), CMFO 1658–1659, pp. 152–154 (8 July 1659; FOCM, 444–445). 41 NYMA, ODR 2, pp. 539–540 (1 June 1660; RNA 3: 163–164).

each according to his condition

355

as they were of the opinion that the injury to their court also damaged the authority and esteem of the higher court. Director general and council probably agreed.42 Begging forgiveness with bared head and on bended knee was of course not exclusive to New Netherland, and happened elsewhere in Europe and colonial America also. Occasionally another form of public punishment was applied in New Netherland. For cursing the magistrates of Boswijck and for the writing of a ‘scandalous letter’, Jan Willemsz. IJsselstein van Leiden was sentenced by the director general and council to be bound to a stake at the place of public executions ‘with a bridle in his mouth, rods under his arm, and a note pinned to his chest with these words: squib writer, false accuser, and thief of the honor of his magistrates’.43

Burgher Right Below the highest of the magistrates, a broad layer of reasonably prosperous self-employed citizens existed. In the cities of the Dutch Republic this was the group from which the burghers came, and which formed the burgher guard. The basis of the burgher guard was an ideal of a community of citizens, bound in solidarity, who stood up for one another and who were collectively responsible for the maintenance of peace, order, and security. In the Dutch Republic specific rights and duties derived from this ideal, pertaining to, for example, the exclusive exercise of some trades and a degree of legal certainty, against which stood the duty to pay taxes and to perform military service. In the fatherland this community spirit and the institutions that emanated from it were the result of a centuries-old evolution. But what was the situation in a new colonial society? When the free colonists in New Netherland began to play an important role in the transition from trading post to settlement colony and as the colony grew in size and importance, more references occur in the documents to the burgher right and the burgher guard.44

42

NYMA, ODR 3, pp. 62–63 (21 September 1660; RNA 3: 213–214). NYSA, NYCM 10–3: 215–216 (12 May 1654); Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 2: 142; Broers, ‘Van Tafel 8 tot Boek 6’, 303–304. 44 Knevel, Burgers in het geweer, 45–47, 212; Moorman van Kappen, ‘Iets over ons oud-vaderlandse stadsburgerschap’; De Vries, ‘Het middeleeuwse burgerschap’; De 43

356

chapter six

Although explicit rules on burgher right were not promulgated in New Amsterdam until 1657, a number of indications show that a form of burgher right was already in existence, or at least that many inhabitants envisioned themselves in terms of citizenship. The Twelve Men in 1642 spoke of themselves as ‘borgers [burghers] and inhabitants of New Netherland’.45 People were known as ‘burghers’ in various places. It is tempting to see in this a distinction between burghers and inhabitants, comparable to the difference between burghers, who had sworn the burgher oath, and inhabitants, who had not. This distinction was already fading over the course of the seventeenth century in the Dutch Republic, and the same may apply to New Netherland. The oaths that colonists in New Netherland had to take make clear what was expected of burghers. In 1639, a number of English people who lived on Manhattan had to swear an oath that contained two elements: loyalty to the government and loyalty to the community. Loyalty to the government was indicated by pledging allegiance to the States General, the Prince of Orange, and to the director and council. Loyalty to the community was indicated by the requirement that the English ‘to the best of [your] ability help, support, and protect with your life and property the inhabitants [of New Netherland] against all the enemies of the land’. That such solidarity was explicitly required of the English was considered a matter of course for the Dutch colonists. Although an oath of loyalty to the government was normal for magistrates and employees of the Company, a general oath for burghers and inhabitants, known as the burgher oath, did not come into use until the 1650s. It first occurred in Rensselaerswijck in 1651. The implementation of the oath, in which loyalty to the patroon was sworn, was triggered by the conflict taking place at that time between the patroonship and the WIC. In the case of Jan Verbeeck, one of the people who had earlier sworn an oath in Rensselaerswijck, a new oath was required. As his house was located in Beverwijck, which had recently been founded on land that was originally considered

Monté ver Loren and Spruit, Hoofdlijnen, 148–152; Fockema Andreæ, Het OudNederlandsch burgerlijk recht, 56–77. 45 Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 (21 January 1642; DRCHNY 1: 415).

each according to his condition

357

part of the patroonship, he took an oath of allegiance a couple of months later in his new community. This indicates that in the event of a changeover of authority over an area, the population was relieved of the previous oath and took a new oath of loyalty to the new powers. This happened when New Amsterdam became New York in 1664.46 The oath sworn by Jan Verbeeck was ‘the customary burgher oath’. The text is unknown, but it may be expected that the two elements outlined above would have been present in it. By swearing the oath, one became a member of the community, with all the implicit rights and duties. Yet a number of questions remain. For instance, it is not clear which inhabitants were eligible for citizenship. Probably citizenship was obtainable only by free men, those who were in the employ neither of the Company nor of private individuals. The ownership of real estate may also have been a requirement, as such a stipulation was later laid down in New Amsterdam. What rights the burghers had is easier to deduce. The problems involving the bakers in Beverwijck indicate that a distinction existed between burghers on the one hand and the ordinary inhabitants and strangers on the other. The profits that could be made by baking white bread or sugar bread for the Indians had attracted some itinerant and free people who were not burghers. The regular bakers immediately protested and they convinced the court that measures had to be taken, as nobody without a burgher oath was allowed to conduct any trade. The exercise of a trade or craft was thus clearly a prerogative of burghers.47 Another advantage that burghers had over ordinary inhabitants and strangers was their legal status. In the Dutch Republic burghers were protected by the jus de non evocando, the right to be summoned to appear before the court only in one’s own city. No indications exist that this right was formally invoked in New Netherland prior to 1657. However, in a number of cases heard in the court of New Amsterdam citizenship was used as an argument. In 1655, Pieter

46 NYSA, NYCM 4: 47 (11 August 1639; NYHM 4: 58), 6: 380 (29 April 1656; CM 1655–1656, 316); O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 2: 176; NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 7 (23 November 1651; MCR, 173); DRCHNY 3: 74–77 (21 October 1664); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 3 (17 April 1652; FOCM, 4–5). 47 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 197 (16 March 1655; FOCM, 183).

358

chapter six

Dircksz. Waterhont, captain of the Witte Paert, demanded that merchant Augustijn Heermans, who was on the point of leaving for Maryland, should stand surety for the payment of 840 guilders for a number of slaves that he had bought. Heermans stated that as he was a burgher of New Amsterdam and possessed real estate that was worth more than his debt, he did not have to provide surety. The court accepted his argument. In another case, a year later, the burgemeesters and schepenen stated that goods that were owned by a burgher could not be sequestered in an attempt to recover a debt.48 So there are indications that prior to 1657 a form of burgher right existed in New Netherland. But it was only in this year that an ordinance was promulgated in which the burgher right was formally provided for. The main reason was the continuous exasperation about the ‘Scotch’ merchants in the colony. These itinerant traders were not inhabitants of New Netherland, but came to the colony only in the trading season. Usually, they did not stay in New Amsterdam, but traveled directly to Beverwijck, where most of the fur trade with the Indians was carried out. Their itinerant status allowed them to keep their costs low and offer their goods cheaper than the regular merchants who had homes in New Netherland, paid the usual taxes there, and made their contribution to the defense of the community as members of the burgher guard. The irritation caused by the itinerant merchants led in 1657 to an attempt to exclude them from the fur trade, which was then at its peak.49 In January 1657 in a meeting of burgemeesters and schepenen, to which a number of prominent burghers were also invited, various economic subjects were discussed, such as the exchange rate for sewant and the ordinance on weights and measures. The issue of burgher right was also on the agenda. Fourteen days later the city government submitted a petition to the director general and council, in which it was pointed out that the practices of the itinerant merchants were in contravention of article twelve of the Freedoms and Exemptions of 1640, in which Manhattan was designated as staple for the transport of goods to and from the colony. Further, the burgemeesters and schepenen stated that the community in New Amsterdam had to bear

48 NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 414–415 (18 October 1655; RNA 1: 379), p. 569 (15 May 1656; RNA 2: 98). 49 Maika, ‘Commerce and Community’, 162–237.

each according to his condition

359

the heavy costs of defending the city against the English and the Indians, while the traveling merchants profited from them. They thought it reasonable that the burghers be granted specific privileges, and as they considered the burgher right one of the most important privileges, the city government requested that the right to trade be limited to burghers of New Amsterdam.50 Director general and council acknowledged the validity of the arguments of city government, but the issue was not without complications. In an earlier attempt to deal with the problem of the itinerant merchants, director general and council had tried to force them to stay in the colony for at least three years, but this met with opposition from the Amsterdam directors. The combination of staple right and burgher right offered better opportunities. Staple right could be used to force the itinerant merchants to offer their goods first in New Amsterdam, while burgher right was made compulsory for keeping an open shop. A further regulation could require payment for the granting of burgher right, while at the same time a rule could be instituted that the burgher right would lapse if a merchant left the city for a longer period of time. Thus itinerant merchants could be kept at bay.51 An ordinance along these lines was drawn up and promulgated on 30 January 1657. The director general and council went further than laying down criteria and rights for burghers. They also introduced a distinction between the small and the great burgher right, under express reference to the situation in Amsterdam, where such a system had been introduced in 1652. It was not a great success, and the Amsterdam city government abolished great burgher right in 1668. In other cities in the Dutch Republic, such as Harderwijk and Nijmegen in the eastern provinces, small and great burgher right lasted into the eighteenth century.52

50 NYMA, ODR 2, p. 112 (8 January 1657; RNA 2: 260–263), pp. 124–125 (22 January 1657; RNA 2: 272–273); NYSA, NYCM 8: 427–428 (22 January 1657; Burghers of New Amsterdam 1885: 3–4). 51 NYSA, NYCM 8: 429–435 (23 and 29 January 1657; Burghers of New Amsterdam, 5–7). I thank Janny Venema of the New Netherland Project, Albany, for the transcription. 52 NYSA, NYCM 8: 436–438 (30 January 1657; LO, 298–300); NYMA, ODR 2, pp. 137–139 (31 January 1657; RNA 2: 286–287); Bontemantel, De regeeringe van Amsterdam, 2: 88–90; Moorman van Kappen, Tot behoef der arme wesen, 45; Schimmel, Burgerrecht te Nijmegen. Cf. Kammen, Colonial New York, 36.

360

chapter six

In New Amsterdam, the two-tier system introduced different rights and duties for great and small burghers. For small burgher right, required to keep an open shop or to exercise a trade, a fee of twenty guilders was required, and small burghers were obliged to contribute to the direct taxes and to perform guard duties. This created a solution to the problem of the itinerant merchants. Payment of fifty guilders was required for great burgher right, which was a requirement for the fulfillment of functions in the city government. Other features were that the great burghers were exempt from performing guard duties and were not liable to arrest by the lower courts in New Netherland.53 Burgemeesters and schepenen were pleased by the formal introduction of burgher right, but wanted clear guidelines about the criteria for the two categories. They received a comprehensive answer to their petitions from director general and council. Great burgher right was automatically awarded to members of the provincial government, to burgemeesters and schepenen, to the ministers, and to the officers of the burgher guard above the rank of vaandrig. Others could obtain great burgher right on payment of fifty guilders to the burgemeesters. This was applicable in all cases to current and former magistrates, and great burgher right was declared to be hereditary via the male line. Small burgher right was awarded to all those who had been resident in the city for one year and six weeks and kept ‘fire and light’ (occupied a house), all inhabitants that had been born in the city, everyone who married a burgher’s daughter who had been born in the city, and finally all those who wished to carry out trade or exercise a trade in the city and to that end had paid twenty guilders to the burgemeesters. Both great and small burgher right were invalidated if the burgher left the city and did not keep ‘fire and light’ there.54 The details of these ordinances caused complications, and in the years that followed supplementary measures became necessary. The criteria laid down in 1657 show that the granting of burgher right would be free of charge for long-standing inhabitants, while newcomers

53 NYMA, ODR 2, pp. 137–139 (31 January 1657; RNA 2: 286–287); NYSA, NYCM 8: 436–438 (30 January 1657; LO, 298–300), 16–2: 73–74 (11 June 1657; FOCM, 300–301); ACHR, CMFO 1658–1659, pp. 45–46 (25 June 1658; FOCM, 373–374). 54 NYSA, NYCM 8: 442 (2 February 1657; LO, 301–303), 16–1: 105–108 (2 February 1657; LWA, 79–81).

each according to his condition

361

had to pay for it. However, it was not clear where precisely the dividing line lay. On 29 March 1657, Marcus Vogelsang asked the burgemeesters for free burgher right. He admitted that he had traveled to the Dutch Republic in 1656 from where he had recently returned, but as he had contributed to the costs of the defense in 1655, he claimed the right to be treated as a long-standing inhabitant. The burgemeesters rejected his request, but acknowledged that the distinction between long-standing and new burghers required clarification. On 9 April 1657 the burgemeesters announced that anyone who wished to obtain great or small burgher right free of charge should report to them at the city hall between two and five in the afternoon during the following eight days. Twenty people applied for great burgher right and almost two hundred for small burgher right. The number of burghers increased gradually during the months that followed, although the later burghers had to pay for the privilege. In total some 277 people applied, although there may have been more. The burghers had to swear an oath that contained a promise of loyalty to all governmental authorities, but was vague about the duties of a burgher. It was required only that the burgher should behave as an ‘obedient subject and good borger’.55 If he so wished, on payment of a sum of money the burgher could acquire a certificate as proof of his citizenship.56 On the list of great burghers many names are missing. Stuyvesant was among the twenty listed great burghers, but not his Secretary Cornelis van Ruyven. Predikant Megapolensis was listed but not his colleague Drisius. Also on the list were former burgemeester Marten Kregier and former schepen Jacob Gerritsz. Strijcker, but not the incumbent burgemeesters Allard Anthony and Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift. It is possible that members of the city government were not required to register, as they automatically qualified, but this does not explain the other omissions. Exceptionally, great burgher right

55

NYMA, AMNA 1, p. 16 (April 1657; RNA 7: 154). NYMA, AMNA 1, p. 10 (29 March 1657; RNA 7: 149), pp. 12–15 (9 April– 3 May 1657; RNA 7: 149–153), pp. 99–100 (28 February 1659; RNA 7: 214), pp. 13–15 (9 April–3 May 1657; RNA 7: 150–153); NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 247 (2 November 1662), 8: 452, 463 (6 February 1657; Burghers of New Amsterdam 16–17); Maika, ‘Commerce and Community’, p. 510. A certificate for the small burgherright of Lucas Dircksz. is in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, MA 956, no. 9 (20 December 1659; Guide, no. 611). 56

362

chapter six

was granted to one Lutheran, Daniël Litscho, and to one woman, Rachel Vigne, the widow of Cornelis van Tienhoven.57 The large number of small burghers makes it more difficult to track down the omissions. Of course, the list includes many carpenters, surgeons, bakers, coopers, butchers, and shoemakers who appear on the taxation lists discussed earlier. However, it is unlikely that the list contains all the adult males in New Amsterdam, as has been suggested. Company soldiers and officials, for instance, do not appear in it, or in the taxation lists. For the most part, women are absent. The few women who applied were widows, and their aim was to continue the trade of their deceased husbands, for which small burgher right was a requirement.58 Payment for burgher right was sometimes made in kind. In June 1663 the burgemeesters told the wife of Hendrick Couturier that, since she kept an open shop, she had to obtain burgher right. She answered that her husband had already been granted burgher right by Stuyvesant. In exchange, Hendrick had painted a portrait of the director general and made drawings of his sons. This example shows that the granting of burgher right was not the exclusive prerogative of the city government. Granting small burgher right was a task for the burgemeesters, but it could also be granted by the provincial government. For great burgher right the situation is more complicated. The criteria laid down in the ordinance of 1657 are clear enough, but nevertheless the burgemeesters refused the request made by Isaac de Foreest to become a great burgher. Isaac de Foreest did not belong to any of the categories of those who would be granted great burgher right free of charge, but claimed it with the argument that he was an old inhabitant who had been in the colony for over twenty years. It is unclear whether the refusal pertained only to the matter of payment or whether other arguments played a role. Despite the free grants, the number of great burghers was considered too small to be efficient, the same problem that later led to the abolition of the two-tier system in Amsterdam. Immediately before the city magistrates of New Amsterdam made up the list of nominations for their

57

NYMA, AMNA 1, p. 13 (10–18 April 1657; RNA 7: 150). Maika, ‘Commerce and Community’, 164; Shattuck, ‘Women and Trade in New Netherland’; Shattuck, ‘Women and the Economy in Beverwijck’. 58

each according to his condition

363

successors in the beginning of 1658, the director general and council decided to grant great burgher right to six men. Among these six was Isaac de Foreest, who was promptly appointed schepen. Another was the earlier mentioned Jeronimus Ebbingh. It indicates that awarding great burgher right remained the exclusive prerogative of the director general and council.59 Whether the regulation of burgher right was of much help against the activities of the itinerant merchants is doubtful, in the light of subsequent events. At the end of 1659 a number of prominent burghers presented a petition to the city magistrates, requesting that burghers of New Amsterdam be granted the right to trade in the whole of New Netherland, and that burgher right would be retained for a maximum of one year and six weeks provided that the absent burgher held ‘fire and light’ in the city. This would allow short trips back to the Dutch Republic. More important were the additional measures that were proposed against the itinerant merchants. Acquiring burgher right in New Amsterdam was required prior to being allowed to depart for other settlements in the colony, and the prospective burgher had to promise to remain in New Netherland for at least three years, the prominent burghers suggested. The city magistrates referred the petition to the director general, who, unsurprisingly, rejected the last request. The other points were agreed to, but in many ways it was more a repetition of earlier stipulations than the institution of new measures. In any event, it gave the burgemeesters and schepenen the opportunity to promulgate once more measures against itinerant merchants. Additionally, the director general and council prior to the 1660 trading season warned the traveling merchants that citizenship was required, and that they had to put their goods up for sale for six weeks in New Amsterdam before leaving for Fort Orange.60

59

NYMA, AMNA 2, p. 113 (12 June 1663; MOM 2: 176–177), AMNA 1, p. 19 (26 April 1657; RNA 7: 157), ODR 2, p. 166 (28 January 1658; RNA 2: 315); NYSA, NYCM 8: 687–688 (28 January 1658); Blackburn and Piwonka, Remembrance of Patria, 21, 46, 214. 60 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 67 (9 March 1660; RNA 1: 44–55), ODR 2, pp. 507–508 (16 March 1660; RNA 3: 142–143), AMNA 1, pp. 122–126 (undated, 5 November 1659; RNA 7: 232–235), pp. 124–125 (31 January 1660; RNA 7: 234–235); NYSA, NYCM 9: 41–43 (5 November 1659; Burghers of New Amsterdam, 26–27), 45–46 (31 January 1660; Burghers of New Amsterdam, 29–30), 9: 261 (26 May 1660; LO, 377).

364

chapter six

Further modifications were asked for a year later. This time it concerned the permissible period of absence without losing one’s burgher right. Burgemeesters and schepenen were eager to set it at six weeks in the spring, and the same period in autumn. This would be a considerable tightening of the rules, and it would make it impossible to travel to and from the Dutch Republic without losing citizenship. In their request, the city magistrates referred explicitly to the privileges of Amsterdam and the Recueil of Rooseboom, in which many of the Amsterdam statutes were summarized. The director general and council, not willing to go to such lengths, set the period at four months. This was sufficient time to travel within New Netherland, but a journey to the Netherlands was still impossible. The request to have the price of burgher right raised was refused, but it was laid down that itinerant merchants had to pay right away in beavers. The city magistrates tried to implement the new regulations immediately and in August 1661 required Frederick Gijsbertsz. van den Bergh and Michiel Muiden, who had both made a journey back to the Netherlands and had only just returned, to pay for the renewal of their burgher right. Both appealed to director general and council, who ruled in their favor.61 On the whole, the regulation of burgher right in New Amsterdam was initially aimed at keeping the itinerant merchants out. It provided the burghers of New Amsterdam with advantages in the trade with Fort Orange, although it did not put a complete stop to the competition of itinerant traders. The irritation of parasites preying upon the available trade was not exclusive to New Amsterdam. In the latter years of Dutch rule of the colony it was also directed at other outsiders. In March 1664 the inhabitants of Beverwijck approached director general and council with a petition that was aimed against the trade of the burghers of New Amsterdam and their wives. According to the petitioners, they spoiled the fur trade to the great disadvantage of the inhabitants of Beverwijck, who had to come up with all the community’s

61 NYMA, ODR 3, p. 118 (18 January 1661; RNA 3: 250), p. 147 (25 February 1661; RNA 3: 270–271), AMNA 1, p. 174 (24 January 1661; RNA 7: 266), ODR 1, p. 69 (25 February 1661; RNA 1: 45–46); Rooseboom, Recueil van verscheyde keuren, 199, 209; NYSA, NYCM 9: 515–517 (31 January 1661; Burghers of New Amsterdam, 33–35), 755–756 (18 August 1661), 736–737 (25 August 1661).

each according to his condition

365

costs and were obliged to perform guard duties. The complaints sound similar to those uttered a couple of years earlier in New Amsterdam against the itinerant merchants. The delegates of Beverwijck brought the matter up at the landdag [provincial convention or diet] of April 1664 and managed to persuade the director general and council to restrict the trade with Christians in Beverwijck to houseowners, men who had resided there for a minimum of one year and six weeks or had kept ‘fire and light’, or who had been granted burgher right. This was of course a reference to the burgher right of Beverwijck, although it was not made explicit. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Beverwijck were not too pleased with the reply as their main aim had been to restrict the fur trade with the Indians, whereas the answer of the director general and council pertained only to the trade between Christians.62 In New Amsterdam as well, displeasure arose about colonists elsewhere in New Netherland. Several months after the Beverwijck petition, the burgemeesters asked the director general and council whether it was justifiable that the colonists in New Amstel were permitted to trade freely in New Amsterdam, while trading activities of the New Amsterdam merchants were forbidden in the city-colony. The provincial government had earlier reported to the directors in Amsterdam that the monopoly on the South River was a source of irritation and thus were favorably inclined towards the request. Director general and council allowed the city government of New Amsterdam to introduce the requirement that merchants from New Amstel should purchase burgher right in New Amsterdam before they offered their wares for sale. Both the petition from Beverwijck and that of New Amsterdam indicate that local particularism, prevalent in the Dutch Republic, was beginning to find its way into New Netherland. Towards the end of the Dutch period, the population of New Netherland had grown to such an extent that one’s own community had become more important than the general interests of the whole colony.63

62 NYSA, NYCM 10–3: 187–189 (13 March 1664), 189–190 (10 March 1664), 191–192 (22 April 1664), 193–194 (22 April 1664; LO, 462). 63 NYSA, NYCM 10–3: 245 (3 July 1664), 246 (3 July 1664; DRCHNY 12: 454), 15: 131, pp. 9–11 (26 April 1664; DRCHNY 12: 453–454).

366

chapter six Burgher Guard

A recurring point in the petitions about burgher rights was the complaint that outsiders, while profiting from the trade, neither contributed to the costs of defense nor participated in the burgher guard. That complaint is directly related to the issue of the schutterij or citizens’ militia in New Netherland. The word schutterij, so common in the Dutch Republic, hardly ever appears in the sources relating to the colony. The usual indication in New Netherland was burgerwacht or burgher guard. The Freedoms and Exemptions of 1640 required the colonists to make a contribution to the defense of the colony. The Company would take all colonists, both free men and servants into its protection, defend the same in domestic and foreign wars with the power that it has there, as much as it is capable to.64

That implied that the WIC would provide defensive works and a garrison of soldiers. But the colonists were expected to assist, and to this end every male immigrant had to be in the possession of a firearm. The stipulation was a formalization of a situation already in existence. A couple of months earlier, Director Kieft had taken measures to organize the colonists in the area of Fort Amsterdam into a burgher guard. At this stage his measures were not very extensive: they covered the requirement that the individual colonists had their own weapons and were assigned to units. Also the alarm signals (‘three cannon shots fired in quick succession’) were agreed upon. Nonetheless, it was the beginning of the burgher guard.65 With the exception of the remark about the units, each under the command of a corporal, little is known about how the burgher guard was organized in 1640. More information is available for later years. A petition of 1648 shows that the burgher guard in New Amsterdam was led by officers, although neither their names nor ranks were mentioned. Named as burgher officers a year later were Captain Jacob Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven, Lieutenant Marten Kregier,

64 Nat. Arch., SG, LWI, inv. no. 5755 II (ingekomen 1640), C. 1051v (19 July 1640; DRCHNY 1: 123). 65 Nat. Arch., SG, commissieboeken, inv. no. 12272, fol. 198 (7 July 1645; DRCHNY 1: 161); NYSA, NYCM 4: 61 (10 May 1640; NYHM 4: 74–75).

each according to his condition

367

Sergeants Philip Gerardy and Pieter Cock and Ensigns Borger Jorisz. and Augustijn Heermans. This indicates an organization in two units, with officers in the rank of captain and lieutenant above them. The rank of colonel, which was customary in the Dutch Republic’s schutterij and which was as a rule held by one of the incumbent burgemeesters, was not used in New Netherland. Appointed to the highest ranks in the colony were mostly men from the city government, as an undated muster roll of the burgher guard demonstrates. It probably reflects the situation in New Amsterdam in 1653 or 1654, when the city government there had recently been installed. At the time, captain and lieutenant were burgemeester Arent van Hattem and schepen Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift, while a Van Beeck, possibly Johannes, was an ensign. However, none of the officers mentioned in 1649 feature on the later list, while all of them were still in the colony. A possible explanation for this is that the list is incomplete, since in 1653 burgemeester Marten Kregier is mentioned as a captain in another source. The burgher guard in New Amsterdam by that time consisted of two units, the orange company and the blue company. Each company was formed by two units, each consisting of a sergeant, a corporal, a lance corporal, four adelborsten, and twelve to fifteen regular soldiers. In 1659, the number of companies in New Amsterdam was increased to three.66 Collectively, the officers formed the court martial. It regularly consulted with the city government, sometimes with the participation of the director general, on issues such as armament, firewood for the guardhouse, rules on watch duties, and the like. The right to appoint officers did not belong to the city government, but to the director general and council. This was a departure from what was customary in the Dutch cities, where this right was usually in the hands of burgemeesters, the court or the vroedschap [city council]. Incidents such as fights between members of the guard while on duty were often tried by the schepenen and court martial together, as in the case of Pieter Jacobsz. Bosboom and Marten de Metselaar in Beverwijck in

66 NYSA, NYCM 4: 385 (25 May 1648; NYHM 4: 520), 426 (4 March 1649; NYHM 4: 580), 13: 1, p. 16 (13 February 1659; DRCHNY 14: 432), 139 (1653 or 1654; O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 2: 569), 8: 928 (15 July 1658; upper part destroyed by fire; O’Callaghan, Calendar, 199); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 164 (24 November 1653; RNA 1: 128–129), ODR 2, p. 318 (19 September 1658; RNA 3: 17–18); Knevel, Burgers in het geweer, 380.

368

chapter six

1657. At the beginning of the guard duty Sergeant Lammert van Valckenborgh gave Marten the order to light a candle in the guardroom. Marten asked Pieter Jacobsz. where the candles were, to which the latter replied that he did not know. Marten then accused Pieter of having stolen the candles, who subsequently called him a liar. Marten was obviously not prepared to put up with that: he drew his knife and wounded Pieter with a cut to his head. The court delegated the trial of this matter to two magistrates and two members of the court martial, Captain Abraham Staets and Lieutenant Hendrick Jochemsz. The outcome of the case is not known.67 The organization as outlined above relates principally to New Amsterdam. Burgher guards existed in other places in New Netherland, but these were probably smaller in size. In Breuckelen, Beverwijck, and Haerlem the officers were also appointed by the director general and council, generally selected from the magistrates.68 The task of the burgher guard was twofold: assisting the West India Company in the defense against enemies from outside and conducting the regular patrols within the city, which were aimed at maintaining peace and order, principally at night. In a few instances the threat of an attack from outside was so acute that orders were given to enlarge the guard, as in 1653 during the First Anglo-Dutch War and in 1663 during the Second Esopus War. But in such exceptional circumstances simple defensive patrols were not sufficient. Yet the burgher guard was not suited for offensive action as it could not be ordered to serve outside its own city. In the few instances that the Company’s troops needed supplementing, such as for the expedition against the Swedish colony on the South River in 1655, a call was made for volunteers. No great enthusiasm was forthcoming. Four years later, during the First Esopus War, Stuyvesant experienced a great deal of difficulty in recruiting volunteers for an expedition to relieve the settlement in the Esopus that was under siege by the Indians. The director general wanted to recruit thirty-five to forty men from the burgher guard of New Amsterdam for this, but their answer was that their duty extended only to defending their

67 NYSA, NYCM 5: 456 (17 December 1654; NYHM 5: 215), 8: 928 (15 July 1658), 16–2: 71–72 (7 June 1657; FOCM, 299–300); Knevel, Burgers in het geweer, 127. 68 NYSA, NYCM 5: 240 (7 April 1654; NYHM 5: 128), 9: 133 (23 March 1660).

each according to his condition

369

own community and that they could not be compelled to risk their lives for others. This attitude did not make it easier for Stuyvesant, who decided to appeal to them personally. At his order, the three companies were assembled, and he reminded them of their honor and duty. Despite this personal appeal, only twenty-four or twentyfive men came forward as volunteers. Their number was supplemented by drawing lots. Together with Company soldiers, a couple of dozen English, and a number of Indians, the expedition was ready to embark, after church service, for the Esopus. Stuyvesant was not happy about the attitude of the burghers, and in his account to the Amsterdam directors he recounted in scornful tone an incident on their embarkation at New Amsterdam. Alarm had been raised by the barking of a dog, upon which ‘many of the burgher guard choose the water before they saw any enemy’.69 A call was also made for volunteers during the Second Esopus War in 1663, both for the expedition to Wiltwijck and as a supplement to the defense of New Amsterdam. No volunteers were to be found in Beverwijck, while Amersfoort, ’s-Gravesande, Midwout, and New Utrecht answered that the people there were prepared to help in the defense of their neighbors on Long Island, but refused to cross the East River.70 Such incidents might call into question the fighting spirit and morale of the burgher guard, but it should be remembered that these were expeditions beyond their own communities, in which the danger to life and limb could not be excluded. Such danger was rarely present in the normal task of night patrols. The first ordinance on guard duty stems from 1643 and does not contain much more than a handful of instructions. Swearing was forbidden, as was speaking ill of one’s comrades. The guards had to turn up for duty both sober and on time. A separate guardhouse was built a few years later, and the costs of it were borne by the wic. The Company also had to ensure that sufficient firewood was available, and on several occasions found it necessary to make sure that the guardsmen were adequately armed.71 69

NYSA, NYCM 13: 50, pp. 2–5 (29 October 1659; DRCHNY 13: 124–126). NYMA, ODR 1, p. 95 (13 March 1653; RNA 1: 65), ODR 4, p. 328 (11 February 1664; RNA 5: 23), AMNA 2, p. 115 (14 June 1663; MOM 2: 178); NYSA, NYCM 6: 78 (19 August 1655; CM 1655–1656, 76), 10–2: 153–154 (25 June 1663; DRCHNY 13: 259–260), 193–194 (10 July 1663), 195 (10 July 1663), 201 (6 July 1663), 15: 38 (29 June 1663; DRCHNY 13: 268). 71 NYSA, NYCM 4: 180 (16 November 1643; NYHM 4: 208), 385 (25 May 70

370

chapter six

A comprehensive ordinance for the burgher guard in Beverwijck from the early 1650s demonstrates that performing the watch was generally regarded as a tiresome duty. Fines were laid down for absenteeism, arriving late or drunk for duty, and for falling asleep on guard duty. The ordinance also contained rules on obedience to officers and a few stipulations about marching and the handling of weapons. During marching, no one was allowed to leave or change his line without orders. Neither could a guardsman discharge his gun without an explicit command. Firing at the flag, at windows, gables, weathervanes, or any signs at houses was absolutely forbidden and carried a fine of five guilders. Recalcitrant behavior and expressions of displeasure were clearly not appreciated. A further indication that guard duty was not much enjoyed is the fact that at the end of their term of office the magistrates of Beverwijck were exempted from serving again for a period of one year. The magistrates of Beverwijck felt that the inhabitants of Rensselaerswijck, who also enjoyed the advantage of the burgher guard’s presence, should contribute to its work.72 With all this reluctance to carry out the regular nightly patrols, which was also encountered in the Dutch Republic, it is hardly surprising that another solution was sought. In 1654 a first attempt was made in New Amsterdam to set up a so-called ratelwacht [rattle guard], but no one was interested. Four years later, it was tried again, and eight men signed on. They were divided into two shifts of four, which were deployed on alternate nights. For the sum of twentyfour stivers per night they had to patrol the city from nine in the evening until sunrise, rattling their rattles at every street corner and calling out the time. In 1659 a rattle guard was established in Beverwijck on the express request of burghers who wanted to be relieved of the burden of guard duties. The instructions for the rattle guards in Beverwijck make clear that they were not only to announce the time. In the event of fire, they were to warn the burghers, either by banging on the door or by ringing the church

1648; NYHM 4: 520), 16–3: 147 (1 May 1660; FOCM, 487); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 164 (24 November 1653; RNA 1: 128–129). 72 NYSL, mss 12802, ordinance on the burgher guard of Beverwijck (presumably 1653; Guide, no. 164); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 270 (1 May 1656; FOCM, 237), p. 114 (17 March 1654; FOCM, 109), CMFO 1658–1659, p. 132 (1 May 1659; FOCM, 431).

each according to his condition

371

bell. They had to arrest any thieves caught in the act, and the help of the burghers could be called upon for this. And, of course, all forms of unruly nighttime activities and breaches of the peace had to be prevented. If fights broke out, the rattle guard could rely on the magistrates to pay for any damage, and here again explicit reference was made to regulations governing the burgher guard in Amsterdam. In both New Amsterdam and Beverwijck, the salary of the rattle guards was paid by the members of the burgher guard. In this way, the burghers could avoid the onerous night duty that came with membership of the burgher guard.73 Burgher guard duty had its pleasurable sides. The ideal of fellowship that lay at the foundations of the burgher guard was cultivated in a parade held during the annual fair. With roll of drums the companies marched under their respective pennants. Powder for the gun salutes, and pennants, halberds, and drums were supplied by the Company. Although a single mention of parrot shooting shows that in Beverwijck shooting competitions were held, there are no other indications in the records of any other social activities engaged in by the burgher guard. It probably organized communal meals, but no trace can be found of any collective portraits of the burgher guards, such as were painted for the Dutch cities. Such expressions of self-importance were beyond the budget of the colonists.74 Burgher right and the burgher guard gave the inhabitants of the various communities in New Netherland the opportunity of distinguishing themselves from outsiders and of increasing their sense of self-worth. The regulations for burgher right and the organization of the burgher guard show that the customary forms from the Dutch Republic, and in particular those of Amsterdam, were adopted. Both the aversion to itinerant traders from elsewhere in New Netherland

73 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 291 (9 and 16 November 1654; RNA 1: 265), AMNA 1, pp. 78–80 (4 and 12 October 1658; RNA 7: 195–198), AMNA 2, p. 3 (25 February 1661; MOM 2: 76–77); ACHR, CMFO 1658–1659, pp. 165–166 (8 August 1659; FOCM, 451), p. 201 (25 November 1659; FOCM, 470); NYSA, NYCM 9: 551 (10 March 1661). 74 NYMA, AMNA 2, p. 33 (16 September 1661; MOM 2: 107), ODR 1, p. 326 (22 March 1655; RNA 1: 302), p. 342 (15 May 1655; RNA 1: 314), ODR 2, p. 318 (19 September 1658; RNA 3: 17); NYSA, NYCM 13: 1, p. 16 (13 February 1659; DRCHNY 14: 432); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.57 (18 September 1661; DRCHNY 2: 461); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 210 (11 May 1655; FOCM, 191).

372

chapter six

and the unwillingness to come to the aid of other communities point to a gradual shift in what were considered the boundaries of one’s community. In the later years of the Dutch rule in the colony, little solidarity existed with the inhabitants of other communities in New Netherland. In this way too, the colony was in conformity with the local patriotism that prevailed in the Dutch Republic.75

The Periphery of the Colonial Community: Jews and Blacks The burghers saw themselves as the core of colonial society. They were adult, white European men, many of whom were members of the Reformed Church. Other denominations were also present in New Netherland, such as the Lutherans from Germany and Scandinavia and the English Quakers. In the case of the Lutherans their religious persuasion was not an insurmountable obstacle in achieving a certain standing in society, as the example of Daniël Litscho shows. However, the situation was fundamentally different for the Jews, blacks, and Indians, who had in common that they were not Christian. At the beginning of the seventeenth century a Jewish community had sprung up in Amsterdam, consisting mainly of banished or fleeing Sephardic Jews from Portugal and Spain. From Amsterdam, they had access to the Dutch colonies in the Atlantic, and it was especially Brazil that attracted their attention, as it allowed them to take full advantage of their Portuguese background, language, and contacts. A number of Jews settled in Brazil after the Dutch conquered Pernambuco, the northeastern part of the Portuguese colony. Objections to their presence arose swiftly. The Amsterdam classis protested, because they saw the Jewish presence as a threat to the spread of the Reformed religion. Great displeasure also arose among the sugar planters in Brazil about the high rate of interest applied by the Jews, who played an important role in financing trade, especially the slave trade. It was ‘indecent haggling and shameful usury’, wrote High Councilor Johan van Raesvelt in 1649 from Brazil to Constantijn Huygens in The Hague. Despite the objections from diverse sides,

75

Groenveld, ‘Natie en nationaal gevoel’.

each according to his condition

373

the West India Company directors in patria and their officials in Brazil instituted no measures against the Jews in Pernambuco, who had more rights than was customary in the Dutch Republic.76 In the autumn of 1654, a small group of Jews, consisting of twentythree men, women, and children, arrived in New Netherland. They had sailed with a French ship from Recife, which had fallen into Portuguese hands in January 1654, after which the Dutch inhabitants had been given three months to leave. No one in New Netherland was pleased with the arrival of twenty-three destitute Jews. On 22 September 1654, Stuyvesant and the council requested the directors to refuse the Jews permission to remain in the colony. In itself, this was not an exceptional request; in the Netherlands many cities did not permit Jews to take up residence. This was particularly true of the Generality Lands, the southern provinces that the Dutch Republic had conquered over the course of the Eighty Years War. For example, Jews were not admitted to Tilburg until 1767, or to Maastricht until 1785. The Reformed ministers in New Netherland were not enthusiastic about the arrival of the Jews either, and they supported the request of director general and council in a letter to the classis. According to Megapolensis, the Jews had no other God [. . .] than the unjust Mammon and no other aim [. . .] than to obtain the Christians’ goods and to abuse all other merchants, and draw the trade to them alone.77

Furthermore, Megapolensis alleged, it caused a great disturbance among the people of New Amsterdam. The aim of the predikant’s letter is clear: he wanted the classis to help prevent the Jews from settling in New Netherland.78 Just as with the problems surrounding the admission of a Lutheran

76 GAA, ACA, inv. no. 157, p. 153 (28 May 1646; ER 1: 195), inv. no. 4, p. 391 and inv. no. 163, p. 141 (9 July 1646; ER 1: 204); NYPL, Bontemantel Collection, Brazil Dutch West India Papers, no. 1233 (20 April 1649); Van Dillen, ‘Vreemdelingen te Amsterdam’, 22; Teensma, ‘Resentment in Recife’; Marcus, The Colonial American Jew, 1: 69–76. 77 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 7 (18 March 1655; ER 1: 335–336; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 2: 72). 78 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 268 (7 September 1654; RNA 1: 240); Marcus, The Colonial American Jew, 1: 81, 209–211; Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Dutch West India Company Papers (22 September 1654; Oppenheim, Early History of the Jews, 4–5); Israel, ‘De Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden tot omstreeks 1750’, 110–111.

374

chapter six

minister a year earlier, the final decision had to be made in Amsterdam. It is probable that the Jews in New Amsterdam turned for support and intercession to their relatives in Amsterdam, whose assistance they also sought for paying the money they owed for their passage. In January 1655 a number of Jewish merchants in Amsterdam submitted a petition to the directors there, requesting permission for the Jews to remain in New Amsterdam. They also requested permission for Jewish merchants in Amsterdam to trade with the colony. The petition emphasized the great losses the Jews had suffered in Brazil, where they had risked both their livelihood and their lives. The WIC directors granted the Jews permission to live and trade in New Netherland, on the condition that they would not be a burden to the Company or to the deaconry.79 In their letter to the director general and council the Amsterdam directors were rather more specific about their motivation for this decision. They wrote: We would gladly have put into effect and carried out your wish and request in order that that new conquest [i.e., New Netherland] would not be infected any more by any Jewish nation, as we foresee from this the same difficulties which you anticipate.

However, after ample consideration they found that a hard attitude would be contrary to the ‘reden ende billickheijt’ [reason and fairness], not only because of the losses that the Jews had suffered in Brazil, but also because of ‘de groote capitalen die sij alsnoch inde compagnie sijn heriderende’. At the end of the nineteenth century Berthold Fernow translated this as ‘the large amount of capital, which they have invested in shares of this Company’.80 Subsequently, historians have to a large extent lost sight of the ‘reason and fairness’ argument, and have emphasized and exaggerated the financial argument.81 In my view Fernow’s translation is faulty, and as the translation here

79

NYMA, ‘Burgomasters and Schepens’ 1, not paginated (21 October 1654; ‘Powers of Attorney’, 175); Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Dutch West India Company Papers ( January 1655; Oppenheim, Early History of the Jews, 9–13); NYSA, NYCM 6: 321 (14 March 1656; CM 1655–1656, 261). 80 NYSA, NYCM 12: 18, p. 1 (26 April 1655: DRCHNY 14: 315; Oppenheim, Early History of the Jews, 8; Corres. 1654–1658, 49). 81 Swierenga, The Forerunners, 37–38; Marcus, The American Jew, 14–16; Goodman, American Overture, 81; Israel, ‘The Jews of Dutch America’, 344–345; Williams, ‘An Atlantic Perspective’, 377–385.

each according to his condition

375

is of prime importance for a correct interpretation, a little detour in linguistics is needed. First of all, in the original Dutch, no reference is made to the ‘shares’ that Fernow cites. It is Fernow’s interpretation that the Jews owned shares in the Company. But the major problem originates with his translation of the two words: alsnoch and heriderende. Alsnoch is a temporal designation. It may mean either ‘as yet’, or, a little more conditional, ‘still’, and applies to the present. In his translation however, Fernow uses the present perfect, and leaves alsnoch out. The second word, heriderende from the verb herideren, is even more problematic, as it is rather unusual and rarely used in the seventeenth century. It does not have a separate entry in the multi-volume Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. The digital version of this Dutch dictionary shows three occurrences in other entries, all meaning investing. Yet a specialist dictionary of legal terms, using the spelling herederen, shows that apart from ‘investing’, herideren or herederen can also mean int goeden van yemanden bij versterffnisse komen [coming into someone’s property by succession]. Here the meaning is closer to its Latin origin, hereditas as substantive and heredito as verb, similar to the English ‘inheritance’ and ‘inheriting’.82 There is also a third meaning. In 1640 Kiliaen van Rensselaer used herideren in this third way, when he wrote to Johannes de Laet that, in addition to the patroonship and the direction, he also ‘drij vyfde perten herideeret’ in Rensselaerswijck. This can be translated as ‘owns three fifth parts’ or ‘has a claim to three fifth parts’. A notarial act of 1683 uses it in the same meaning.83 This third meaning, owning a part, or having a claim to, is different in that, in contrast to the other two, it does not refer to a single moment but rather to a situation. In all the examples of the three meanings, herideren is used without an auxiliary verb. But in the 1655 letter of the Amsterdam directors, the choice of the auxiliary verb is significant: the directors did not use hebben [to have], but sijn [to be]. The use of the auxiliary verb in seventeenth-century Dutch is in some cases different from modern Dutch, and sometimes reverses the meaning. In the

82 Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, entries inteekening, regard and uitvaren; Van Hattum and Rooseboom, Glossarium van oude Nederlandse rechtstermen, based on Thuys, Ars Notariatus. 83 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 134 (10 September 1640; VRBM 518); GAA, NA, inv. no. 5129, fol. 121–121v (pp. 143–144 (16 April 1683).

376

chapter six

case of herideren, the use of sijn opens the possibility that rather than the Jews investing, or having invested, money in the West India Company, they were in fact still owing the Company money. Taken together, the inclusion of alsnoch and the different interpretation of sijn heriderende leads me to the following alternative translation: ‘the large sums of money for which they are still indebted to the Company’. The case for this completely different interpretation is not without weaknesses. First, there is no other occurrence known to me as yet of herideren being used in this way. Second, the proposition used is in. It would make more sense if aen had been used. Those reservations are outweighed, however, by the context, which supports the alternative translation. It is essential to know to what extent the Amsterdam or New Amsterdam Jews participated in the West India Company. The two extant lists of large shareholders in the Amsterdam chamber, dated 1656 and 1658, contain only a few Jewish names, making it less likely that they had acquired a considerable number of WIC shares. Even if they did own shares in it, the West India Company did not pay much heed to its investors, a trait it shared with the East India Company.84 A further question is why the New Amsterdam or the Amsterdam Jews owed the West India Company money. The explanation is that many of the tax farmers in Brazil were Jewish. In total 63 percent of the tax farming business in Brazil was in Jewish hands. The tax farmers had agreed with the West India Company on the right to collect specific taxes and duties, such as the impost of the weighing

84

De Boer, ‘Naamlijsten van bewindhebbers en van hoofdparticipanten der WestIndische Compagnie’; Ebben, Zilver, brood en kogels, 182–183; Boxer, Nederlanders in Brazilië, 22–23; Van Dillen, ‘Vreemdelingen te Amsterdam’, 16; Swetschinski, ‘The Portuguese Jewish Merchants of Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam’, 199–201. One of them was Joseph da Costa, who in March 1655 was involved in a newly founded trading company arrangement for trade with New Netherland. In collaboration with, among others, Mordechai Abendana (1/4 part) and David Cardoso Davilar (1/16) the earlier-mentioned merchant family Verbrugge gathered together a total amount of eighteen thousand guilders. Da Costa was to act as the company’s factor in New Amsterdam for a period of four years. The Verbrugges had undoubtedly waited with the appointment of Da Costa until the WIC directors had given the Jews permission to remain in New Amsterdam. However, this was private trade. GAA, NA, inv. no. 1112, fol. 244–244v (22 March 1655), inv. no. 1113, fol. 22 (7 April 1655), inv. no. 1119, fol. 79 (24 October 1656). David Cardoso Davilar acted as intermediary for Duarte Diaz de Paz, who sold his share by the end of 1656: GAA, NA, inv. no. 1116, fol. 134 (18 February 1656), inv. no. 1119, fol. 356 (22 December 1656).

each according to his condition

377

in Recife and the tenths on sugar cultivation. Although the tax farmers would pay the WIC later, the risk of collection was theirs. It involved considerable sums of money, usually thousands of guilders, occasionally tens of thousand. The tenths on sugar cultivation in Pernambuco, for instance, was granted in 1645 to Moses Navarro for ƒ 74,000. The Portuguese revolt in Brazil made it impossible, however, for the tax farmers to collect the taxes; yet they still owed the West India Company the lump sum. As the West India Company owed many former soldiers and merchants large sums of money, quick collection of some of its outstanding debts, such as from former tax farmers, was important to its cash flow. Allowing the Jews access to New Netherland and allowing them to trade there would hand them a way of making money from which the debts to the West India Company could be repaid. It would also further the economic development of New Netherland. Even so, financial arguments were not the sole consideration of the WIC in its decision to grant the Jews access to New Netherland. The other argument that was mentioned, ‘reason and fairness’, referring to the suffering of the Jews in Brazil, was equally important to the Amsterdam directors.85 In New Netherland the Amsterdam chamber’s decision came as an unpleasant surprise. The director general and council had in March 1655 already informed the New Amsterdam city government that they had decided to have the Jews depart as soon as possible. The burgemeesters and schepenen replied that they had absolutely no objection to this. The directors’ decision, of which the director general and council were notified during the summer, threw a monkey wrench into the works. Although part of the correspondence between New Amsterdam and Amsterdam is missing, it is reasonable to assume that the director general and council would have attempted to change the Amsterdam directors’ minds. From July 1655 onward they made a number of decisions with the objective of preventing the Jews from becoming permanent residents, and of making it so difficult for them that they might leave of their own accord. A request from the Jews for their own burial ground was put off, since supposedly there was

85 I thank Noah Gelfand for this suggestion. Gelfand, ‘Sugar and God’; Gonsalves de Mello, Nederlanders in Brazilië, 258–259, 273; Wiznitzer, Jews in Colonial Brazil, 71–73; Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 15: 332. I thank Wim Klooster for this reference.

378

chapter six

no immediate need for it. The situation in Amsterdam had been similar. Requests for a Jewish burial ground there had been rejected in 1606 and 1608, and only in 1613 did the Amsterdam Jews buy a plot in Ouderkerk aan de Amstel. In New Netherland, obstacles were also put in the way of the Jews becoming members of the burgher guard. In a petition, the burgher officers referred to the aversion and disinclination of the borgerije [citizenry] to be partners with the aforesaid nation and to mount guard in the same guardhouse.86

They reminded director general and council that Jews were not admitted to the burgher guard anywhere in the Dutch Republic. It was decided that the Jews should pay a special tax instead. When Jacob Barsimson and Assur Levy protested about this to the director general and council, they were told that they were free to leave New Netherland whenever they liked. Furthermore, a request from Abraham de Lucena, Salvador d’Andrado, and Jacob Cohen to trade on the South River was refused ‘for important reasons’. The Jews’ purchase of real estate was also prevented, again with a reference to ‘important reasons’. And, as has been mentioned earlier, in October 1655 five Jewish merchants received exorbitantly high demands in the tax for the defense of New Amsterdam.87 Despite all these measures, the Jews decided to stay in New Netherland. They were strengthened by the policy of the directors, who were disinclined to change their decision. As a result a number of the anti-Jewish measures were reversed shortly afterwards. In February 1656 the Jews were allotted a piece of land outside the city for a cemetery. A month later, the trade on the South River was opened to them, even before the directors had made known their displeasure about the impediment to the trade. However, there were limits. As the Amsterdam directors outlined in March 1656, their decision to allow the Jews access to New Netherland applied

86 NYSA, NYCM 6: 84–85 (28 August 1655; CM 1655–1656, 81), 16–1: 59 (28 August 1655; LWA, 50–51). 87 NYSA, NYCM 6: 68 (27 July 1655; CM 1655–1656, 68), 147 (5 November 1655; CM 1655–1656, 128), 176–177 (29 November 1655; CM 1655–1656, 149–151), 197–198 (17 and 23 December 1655; CM 1655–1656, 166), 321–322 (14 March 1656; CM 1655–1656, 261–262); Swetschinski, ‘The Portuguese Jewish Merchants of Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam’, 11–13.

each according to his condition

379

only to their political and civil rights. The privilege of exercising their religion in a synagogue was not granted, but then, the Jews had not yet asked for this privilege. If such a request were made, it should be referred to the Amsterdam chamber. The Jews were permitted to exercise their religion within their houses in all quietness [. . .], whereto they will without doubt seek to build and choose their houses close to each other on one or the other side of New Amsterdam, like they have done here.88

Just as in Amsterdam, the Jews were not allowed to practice crafts or ‘keep open shop’. Consequently, a request from Jacob Cohen to open a bakery was refused by the burgemeesters of New Amsterdam, even though Cohen promised that it would be ‘with closed doors’, and so would not be public. However, when the burgemeesters took yet another step and tried to exclude the Jews from obtaining the small burgher right, they were reprimanded by the director general and council. Although the Jews had thus fewer rights than other inhabitants in New Netherland, in court cases they were treated as equals. Account was even taken of their Sabbath, even a year before the same happened in Amsterdam. Some consideration was shown to them several years later, when an exception was made for Assur Levy and Moses Lucena during the appointment of sworn butchers. The other butchers were obliged to slaughter any animals brought to them, but Levy and Lucena were granted exemption from slaughtering pigs. They were also given permission to swear an adapted version of the oath. Despite these concessions, the Jews in New Netherland were second-class burghers. Although they were finally granted burgher right, most of the trades, the burgher guard, and the magistracy remained closed to them. Like the Lutherans and others, they did not have freedom of public worship. The decision to allow the Jews to stay in New Netherland, despite the opposition of ministers, director general and council, and the colonists, was a consequence of the tolerant views of the directors in Amsterdam. It is not evidence of exceptional tolerance in the colony.89

88

NYSA, NYCM 12: 39, p. 2 (14 June 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 93). NYSA, NYCM 6: 285 (22 February 1656; CM 1655–1656, 229), 340 (25 March 1656; CM 1655–1656, 280), 12: 39, p. 2 (14 June 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 93), 36, p. 2 (13 March 1656; Corres. 1654 –1658, 83), 8: 531 (21 April 1657); 89

380

chapter six

Blacks also had a judicial status in New Netherland different from that enjoyed by whites. A distinction must be made here between slaves and free blacks. It seems an obvious difference, but for the most part it is not indicated in the sources for New Netherland. In many instances the individual’s name or the mention of his or her skin color makes clear that blacks are referred to, but their specific status is rarely mentioned. In itself, the occurrence of slavery in New Netherland is hardly surprising, and New Netherland does not differ from other Dutch colonies in the world in adopting the system. In the Dutch Republic, however, slavery was not permitted, and as far as is known no slaves were sent from New Netherland to the Netherlands, although it was considered on one occasion. Jan Baptist van Rensselaer, who had just returned to Amsterdam, asked his brother Jeremias to sell my neger [Negro] Andries. If this has not been done, please send him over in the first ship and contract for his passage at the lowest price possible. I need him very much at Cralo [Crailo] to take care of my horse.90

Jeremias was not particularly inclined to do so. He had sought advice from relatives, who had told him ‘that it would [be] but foolishness to have him serve you in a free country, as he would have too much of a temperament to do that’. Jeremias had already had to punish the man on several occasions for disobedience. As his letter specifically refers to the sale of a human being, it is clear that it concerns a slave. Such clarity is not often found.91 The slaves that were imported into New Netherland usually did not come directly from Africa, but originated from Iberian ships seized in the Caribbean. In only a few cases, such as that of the journey of the Witte Paert in 1654–1655, were slaves imported directly from Africa. After 1658 Curaçao developed into a transit post in the Dutch slave trade, and as a result the importation of slaves into

NYMA, ODR 2, p. 258 (3 June 1658; RNA 2: 396), AMNA 1, p. 16 (11 April 1657; RNA 7: 154), pp. 162–164 (15 October 1660; RNA 7: 258–259), p. 167 (29 October 1660; RNA 7: 261); Swetschinski, ‘The Portuguese Jewish Merchants of Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam’, 14; Van Dillen, ‘Vreemdelingen te Amsterdam’, 13; Zwierlein, ‘New Netherland intolerance’. 90 NYSL, VRMP, box 48, III, folder 20 (22 April 1659; CJVR 152). 91 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 A, folder 17 (20 August 1659; CJVR 167).

each according to his condition

381

New Netherland became more common. Yet the number of shipments of slaves to New Netherland increased only slowly. Most of the time, the number of slaves per shipment was small, with a maximum of a few dozen blacks. An exception was the arrival in August 1664 of the ship Gideon with 290 slaves on board, which increased the total number of blacks in the colony to approximately 500. Once in New Netherland, some of the slaves were sold, sometimes by public auction. In general, the blacks that arrived in New Netherland were of a relatively low quality, and the prices paid for them were considerably lower than those paid for slaves that had been sold from Curaçao to the Spanish colonies. In New Netherland the price varied from 140 to 375 guilders in 1650s. In the following decade the prices rose, even reaching 600 guilders in 1664. Given the increasing demand for slaves in the colony, director general and council tried to prevent exports of slaves by introducing substantial export fees in 1655.92 Although the WIC remained the largest slave-owner in the colony, a number of private individuals could afford to purchase slaves. Joyce Goodfriend has combined the scattered information on slave-owners with the 1665 New York taxation list to establish that thirty of the 254 people named were the owners of slaves. Roughly half of their number belonged to the two highest categories in the list, those assessed for three or four guilders. The remaining half is spread throughout the other categories, with the exception of the lowest category, those who were exempt from paying tax. While the information may be incomplete, only 12 percent of those on the list were slave-owners. After the Dutch period the ownership of slaves became more general. A 1703 census indicates that slaves lived in 41 percent of the households in New York City. The concentration of slave-owners among the richest inhabitants of New York in 1665 is hardly surprising in view of the high price of slaves. Stuyvesant was the largest private slave-owner in New Netherland. In his letter of 1660, Henricus Selijns reports that forty blacks worked on the director’s

92 NYSA, NYCM 9: 760–761 (2 September 1661; O’Callaghan, Voyages of the Slavers, 189–191), 10–3: 227–228 (29 May 1664), 6: 70–71 (6 August 1655; CM 1655–1656, 70), 14: 14 (11 April 1661; O’Callaghan, Voyages of the Slavers, 183–186), 15: 97, p. 11 (20 January 1664; DRCHNY 2: 222); Wagman, ‘Corporate Slavery’; Emmer, ‘Slavenhandel’, 117–118; Goodfriend, ‘Burghers and Blacks’; Emmer, De Nederlandse slavenhandel, 57.

382

chapter six

farm, of whom it is probable that a considerable number were the director general’s slaves.93 Information on the nature of the slaves’ work is relatively scarce, and most of the information pertains to the blacks that were owned by the West India Company. At the end of the 1630s Jacob Stoffelsz. was overseer of the Company blacks. From his statement, undoubtedly made to serve Wouter van Twiller in his defense against any accusations of mismanagement, it appears that the blacks were deployed in building and repairing the fort, chopping wood, developing land, burning lime, and gathering crops.94 All of these activities were physical work for which little training was necessary. In later years the Amsterdam directors were of the opinion that the black slaves should be given instruction in useful crafts. Since experienced craftsmen were expensive ‘therefore such trades as carpentering, bricklaying, supervising, blacksmithing, and others, ought to be taught to the negros [Negroes]’, as was tried in Brazil and Guinea. However, director general and council replied that no blacks were sufficiently competent to be instructed in these trades. Besides physical labor, slaves were also used for household duties, probably mostly female slaves. In 1662, director general and council manumitted three old female WIC slaves on condition that every week one of them would do the housework at the director general’s residence. Blacks were also deployed in the wars with Indians, both in fighting functions and in supporting duties. Some historians have judged the contribution made by slave labor to the economy of New Netherland as high, and some even doubt whether the transition from trading post to settlement colony could have taken place without the input from slavery. Although without question slavery was important, the supposed indispensability is undermined by the fact that the number of slaves in the colony began to take substantial form only after 1645, when transition from trading post to settlement colony was already at full pace.95

93 Goodfriend, ‘Burghers and Blacks’, 142–143; Narrett, Inheritance and Family Life, 187, n. 57; Maika, ‘Slavery, Race and Culture in Early New York’; OFDRCB, 227 (4 October 1660). 94 NYHM 1: 112–113 (22 March 1639). 95 NYSA, NYCM 12: 56, p. 3 (7 April 1657; Corres. 1654–1658, 127), 10–1: 296 (28 December 1662); NYPL, Bontemantel Collection: New Netherland Papers, box 1 (16 August 1657; Phelps Stokes, Iconography, 4: 181; Guide, no. 576); Wagman,

each according to his condition

383

From 1647 to 1654 the WIC slaves were under the supervision of Paulus Heymans, and lived together in a house in the Slijcksteeg in New Amsterdam. They regularly were hired out to private individuals. In 1658 Jacques Corteljou was instructed to return a WIC black in his service, only later to be allowed again to make use of the slave for a few months. The Amsterdam directors were not particularly well disposed towards such practices, and opined that the blacks could be better employed in the restoration of Fort Amsterdam.96 For both slaves in private ownership and those belonging to the Company it was possible to gain freedom. Running away was indeed one of the options, but it occurred only on a few occasions. Manumission was fairly common in New Netherland, and in most cases specific conditions applied. Distinction should be made here between privately owned slaves and Company slaves. In some instances, the former were set free during the lifetime of their owner. Philip Jansz. Ringo granted Manuel de Spanjaard his freedom in 1649, on condition that the latter would pay him one hundred guilders on 15 February each year for three years. In the event of default, Ringo would have the right to reclaim Manuel as his slave. In some instances, slaves were freed after the death of their owners. Jan Jansz. Damen determined in 1649 that after his death his ‘West Indian servant maid, named Cicilje, shall be emancipated and completely released from her slavery’. No form of payment was required in this case.97 Much more extensive and far-reaching were the conditions attached to the freeing of Company slaves. In 1644 eleven slaves who had been in the Company’s service for eighteen or nineteen years, asked for their freedom. They argued that they had served the Company for a long time and since they had a large number of children, it was impossible to support their wives and children if they remained in the WIC’s service. Kieft and his council decided to set them ‘free and at liberty, like other free people in New Netherland’, but under

‘Corporate Slavery’, 35; McManus, Negro Slavery, 4–6; Higginbotham, In the Matter of Color, 103; O’Callaghan, Voyages of the Slavers, 12. 96 NYSA, NYCM 4: 280 (10 January 1647; NYHM 4: 354), 5: 229 (3 March 1654; NYHM 5: 123), 8: 894 (14 June 1658), 900 (2 July 1658), 1046 (28 November 1658), 12: 45, pp. 5–6 (19 December 1656; Corres. 1654–1658, 106); Phelps Stokes, Iconography 2: 297–298. 97 NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 168 (8 July 1662), 3: 30 (17 February 1649; NYHM 3: 82–83), 72 (12 December 1649; NYHM 3: 208–210).

384

chapter six

conditions that rightly gave historians reason to label their status as ‘half freedom’. It could equally well have been called ‘half slavery’. The first condition was that per person they had to pay to the Company thirty schepels of maize, grain or other agricultural products annually, together with one fat pig to the value of twenty guilders. This was a life-long obligation, and in the case of default the blacks would relapse into slavery. The second condition was that, if their services were called for, they would be obliged to serve the WIC on normal terms of payment.98 The third condition was the most controversial. Both their existing children and any children as yet unborn would ‘remain bound and obligated to serve the honorable West India Company as lijffeygenen [serfs]’.99 Van der Donck, who had been trained in law, protested against this in his Vertoogh van Nieu Nederlandt: there are also several other negers [Negroes] here in the country, of which some have been made free, because of their long service, yet their children remain slaves, [which is] against all natural law, that someone who is born of a free Christian mother, yet is a slave, and must remain servile.100

Nothing is known about the motivation of Kieft and his council to attach such conditions to manumission. Possibly financial reasons played a role. Slaves were expensive, and labor was scarce. Requiring an annual payment and obliging the freed slave to serve the Company when asked can to some extent be explained by this. The third point, child slavery, is the most complicated. As slavery did not exist in the Dutch Republic, the director and council could not fall back on existing practices in their decision. It is by no means certain that those in New Netherland in 1640s were aware of what regulations concerning manumission were customary in other Dutch colonies. Inventing a regulation of their own without precedent was a novelty into which the seventeenth-century mind was hesitant to wander. Maybe director and council based their reasoning on Exodus

98 NYSA, NYCM 4: 183–184 (25 February 1644; NYHM 4: 212–213); McManus, Negro Slavery, 13–14; Higginbotham, In the Matter of Color, 105–109; Christoph, ‘The Freedmen of New Amsterdam’, 158–159; Jacobs, ‘“Te fourneeren nae de loffelijcke costumen der Stadt Amsterdam”’, 374–375. 99 NYSA, NYCM 4: 183–184 (25 February 1644; NYHM 4: 212–213). 100 Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 32 (NNN, 330).

each according to his condition

385

21:4, which stipulates that if slaves marry during slavery, the wife and their issue remain the property of the slave-owner. It is not inconceivable that this is the basis for the concept of ‘half freedom’, although it was not customary that such far-reaching decisions were made without consultation with the WIC directors. Van der Donck was trained in Dutch-Roman law and his condemnation suggests that in the Dutch Republic there might indeed have been legal opinion forming about slavery in the colonies, but the question then is whether Kieft and his councilors were aware of this. The matter was raised again in 1650 during the inquiry by the States General into the complaints of the delegation from New Netherland, but little sign can be found of a clear decision in the Dutch Republic. Nevertheless, the stipulation that children would continue to be slaves was not repeated in later manumissions. In several instances the condition that a regular payment had to be made was applied. Furthermore, there were also cases of once-only payments. In December 1663, Domingo Angola was obliged either to pay three hundred guilders or to provide another slave in exchange for the freeing of the eighteen-year-old Christina, who had been baptized in 1645. Two months later she married Swan van Loange, named two years earlier as the slave of Govert Loockermans. Loockermans paid the money in exchange for her freedom, although it is not clear whether this was a loan.101 At the same time that they were granted their ‘half freedom’ the blacks were allotted pieces of land on Manhattan, for the most part a few acres in size. The parcels were situated relatively close together beside the gemeene wagenweg [common wagon road], to the north of New Amsterdam and near the director’s farm. Gradually, a settlement developed there consisting of some free blacks and some of Stuyvesant’s slaves. Both in that neighborhood and in New Amsterdam

101

Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Kort begrijp van d’excessen en hoochschadelijck versuijm’, no. 43 (27 January 1650; DRCHNY 1: 335), ‘Antwoort opde remonstrantie overgelevert bijde gecommitteerde van Nieu Nederlandt’, no. 43 (31 January 1650; DRCHNY 1: 343), ‘Cort bericht ofte antwoorde op eenige poincten’ (29 November 1650; DRCHNY 1: 425); NYSA, NYCM 4: 271 (27 September 1646; NYHM 4: 342), 10–1: 296 (28 December 1662), 10–2: 429 (8 December 1663), 416–417 (6 December 1663); Goodfriend, ‘Black Families in New Netherland’, 149–151; Jacobs, ‘“Te fourneeren nae de loffelijcke costumen der Stadt Amsterdam”’, 374–375; Hodges, Root and Branch, 12–13.

386

chapter six

in general, the blacks had considerable freedom of movement, as is apparent from diverse incidents. As a result, they could find their own marital partners, although it is likely that they had to seek the permission of their owners prior to the solemnization of marriage, in the same way that the permission of the parents or guardians was required before the marriage of a minor. In some instances the slaveowners took the marital partners into consideration. When in 1664 Jeremias van Rensselaer bought a slave from the WIC, Stuyvesant insisted that Jeremias also take over the woman with whom the black had a relationship. It is also evident that blacks in slavery had the opportunity of both having and bringing up their own children.102 In addition to freedom of movement in their personal lives, the blacks, both free and slaves, had certain legal rights. Anthony de Portugees, one of the slaves freed in 1644, lodged a complaint in 1638 against Anthony Jansz. van Salee, because the latter had injured his pig. This case indicates that the slaves not only had rights of ownership, but also that they could start legal proceedings against free persons. Other instances indicate that slaves were paid for work, and that their statements of evidence were also legally valid. But there is at least one case in 1660 in which the defendants, Englishmen James Wilky and Richard Gryn, objected to a legal statement by a slave. The New Amsterdam court thereupon ordered the plaintiff to produce credible witnesses. This incident opens the possibility that testimony by slaves was only acceptable if both parties agreed to admit it. Another right of slaves was protection against ill-treatment by their masters or others. In 1638, Gijsbert Opdijck had to make a statement about an incident with his black boy, Lourviso Barbosse, who during an argument with his master had fallen onto a knife and sustained fatal injuries. His statement showed that it had been an accident, and thus no action was taken against him. In a few cases blacks were injured in fights, and the court dealt with the matter in the same way as when slaves were not involved. An illustration of the fact that slave-owners could not inflict unlimited punishment on their slaves is provided by the request made by Pieter Cornelisz. van der Veen in 1659. He asked the burgemeester’s permission to

102 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 27 (pp. 73–74) (14 October 1664; CJVR 364–365); Goodfriend, ‘Black Families in New Netherland’, 149.

each according to his condition

387

chastise his female slave. He was granted permission, but did not make use of it.103 In cases in which blacks were charged, the courts in New Netherland showed little distinction between blacks and whites in their treatment of them. Besides a number of civil cases involving blacks, several criminal incidents occurred. Theft was the most common offence. In 1661, the ten-year-old Lijsbet Anthony, property of minister Drisius’s wife, stole some black sewant from her mistress. The New Amsterdam court sentenced her to a whipping, to be carried out by her mother in the presence of the magistrates. In instances of sodomy, too, the court displayed clemency for children. Jan Creoly in 1646 was sentenced to strangulation, after which his body was burned. Manuel Congo, the ten-year-old boy upon whom Jan Creoly had committed this abominable offence, got away with a whipping, although he was compelled to watch the execution of Jan Creoly. In the well-known case of the murder of Jan Premero in 1641, charges were brought against eight Company slaves. Lots were drawn, indicating which one of them was to be hanged. The ropes broke as the sentence was carried out, and at the request of the onlookers, who saw this as a judgment of God, pardon was granted. In the case of the black girl Lijsbet Antonissen, who had started a fire in the house of her owner, former burgemeester Marten Kregier, the court displayed equal clemency. The sentence was that she be strangled and her body burned, but although she had to undergo all the preparations for the execution of her sentence, she was granted mercy at the last moment and was returned to her owner.104 In the historiography, slavery in New Netherland is usually characterized as a relatively mild form, especially when compared with English colonies to the south, where slave labor was of major importance to the sugar and tobacco plantations. This does not alter the

103

NYSA, NYCM 4: 29 (9 December 1639; NYHM 4: 35), 53–54 (9 November 1639; NYHM 4: 66); NYMA, ODR 3, p. 60 (14 September 1660; RNA 3: 212), AMNA 1, p. 91 (10 January 1659; RNA 7: 207); Christoph, ‘The Freedmen of New Amsterdam’, 157. 104 NYMA, ODR 3, p. 212 (10 June 1661; RNA 3: 315); NYSA, NYCM 4: 262 (25 June 1646; NYHM 4: 326–328), 83 (17 January 1641; NYHM 4: 97–98), 84 (24 January 1641; NYHM 4: 98–99), 85 (24 January 1641; NYHM 4: 100), 10–3: 1 (3 January 1664), 31–32 (4 February 1664), 43 (5 February 1664), 44 (8 February 1664), 45–46 (9 February 1664); Jacobs, ‘Van Angola naar Manhattan’.

388

chapter six

fact that blacks, either free or slaves, were at the bottom of the social ladder in New Netherland and had little chance of improving their situations. The blacks’ low status compared with that of the whites is apparent from the fact that being compelled to work with the Company slaves was also occasionally handed down as a punishment for whites who had committed a felony. Slaves were also employed as executioners, a job that was generally seen as dishonorable and repugnant. Furthermore, sexual contact with slaves was forbidden, as is apparent from an ordinance of 1638, and in the same year Sergeant Nicolaes Coorn was demoted to the rank of common soldier for this offence. Although they were treated equally in court cases, examples show that the blacks were looked down upon. Michaëlius described a few female Angolan slaves as ‘thievish, lazy, and unseemly raggety people’. Jeremias van Rensselaer displayed no less disdain when in making mention of a situation in 1664 he said that as little attention was paid to his words ‘as if my neeger [Negro] had said it’.105 Even when blacks had become free they still found themselves at the bottom of colonial society. Although they could support themselves by farming their own land, their lack of financial means, education and training prevented them from bettering their position. In many ways, they were worse off than the contract workers and farm laborers. No blacks are listed among the burghers, nor were free blacks included in the burgher guard.106 Slavery in New Netherland may have been of a mild nature, but the status of blacks, slave or not, was low.

The Periphery of the Colonial Community: Indians The relations of the colonists with the Indians, the third category in this section, were of a completely different nature. The result of the

105 NYSA, NYCM 8: 831–832 (15 April 1658), 829 (12 April 1658), 9: 780 (8 September 1661), 4: 85 (24 January 1641; NYHM 4: 100), 2–3 (22 April 1638; NYHM 4: 3–4), 27–28 (2 December 1638; NYHM 4: 33–34), 31 (3 February 1639; NYHM 4: 37); MCR, 12; NYMA, ODR 3, p. 428 (31 January 1662; RNA 4: 24), ORCC 5, p. 95 (31 October 1665; RNA 5: 310); Spierenburg, The Spectacle of Suffering, chapter 2; Eekhof, Michaëlius, 123 (NNN, 129); NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 24 (pp. 67–68) (25 April 1664; CJVR 353). 106 Cf. Higginbotham, In the Matter of Color, 108.

each according to his condition

389

colonists’ strong, locally bound community spirit was that the Indians were not seen as members of the colonial society. They were outsiders, who visited the Dutch settlements regularly, especially Fort Orange and Beverwijck, and with whom trade was carried out.107 Some aspects of the relations of the colonists with the Indians have already been examined in previous chapters, such as the regulations concerning the trade in fur, weapons, and alcohol, and the attempts at proselytization. Many of the contacts between colonists and Indians involved land agreements, negotiations, and peace treaties. These are ‘foreign’ policy agreements, to which regular judicial procedure did not apply. Since my focus is on the way in which Dutch-Indian interaction was subject to Roman-Dutch law as applied by the colonists, only cases in which Indians were employed by the colonists, in which their testimony was relevant, or in which individual Indians contravened the colonists’ law, are relevant here. Most of the contacts between the Dutch and the Indians stemmed from the fur trade, which prompted the illegal sale of alcohol and arms. It is apparent from diverse examples that the Indians were of service to the colonists in different ways in exchange for payment. The instructions for Krijn Fredericksz. contained the suggestion to employ the Indians to help the construction of Fort Amsterdam. They were to receive a salary equal to half that of the colonists. Whether Fredericksz. followed the instruction is unknown. A later example shows that eight Esopus Indians assisted Thomas Chambers in Wiltwijck in bringing in the maize crops. As payment they received a large bottle of brandy, which Chambers was prepared to hand over only after nightfall, both to keep the Indians laboring until the work was finished and to be able to furnish them with this illegal payment under the cover of darkness. That night the Indians, in a state of drunkenness, were attacked by a number of soldiers, sparking off the First Esopus War. It is possible that Indians helped at harvest time on other occasions as well, but the sources are mostly silent on this. Indians were also used as couriers. In general, letters within New Netherland were sent by ship, but in the event of urgent news an Indian was dispatched overland on foot, as when Wiltwijck was besieged by the Esopus Indians in October 1659. Indians were

107

Venema, Beverwijck, 41–44.

390

chapter six

used regularly as couriers for the correspondence between director general and council in New Amsterdam and the director of New Amstel, Jacob Alrichs. In the winter, when the river was frozen over, it was customary to send an Indian at least once on the overland trip between Beverwijck and New Amsterdam to deliver letters. This practice was continued after the Dutch period. In December 1680, for example, Thomas Chambers wrote to Maria van Cortlandt, Jeremias van Rensselaer’s widow, that he had given ‘a very fit, young wildt’ among other things a duffel coat to deliver a letter.108 In both the instances mentioned above, Thomas Chambers paid in kind, in 1659 in the form of alcohol, in 1680 in textiles. Other colonists were not so prompt in paying. In September 1648 the director general and council promulgated an ordinance in which the colonists were warned that if they had Indians working for them they should pay them properly. Defaulting on payment was ‘against all public law’, but a second argument was also used in the motivation for the ordinance: the ‘Indianen threaten, if they are not satisfied and paid, to pay themselves or to revenge themselves with other improper means’. Just as in the prohibition of the sale of alcohol and weapons, the importance of good relations with the Indians played a significant role. The ordinance specified that colonists could be ordered to pay by the courts, ‘on the representation and complaint of wilden, who for good reasons in this case will be given credence’.109 This is an interesting wording that suggests that in other instances Indians may not have been accepted as legal witnesses. Two notarial statements throw some light on this. On 9 March 1645 Ponkes, a Marechkawick Indian, appeared before Cornelis van Tienhoven, who as secretary of the colony fulfilled the position of notary. Ponkes gave a statement in relation to the burning down of the house of Jochem Pietersz. Kuijter during the recent war. On the face of it, it appears as if Ponkes is making the statement and the others present

108 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 151–152 (DRNN, 140); NYSA, NYCM 13: 46 (1 October 1659; DRCHNY 13: 119–121), 43 (3 October 1659; DRCHNY 13: 119), 18: 34 (16 September 1657; DP, 111–112); NYSL, VRMP, box 7, folder 375 (1 December 1680; Van Laer, Correspondence of Maria van Rensselaer, 44); Dunn, The Mohicans and their Land, 141. 109 NYSA, NYCM 4: 417 (28 September 1648; NYHM 4: 566–567), 16–1: 17 (28 September 1648; LWA, 19–20); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 14 (28 September 1648; RNA 1: 11).

each according to his condition

391

are only translators and witnesses to the notarial document. This would imply that the notarial testimony of an Indian was valid in law. However, further reading reveals that Jan Evertsz. Bout, Frederick Lubbertsz., and Cors Pietersz. are in fact making the statement. They explain that they have heard the Indian’s account. Ponkes therefore did not sign the act.110 Another incident, thirty-five years later, suggests a different situation. On 23 June 1670, three Katskill Indians appeared before notary Adriaen Jansz. van Ilpendam in Albany to make a statement about an incident at the house of Jan Hendricksz. Bruyn. The substance of the statement is here of no importance, but all three Indians, Mamanichtack, Teffenechki, and Memechtiemach, authenticated the statement with a mark. Joris Christoffelsz., who acted as interpreter, also signed the testimony.111 There are very few instances of notarial statements involving Indians being used as evidence in court cases, and although these two examples are quite different, they are not sufficient to suggest an actual change of practice over the course of the seventeenth century. Additionally, there are no general laws or ordinances on the admissibility of Indian testimony. It is therefore interesting to examine how Indians were looked upon in cases in the smaller courts of law, and to the extent to which their testimony was legally valid. In various cases the courts came into contact with the Indians. For the most part, the Indians were victims of unlawful actions of colonists. If a colonist was the accused party, the question whether the court was qualified to pronounce sentence was relatively simple, and the only concern was whether the evidence of Indians was admissible. Matters were more complicated if an Indian committed an offence within what the colonial government considered its area of jurisdiction.112 First the cases in which charges were brought against colonists. On 28 October 1638 Cors Pietersz. was summoned for assaulting and robbing an Indian. The charge was based on a complaint made by the Indians and the testimony of two colonists. Both Sivert Cant

110 NYSA, NYCM 2: 142d (7 March 1645; NYHM 2: 297), 142f (9 March 1645; NYHM 2: 298). 111 ACHR, ‘Notarial Papers I 1660–1676’, p. 500 (23 June 1670; ERA 3: 315). On Van Ilpendam, see Merwick, Death of a Notary. 112 This section has benefited from extensive discussion with Martha Shattuck.

392

chapter six

and Frederick Lubbertsz. were heard by the court, and on the basis of their evidence Cors Pietersz. was sentenced. The Indian did not give evidence, but the stolen goods were returned to him. This is the pattern repeated in many instances. Indians could draw the attention of the fiscael or schout to an incident, but their statements were accepted as admissible evidence only in specific instances, for example, in cases in which alcohol had been sold to them. An ordinance of 1654 required that drunken Indians be locked up until they revealed the names of the people who had supplied them with the alcohol. Such a revelation was considered to be admissible evidence. The stipulation was repeated at the time of the problems with the fur trade in the early 1660s. An interesting point mentioned here is that the suspect can be obliged to deny his guilt under oath, even when the Indians did not swear an oath. An oath sworn by nonChristians and dishonorable people was not valid. It is probable that the Indians were implicitly placed in these categories, which would explain the exceptions laid down in this ordinance.113 The sale of alcohol was a constant problem, and in 1662 the director general and council even went so far that they empowered Oratam and Mattano, two sachems of the Hackensack, to seize the brandy brought into their country for sale as well as those offering to sell it and report them here, to be punished as an example to others.114

Although this did not go so far as to give the Indians the right to try colonists, it does indicate how the separation of geographical jurisdictions was perceived. Two months after this authorization it appeared that the onus of proof was difficult in such cases. Jacob Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven was caught trying to transport alcohol to the ‘Nevesing, a pl[ace] whereabouts no Christians are residing, and only wilde barbaren [wild barbarians], but a lack of evidence meant that the case did not result in a conviction.115

113 NYSA, NYCM 4: 24 (28 October and 5 November 1638; NYHM 4: 29–30), 5: 343–344 (28 August 1654; NYHM 5: 173), 16–1: 55–56 (28 August 1654; LWA, 47–48), 10–1: 187 (5 August 1662; LO, 425–426). 114 NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 95 (30 March 1662; DRCHNY 13: 218–219). 115 NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 125 (4 May 1662), 134 (11 May 1662), 138 (25 May 1662).

each according to his condition

393

Incidences of theft and assault were regular occurrences. Manslaughter or murder were less common, and in general attracted severe penalties. When in 1660 colonists killed three Indians on the South River, Stuyvesant dispatched Fiscael Nicasius de Sille to investigate the matter. He also empowered a number of men, both WIC officials and magistrates from New Amstel and New Amsterdam, to try the case. De Sille was given the explicit order to ensure that a few sachems were present both at the trial and the execution. This was obviously intended to prevent matters from escalating into a war. The same occurred in an incident in Albany in 1678, but here some interesting differences feature, to some extent emanating from the introduction of the English system of justice. On 16 May 1678 Willem Teller shot and killed an Indian woman. The court appointed a jury of twelve men for the trial. In the presence of three Mahican sachems, Teller and a few Indian witnesses were heard. From their statements it appeared that it was an unfortunate accident. Since the Mahican sachems were convinced that the woman’s death was not intentional, Teller was acquitted, although he was placed under temporary house arrest. For safety’s sake, the magistrates in Albany informed the governor in New York. After confirmation arrived from New York that the case had been dealt with correctly, the house arrest was lifted. Nonetheless, Teller was obliged to pay damages of fifty guilders in sewant to the Mahican sachems, as a form of ritual compensation by which the court demonstrated its observance of Indian customs. It was, of course, of great importance that the Indians were given satisfaction. But the incident also shows that the testimony of the Indians was accepted as evidence.116 Second, the cases in which the Indians were the offenders. Although numerous incidents can be found in which drunken Indians caused trouble, virtually no cases occurred in which the court pronounced sentence. In a small number of cases Indians were arrested and locked up to sleep off their drunkenness, but even when the incident involved fighting, the magistrates were principally interested in discovering who had supplied the alcohol.117 In serious cases, such 116

NYSA, NYCM 9: 107–108 (1 March 1660; DRCHNY 12: 295), 109–112 (1 March 1660; DRCHNY 12: 296); ACHR, ‘Proceedings of the Commissioners or Magistrates, 1676–1680’ pp. 330–336 (16–29 May 1678; CMARS 2: 324–327); Lustig, The Imperial Executive, 88–89. 117 E.g. ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, pp. 296–297 (12–13 October 1656; FOCM, 254–255).

394

chapter six

as murder and manslaughter, the provincial government had virtually no means at its disposal for dealing with offenders in a way it considered appropriate. Sometimes a request was made for the handing over of an Indian, but even when the Indians were not prepared to jeopardize the peace, they rarely acceded to such a request. Noncompliance with requests for extradition was one of the causes of Kieft’s war in the 1640s. In later years, this sort of problem was generally solved by means of negotiation. At least one incident occurred in which the court at Albany had to take action. In February 1673, two northern Indians, Kaelkompte and Keketamae, were sentenced to death by a jury of twelve men for killing an English soldier. Just as in the incident involving Willem Teller, the court in Albany had made contact with the authorities in New York, who required that befor the Tryall Notice bee given to as many of the Indyans both Sachems & others, as conveniently can bee made acquainted therewth to bee present & see the Proceedings of ye Court against the Murderders, where the Sachems are to bee treated wth all Civility, & also that the said Indyans bee at the Place of Execution.118

It is hazardous to draw any far-reaching conclusions on the basis of these few examples. Nonetheless, a gradual shift came about in the colonists’ attitude, resulting finally in the acceptance of Indian statements and the extension of the jurisdiction of local courts over Indians. The extent to which this shift is a result of the transition from Dutch to English administration remains a question. Another form of contact between the colonists and the Indians lay in the sphere of sex. In his Historisch Verhael, Nicolaes van Wassenaer displayed his interest in the sexual mores of the Indians. He established, probably on the basis of accounts given by people who had returned from the colony, that chastity could be found among the Indians, but that some women were more casual. A number of reports confirm that sexual relations between Europeans and Indians were a regular occurrence. Predikant Megapolensis stated:

118 Paltsits, Minutes of the Executive Council 1: 155–157; ACHR, ‘Court minutes. City & County of Albany Clerk’s Office 1668. 1672’, pp. 333–335 (14 February 1673; CMARS 1: 327–328); BGE, 523 (28 January 1672/3 old style); Dunn, The Mohicans and their Land, 151; Jacobs, ‘“Te fourneeren nae de loffelijcke costumen der Stadt Amsterdam”’, 373.

each according to his condition

395

The women are exceedingly inclined to whoring; they will be bedfellows for the value of one, two, or three schellingen [shillings], and our Dutchmen debauch themselves very much with the whores.119

David Pietersz. de Vries heard from a sachem that several children among the Indians had been fathered by colonists. And during negotiations in Beverwijck in 1659 the Mohawks demanded that white men who carried on a relationship with an Indian woman should provide gifts to her family on her death.120 Sexual relations between whites and Indians were a regular phenomenon, then, virtually always between a white man and an Indian woman. Nothing indicates that the opposite ever took place in the Dutch period. The fact that these relationships occurred does not of course imply that they were generally accepted. Kiliaen van Rensselaer warned Arent van Curler: And above all be careful not to mix with the heidense off wilde vrouwen [heathen or Indian women], for such things are a great abomination to the Lord God and kill the souls of the Christians when they debauch with themselves. Therefore work and move in the council that an ordinance be issued imposing severe fines and punishment on those who are found guilty of it.121

In 1638, sex with heathens, whether they be blacks or Indians, was forbidden, and several convictions followed. It was not only the salvation of the soul that was at risk, but also honor. In a court case in 1641 Jan Jansz. Damen stated that Jan Platneus was ‘a perjurer and incompetent to give any testimony, because he has committed adultery with wildinnen [Indian women]’.122 Both the convictions and the remark made by Jan Jansz. Damen date from around 1640. Expressions of disapproval are also found in later years, but these had no legal implications. Van der Donck wrote of Cornelis van Tienhoven that he

119

Megapolensis, ‘Kort ontwerp’, 46 (NNN, 174). Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, fol. 146v (February 1624; NNN, 72), fol. 44v (April 1625; NNN, 81); De Vries, Korte Historiael, 267 (NNN, 231); ACHR, CMFO 1658–1659, p. 173 (6 September 1659; FOCM, 454). 121 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 112 (13 May 1639; VRBM, 442). 122 NYSA, NYCM 4: 3 (22 April 1638; NYHM 4: 4), 27–28 (2 December 1638; NYHM 4: 33–34), 37–38 (7 April 1639; NYHM 4: 43–44), 102 (3 October 1641; NYHM 4: 122); cf. Hauptmann and Knapp, ‘Dutch-Aboriginal Interaction in New Netherland and Formosa’, 172. 120

396

chapter six has run about the same as a wilt [Indian], with a little cloth and a small patch in front, from lust after the whores to whom he has always been mightily inclined, and with whom he has so much to do.123

In another instance, Evert Tesselaer declared that his brother-in-law and business partner Jacob van Leeuwen had committed adultery with a ‘certain wildinne [Indian woman] being of beautiful build’. Jacob van Leeuwen was a merchant who in the 1650s traveled regularly to New Netherland, while his wife, Clara Schaeff, was left behind in patria. Tesselaer made the statement in Amsterdam at the request of Clara, who may have been gathering evidence for a divorce.124 It is probable that the scarcity of women played a role in the extent of sexual interaction with the Indians. But this was not true in every individual case. Arent van Curler was married to a Dutch woman, but despite Kiliaen van Rensselaer’s warning had a child by a Mohawk woman, possibly conceived prior to his marriage. Cornelis Teunisz. van Slijck also had children by a Mohawk woman. One of them, Hilletie, grew up with the Mohawks, married a colonist, Pieter Daniëlsz. van Olinda, and subsequently lived in Schenectady for a long time. She acted as an interpreter between Indians and whites, but was viewed with contempt by both. The repugnance and disdain that writers such as Van der Donck, Megapolensis, and De Rasière displayed for the Indians surfaced in only a single occasion in the court records of New Netherland, and it did not concern the treatment of Indians, but colonists calling one another Indian and Indian dog.125 Some colonists developed good personal relations with the Indians. Arent van Curler was on good terms with both the Mohawks and the Mahicans. He acted as an intermediary in purchases of land and in diplomatic negotiations, and his death by drowning in Lake Champlain was mourned greatly by both the Dutch and the Mohawks.126 While Van Curler attained a prominent position in both societies,

123

Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 39 (NNN, 340). GAA, NA, inv. no. 1711, p. 521 (6 March 1659). 125 Wilcoxen, ‘Arent van Curler’s Children’; ACHR, ‘Proceedings of the Commissioners or Magistrates, 1676–1680’ p. 31 (4 April 1676; CMARS 2: 86); Burke, Mohawk Frontier, 148–149; NYMA, ODR 2, pp. 183–184 (18 February 1658; RNA 2: 332). 126 Van Laer, ‘Documents Relating to Arent van Curler’s Death’. 124

each according to his condition

397

several others overstepped the boundaries between both nations. In 1660, director general and council asked the directors in Amsterdam to have arrested ‘a certain person, commonly called Jacob mijn vrient [my friend]’ of whom it was understood that he wanted to return to Holland via Virginia. He had some years ago fled from here with sums of money given to him by several people to go to the South River to trade with the wilden [Indians], has since that time lived for years as a wilt [Indian] among the mincquaesse wilden [Minquas Indians], married a wildin [Indian woman] or used her as concubine and procreated several children with her, [has] by his flight and sojourn among the wilden, caused much damage, diversion of trade and troubles to the Honorable Company and the inhabitants here.127

The motive for his arrest was not that Jacob had consorted with the Indians, but because of the embezzlement. Another one who sought salvation with the Indians was Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert. Towards the end of 1647 he was accused of sodomy with Tobias, a young Company slave, and took refuge with the Indians, where Hans Vos, gerechtsbode of Rensselaerswijck, tracked him down. In an attempt to defend himself, Van den Bogaert set fire to one of the Indian houses, and the food supply for the winter, together with a quantity of sewant and beaver pelts, went up in smoke. The Indians demanded payment of damages, and Van den Bogaert’s garden in New Amsterdam was sold to defray the costs. Van den Bogaert himself died when, in a second attempt at flight, he went through the ice of the North River and drowned. Both Jacob mijn vrient and Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert had specific reasons for leaving the colonial society and joining the Indians. There may have been more such incidents about which no information is available.128 Finally, the few instances of Indian slavery deserve our attention. During Kieft’s war, a number of Indians were captured. Some of them were killed in a bestial manner, but in April 1644 a captive was given to two Company soldiers who were returning to the Dutch

127 NYSA, NYCM 13: 116, pp. 19–20 (25 June 1660; DRCHNY 12: 317); Jennings, ‘Jacob Young’. 128 NYSA, NYCM 4: 360 (8 February 1648; NYHM 4: 480–481), 3: 39d and e (8 July 1649; NYHM 3: 110–112); NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 2: 7a (21 December 1647; Guide, no. 462), 2: 7b (28 March 1648; Guide, 463); NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 1 (47–52) (17 February 1650; MCR, 105).

398

chapter six

Republic. In September 1644 these soldiers, Pieter Ebel and Pieter Cock, entered into a contract with Harmanus Meijer to display the ‘wilde Indiaen named Jaques given to them by the governor there’ at fairs in patria. The notary reminded them that it was not permitted to keep ‘in these United [Nether]lands any slaves or serfs’. The references to Jaques are tantalizing, especially considering the engraving Wenceslaus Hollar made of ‘Unus American ex Virginia’ in 1645. As ‘Virginia’ was regularly used to indicate New Netherland, and as Hollar spent some time in the Netherlands in these years, there is a distinct possibility that the depicted Indian is in fact Jaques.129 Both soldiers later returned to America, where they settled. Nineteen years later Pieter Ebel acted as an interpreter in negotiations with the Wappinger Indians and the Esopus Indians. Apparently the Indians did not regard the incident in 1644 as making him an unacceptable interpreter, although they may not have connected him with the incident. Yet the gift of a prisoner of war to soldiers did not go unchallenged. The Eight Men complained to the Amsterdam chamber: The captured wilde, who could have been of great service to us as good guides, have been given to the soldiers as presents, and allowed to go to Holland; the others [have been sent off ] to the Bermudas as a present to the English governor.130

The objections thus were on practical grounds, and not on a matter of principle. Later, during the First Esopus War, a number of Indians were taken prisoners and transported as slaves to Curaçao. Their return could be used as a bargaining instrument in the negotiations, but it is not certain it was used this way.131 Although on two occasions Indians were made slaves and treated as such outside New Netherland, indications of Indian slavery within the colony are few. Scarcely any incidence of adult Indians as slaves occurred in the Dutch period, although a single reference exists to the sale in 1665 of an Indian, the twenty-four-year-old Boston-born

129

Personal communication of Paul Otto, George Fox University, May 2004. Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt’, letter Q (28 October 1644; DRCHNY 1: 210). 131 Breeden-Raedt C 3; GAA, NA, inv. no. 1781, p. 166 (1 September 1644); NYSA, NYCM 10–2: 393 (21 November 1663; DRCHNY 13: 304), 117, p. 10 (12 July 1660; DRCHNY 13: 179), 9: 264–265 (25 May 1660; DRCHNY 13: 169), 317 (29 June 1660; DRCHNY 13: 178); Gehring and Schiltkamp, Curacao Papers, 420 (8 May 1660). 130

each according to his condition

399

Thomas Senequam, who was owned by William Newman. Indian slavery became more prevalent later in the seventeenth century.132 Indian children are sometimes found in the sources in the Dutch period, but the question remains whether they were slaves. It is possible that they were raised within a colonist’s family in an attempt to convert them. In the inventory of the insolvent estate of Willem Quick the last item is ‘1 wilt [Indian] child’.133 Much later, in 1683, a baker’s bill made out to Maria van Cortlandt in Albany reveals that she regularly had her bread collected by ‘het klijne wildinnetie [the little Indian girl]’.134 However, such references are so scarce that it is safe to assume that Indian slavery occurred only rarely, if at all. In summary, the relations with the Indians were of a fundamentally different character from those with the non-Christian groups such as the Jews and the blacks. The essential difference was that the Indians were not part of the colonial society. In the trade with and the employment of Indians some degree of respect is evident in the ordinances on problems with alcohol, weapons, and the payment of salaries. The correct treatment of the Indians was laid down explicitly, although of course this does not mean that it was always adhered to. In diplomatic negotiations, the principal objective was to prevent friction and war, which rendered circumspection and a little willingness to please necessary. The conduct of proceedings in the courts displays the same, but it is clear that Indians were not really treated as equals. The specifications concerning the depositions and the furnishing of proof are demonstrations of this. On the other hand, it is evident that the colonists’ attitude changed in the course of the seventeenth century. The inequality is also apparent from the general condemnation of colonists engaging in sexual relations with Indians. Although the incidence of Indian slavery was extremely rare and was mainly the result of wars, its existence also indicates the low status of Indians in European eyes.

Conclusion The social stratification in New Amsterdam was dynamic to a great extent and developed at high tempo, such as can be expected in a 132 NYMA, ODR 4, pp. 563–565 (25 March 1665; RNA 5: 203–205); Kross, The Evolution of an American Town, 91–92. 133 NYSA, NYCM 4: 96 (20 June 1641; NYHM 4: 114). 134 NYSL, VRMP, box 24, folder 2 (10 January 1683).

400

chapter six

society with a rapid growth in population as the result of immigration. The analysis of the various taxation and loan lists shows that from the early 1650s the merchants occupied an important position. Their importance increased in the years that followed, as they took advantage of the rapidly growing economy. To a great extent, they controlled the New Amsterdam city government, but it was not a closed group. The opportunity continued to exist for new immigrants to climb to the administrative summit, provided they were sufficiently wealthy. Moreover the correlation between affluence and the holding of governmental functions was not absolute. The city magistrates contained a slightly larger number of less wealthy merchants. A few craftsmen were also able to build up a reasonable amount of capital. Beneath them was a large group of, for example, independent craftsmen, notaries, and surgeons. Laborers, farm hands, and soldiers are not included in these lists. An impression of their financial position is provided by the analysis of their salaries, in which it is evident that distinction was made according to their age and experience. The size of this group remains unclear. The rapid growth of the population of New Netherland provided excellent opportunities for social betterment, not only for merchants, but also for farm hands and soldiers. The opportunities for the latecomers were to be found rather in the small towns and villages than in New Amsterdam. Yet the colony offered many a chance to rise to a level that some would probably never have attained had they remained in the Dutch Republic. Of course, status is not determined only by wealth. Holding positions in government is also an indication of one’s status. Completing a term of office as schepen was seen as an honorable duty, although not everyone accepted the appointment with great eagerness. The benches of schepenen emphasized their authority with visible signs, both within and outside their meeting places. Contempt of legal authority was punished by fines. Another way in which status was expressed within colonial society was via burgher right and the associated burgher guard. The first indications of burgher right surfaced a couple of years after the WIC had relinquished the monopoly on the fur trade. Until 1657, the form of this burgher right, with its associated rights and duties, was broadly speaking modeled on that in the Dutch Republic. In addition to legal advantages, such as exemption from posing bail, burgher right was also of importance as a requirement for the independent practice of a craft or trade. The 1657 changes functioned

each according to his condition

401

as a weapon in the attempts of the New Amsterdam merchants to rid themselves of the itinerant, ‘Scotch’, merchants. The adoption of a system of great and small burgher right straight from Amsterdam is indicative of the extent to which the colonial society fell back on customs from the fatherland to create order and structure in its burgeoning society. All of the above applies to the white Christian colonists, in which virtually no distinction was made between, for example, members of the Dutch Reformed Church or Lutherans. In this context, religion played a role only to a limited extent. Lutherans were formally excluded from government, although exceptions were possible. The situation was completely different for the peripheral groups. The Jews were accepted by the colonial officials only under pressure from the directors in Amsterdam, who thwarted the attempts made by the director general and council to withhold from the Jews rights that they enjoyed in Amsterdam. The burgher guard remained inaccessible to Jews, although they were shown some consideration in other matters. For blacks in New Netherland the situation was not as bad as in some other colonies; however, they were low on the social ladder. Opportunities were available for them to obtain their freedom, in which in the 1640’s the variant of ‘half freedom’ is exceptional. Both slaves and free blacks had some rights, and to a great extent the courts dealt with them as equals to the whites. However, their opportunities for social betterment were remote. Blacks had little prestige in colonial society. The situation was different for Indians. They did not form any part of colonial society at all. Their status in legal cases was minimal, although in the course of the seventeenth century some improvement is noticeable. It is true that measures were taken to avoid problems that could escalate into war, but this was of influence at a collective rather than individual level. Naturally the colonial society in New Netherland displayed differences from that of the Dutch Republic. The rapid growth of the population and all the consequences thereof, the permissibility of slavery, and the presence of Indians are results of the colonial situation. But these aspects are not unique to North America and were prevalent to the same extent in other Dutch colonies.

CHAPTER SEVEN

‘IN SUCH A FAR DISTANT COUNTRY, SEPARATED FROM ALL THE FRIENDS’1

The culture that the colonists took with them from the Dutch Republic to New Netherland manifests itself not only in the administrative and legal system, the structure of ecclesiastical life, the method in which the economy of the colony was ordered, or the way in which burgher right and burgher guard were used as the expressions of differences in status. Similarities and differences between colony and motherland can also be examined in daily life. The colonists lived and ate in New Netherland, children were born, people died, arguments escalated into fights, sometimes with fatal consequences, and on holy days festivities occurred, as the colonists engaged in leisure activities.

Material Culture In 1929 Helen W. Reynolds published her book Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley before 1776. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, at that time governor of New York State, wrote its introduction, at the author’s request. Roosevelt was conscious of his Dutch background, and he was proud of it. He had already written an essay about the lives of his ancestors in New Amsterdam during his studies at Harvard. At his inauguration as President, he swore the oath on the Dutch Statenbijbel [States Bible] that had been in the possession of his family for centuries. And he was a member of the Holland Society of New York, which subsidized the publication of Reynolds’ book.2 In his introduction, Roosevelt stated:

1

NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 15 (pp. 49–50) (11 May 1663; CJVR 322). Both the essay and the bible are on display in the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library and Museum, Hyde Park, NY. Rhoads, ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dutch Colonial Architecture’; Voorhees, The Holland Society, 80; Freidel, ‘The Dutchness of the Roosevelts’. 2

404

chapter seven We are prone to think of our forebears as living ideal lives of rural comfort in large houses of many rooms, with high ceilings and abundantly furnished, but one fact that stands out clearly in the text and in the illustrations of this book is that the mode of life of the first settlers of New Netherland and of their immediate descendants was extremely simple, a statement which is true not only of the smaller landowners but of many of the patentees of large grants. From high to low their lives were the lives of pioneers, lives of hardship, of privation and often of danger. Roads were few and rough, household belongings modest, and the dwelling that contained more than four rooms was an exception.3

The achievements of the settlers, founders of the new America, were emphasized and exaggerated, and increasing the difficulty of the colonial circumstances heightened their status. It raises the question whether the living conditions in New Netherland were really much worse than, for example, those of the simple farm laborers in seventeenth-century Drenthe, not exactly the richest area in the Dutch Republic, or even the more prosperous but still rural province of Zeeland, from where Roosevelt’s ancestors are supposed to have originated. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether Roosevelt’s statement about ‘the first settlers of New Netherland’ was in fact justified by the content of Reynolds’ book. Most of the houses Reynolds described date from the eighteenth century. Few seventeenth-century houses remained in the 1920s, when her book was published, and of those the majority were built after 1675. In addition, her descriptions are to a large extent of farmhouses built in stone or brick. Few wooden houses have been preserved. On the whole, little is left of buildings from the New Netherland period. The two most important exceptions are the stone Bronck House dating from about 1663 in Coxsackie, now a small museum, and the wooden Wyckoff House in Brooklyn, believed to have been built between 1638 and 1641. The evidence for such an early year of construction is not entirely convincing, but if it is correct the Wyckoff House would be the oldest house in New York State and possibly in the entire United States.4 In the early years of New Netherland, dwellings were primitive.

3

Reynolds, Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley, v. Cohen, The Dutch-American Farm, 48, 51; Hammond, ‘An Historical Analysis of the Bronck House’; Wagman, ‘The Rise of Pieter Claessen Wyckoff ’, 5; Dilliard, Old Dutch Houses of Brooklyn, no. 2; Bailey, Prerevolutionary Dutch Houses, 88–91, pl. 23. 4

‘in

such a far distant country’

405

In 1624, a number of families lived on the ships until the first houses were built.5 A description in 1650 by Cornelis van Tienhoven provides a detailed picture of the first dwellings: People who in the beginning do not have means to build farm-houses as required, in New Netherland and especially in New England dig a square pit in the ground like a cellar, six to seven feet deep, as long and as broad as they think fit, [and] cover the earth inside with timber against the wall, and cover the timber with bark of trees or something else against the caving in of the earth, put over the cellar beams and woodwork to form a ceiling, put a roof of spruces on it, and cover the spruces with bark and green sods, so that the people can live dry and warm for two, three, or four years in such cellars, with their families, as in the same cellars rooms are partitioned off depending on the size of the family.6

This form of habitation did not last long. In 1626 Van Wassenaer still reported houses made from the bark of trees, but two years later Michaëlius wrote that new houses were built ‘in place of the shacks and hovels in which they [the colonists] heretofore nestled rather than lived’. In later decades new colonists may continue to have started with simple dugout houses if they were unable to buy existing houses. Such dugout houses are similar to the plaggenhutten [literally: sod houses] that were used in Drenthe as late as the nineteenth century.7 The houses in New Netherland had to be winter proof, which made it necessary to construct better accommodations than covered dugouts. A number of contracts for the construction of houses built in New Netherland in the 1640s have survived. Some houses were built of stone or brick imported as ship’s ballast, right from the early years of the colony, but most of the contracts are for wooden houses. In a few cases it was specified that the builders themselves had to go into the forest to cut the pinewood. Using these contracts, Henk Zantkuyl made a reconstruction of three types of houses in New Netherland: one, two, and three-aisle houses. He concluded that

5

GAA, NA, inv. no. 441, fol. 155 (30 July 1627). Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.30A ‘Bedenckinge over het aenvaerden vande landerijen in Nieu Nederlant’ (4 March 1650; DRCHNY 1: 368). Also in Wieder, De stichting van New York, 54–55, note 2. 7 Van Wassenaer, Historisch verhael, November 1626, 38 (NNN, 83); Eekhof, Michaëlius, 103, 110. 6

406

chapter seven

these houses were principally rural structures and that they were similar to wooden houses in the province of North Holland, particularly those in the Waterland area, from where some of the colonists originated.8 In both the Waterland and the New Netherland houses, timber frame construction was used, in which the frame of beams, often Hshaped, was surrounded with planks known as clapborden [clapboards]. The planks, constructed on a stone or brick footing, overlapped to ensure the adequate drainage of water. The length of the houses varied according to the number of aisles from thirty to sixty feet (8.25 to 16.5 meters, based on an Amsterdam voet [foot] of eleven duim [inches] of 2.5 centimeters). The width of the rooms was from eighteen to twenty-four feet (4.95 to 6.60 meters). Such dimensions meant that generally the houses had only two rooms, plus an attic, used for storage. Cellars are rarely mentioned in the construction contracts. In one or more of the rooms, or in a side aisle in the case of multi-aisle houses, bedsteden [box beds, beds partitioned off from the rest of the room by paneling] were built. In the house built in Midwout for predikant Polhemius, a special room, perhaps intended as study, was partitioned off for the minister. With its length of sixty to sixty-five feet and width of twenty-eight feet this house was quite sizable, because it also had to function as the temporary church. The flue was generally situated in the middle of the house, but in the early period the chimneys were made of wood, while the roofs were thatched. Some houses had no chimney at all, with the smoke escaping through a hole in the roof. The costs of building a house, which took up to eight weeks, generally amounted to several hundred guilders, and in some instances the contracts included the stipulation that the builder had to be provided with food and drink.9 Wooden houses, thatched roofs, and wooden chimneys implied a considerable risk of fire. As the density of the housing in New Amsterdam and Beverwijck increased, so did the danger that a fire in one house would spread to others and start a general conflagration.

8 Zantkuyl, ‘Reconstructie van enkele Nederlandse huizen in Nieuw-Nederland’; Zantkuyl, ‘The Netherlands Town House’; Zantkuyl, ‘Hollandse huizen, gebouwd in de 17de eeuw in Amerika’. 9 NYSA, NYCM 3: 36 (30 May 1649; NYHM 3: 103–104), 5: 457 (17 December 1654; NYHM 5: 215).

‘in

such a far distant country’

407

This prompted the provincial government to issue a number of ordinances. Early in 1648 it was reported that fire had broken out in two houses in New Amsterdam because the chimneys had not been kept properly swept. Three fire masters were appointed to inspect the chimneys. A fine of three guilders per chimney could be imposed in cases of badly maintained chimneys. The proceeds were to be spent on fire buckets and ladders. At the same time, the construction of wooden chimneys was forbidden. After the Peach War, the director general and council decided in 1656 that the farms in the hamlets were to be built close to each other for mutual defense. They also forbade the construction of thatched roofs in new houses. More stringent measures were adopted in New Amsterdam. On 15 December 1657 an ordinance was issued that all thatched roofs had to be removed forthwith, with the severe penalty of a fifty-guilder fine for noncompliance. However, measures brought in with such haste proved to be impracticable. Several months later a general deferment was announced until a sufficient supply of roof-tiles could be obtained from Holland or Beverwijck. After the period of deferment had expired, the inhabitants still did not make haste to remove the thatched roofs. In August 1658 the burgemeesters instructed the schout to give a final warning to anyone who had not yet renewed his roof, but he returned several days later to report that the people had just laughed at him. The derision did little to hinder the gradual changeover to stone or brick construction in New Amsterdam and Beverwijck. In less densely populated settlements, this process probably took place less quickly.10 Although the changeover to stone and brick houses began in New Amsterdam and Beverwijck, little is left of the Dutch colonial architecture in these places, due to the fires in New York at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, as well as the development of both places into major modern cities. In other places, such as in the stockade parts of Schenectady and Kingston,

10 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 10–11 (28 January 1648; LWA, 12), 16 (28 September 1648; LWA, 19), 2 (15 December 1657; LWA, 5), 123–124 (16 December 1657; LWA, 90), 6: 228 (18 January 1656; CM 1655–1656, 186), 8: 833 (16 April 1658); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 285 (12 August 1658; RNA 2: 419), p. 292 (27 August 1658; RNA 2: 424), ODR 1, p. 6 (23 January 1648; RNA 1: 5), AMNA 1, p. 62 (18 April 1658; RNA 7: 184). For similar measures for the settlement at Fort Zeelandia on Taiwan, see Zandvliet, Mapping for Money, 140.

408

chapter seven

a number of old houses can still be seen, but the majority date from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Besides these, many eighteenth-century houses and barns spread around the states of New York and New Jersey show traces of Dutch architecture.11 Yet these eighteenth-century houses are not similar to contemporary Dutch buildings and are evidence of a divergence of style. The construction contracts of houses built in New Netherland prior to 1664 show that building practices were still closely modeled on Dutch origins. Later houses, built by people who had been born in the colony and who had no personal experience of the architecture of the Dutch Republic, were usually imitations of existing houses in the colony, thus sprouting regional variations. In some instances locally available building materials were used, such as stone and various types of brick and timber, but this did not lead directly to a change in the essential characteristics of the houses. A change did not come about until the middle of the eighteenth century. Progressively, English examples were adopted, creating the blend of styles that David Cohen has labeled as Dutch-American. However, the changes were such that few modern Dutchmen would identify the old houses along the Hudson and in New Jersey as typically Dutch.12 In several instances houses are listed in inventories, which were drawn up at the time of the death of the owners. This was done to protect the rights of minors who were legatees, or to assess the value of the property so that the creditors could be paid their claim before the estate was divided. The inventories thus provide information on the furnishings and goods to be found in the houses in New Netherland, but the number of inventories from the Dutch period is not large. Furthermore, the inventories are quite diverse in size. Several inventories were drawn up for farmhands and sailors, whose possessions consisted of a chest containing some clothing and, in some instances, a little merchandise. Eight inventories are those of established colonists.

11 Burrows and Wallace, Gotham, 241–242, 596–598; Blackburn, ‘Dutch Domestic Architecture in the Hudson Valley’, 163; Dunn and Bennett, Dutch Architecture near Albany; Cohen, The Dutch-American Farm; Stayton, Dutch by Design; Eberlein, The Manors and Historic Homes of the Hudson Valley; Embury, Building the Dutch Colonial House; Fitchen, The New World Dutch Barn; Meeske, The Hudson Valley Dutch and Their Houses; Blackburn, Dutch Colonial Homes in America. 12 Cohen, The Dutch-American Farm, chapter 2, in particular 38; Cohen, ‘DutchAmerican Farming’.

‘in

such a far distant country’

409

Three extensive inventories list clothing, household effects, and books. These are of the estates of Jonas Bronck (1643), Jan Jansz. Damen (1651), and Gijsbert van Imbroch (1665).13 With this small number of inventories, extensive statistical processing from which far-reaching conclusions can be drawn is impossible. Also, in only a few instances is the value of goods listed. Nonetheless, a number of conclusions can be drawn from the furniture, clothing, tableware, ornaments, and books described in the early inventories, in combination with information from other sources and from archaeological excavations.14 First, the items that are rarely or never mentioned in the inventories. Papers of value, such as shares or bonds do not appear in the New Netherlands inventories. In exceptional cases a list contained outstanding debts. Houses are usually included. For example, the inventory of the possessions of Jonas Bronck includes his stone house roofed with tiles. But in the case of Jan Jansz. Damen the house that he had built three years before his death is not included. Neither is his land, while it is certain that he owned land on Manhattan. An exception is the inventory of merchant Barent van Wely, brother of the predikant Everardus Welius who died in New Netherland in 1659, in which his land on the South River is included. However, Barent van Wely died in Amsterdam, and his inventory was drawn up in that city, so it says little about New Netherland inventories. No explanation is available for the absence of details about the possession of land in inventories.15 Silver money is rarely mentioned in New Netherland inventories, nor in other North American colonies. One of the exceptions occurred when the possessions of Vrouwtje Ides and Jacob Stoffelsz. were listed after the death of the former to determine their children’s inheritance. The estate included a sum of about 185 guilders in coins, mostly gouden Jacobussen [golden Jacobs], Hollandse schellingen [Dutch shillings], and rijksdaalders [rix-dollars, worth two-and-a-half guilders]. They also had an amount of sewant in the house, of which

13 Bronck: NYSA, NYCM 2: 54 (6 May 1643; NYHM 2: 121–125); Damen: NYSA, NYCM 3: 87d and e (3 July 1651; NYHM 3: 267–276); Van Imbroch: UCHR, ‘Liber A’, pp. 95–106 (1 September 1665; KP 2: 566–570); Jacobs, ‘Fortuin in de Nieuwe Wereld’. 14 Piwonka, ‘New York Colonial Inventories’, 63, 81; Wilcoxen, ‘Household Artifacts of New Netherland’. 15 GAA, NA, inv. no. 3613, pp. 237–243 (1 March 1667).

410

chapter seven

the value was not specified. Coins appear relatively infrequent in the inventories, while occasionally some money in sewant and beavers was included. Virtually no mention is made of money in the inventories of the less well to do, and even in the case of the not impecunious Jonas Bronck, no sum of cash appears in the inventory.16 Gold, silver, and jewelry on the other hand feature regularly in the inventories. In the majority of cases it involves golden jewelry and silver spoons or other cutlery. Probably, most of the rings listed were wedding rings. After Daniël van Krieckenbeeck was killed by Indians in 1626, Secretary Isaac de Rasière sent his ring to the directors in Amsterdam to be passed on to his wife. Other items of jewelry also appear in the lists, such as silver pendants with pearls or oorijzers [literally: ear irons]. In 1661, magistrate Rutger Jacobsz. in Beverwijck gave as collateral against a debt a number of objects, including three gold rings, a gold chain, a golden pin, two pairs of gold oorstricken [ear ornaments], a pair of halve manen [literally: crescents], fourteen silver spoons, two silver beakers, a silver dish, and a silver salt-cellar. Gold and silver objects had come without exception from the Dutch Republic, since it was only after 1664 that a goldsmith worked in the colony. The correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer shows that orders were placed regularly for jewelry. For example, in 1660 Jeremias asked for gold oorijzers for Margaretha van Slichtenhorst, wife of Philip Pietersz. Schuyler. Six beaver pelts were sent over in payment. Some years later Jeremias also ordered gold oorijzers for his own wife. A silver chalice for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the Beverwijck church was also ordered in the Dutch Republic in 1660. At the end of the seventeenth century objects in precious metals began to be made in America, and these followed the Dutch style for many years.17

16

NYHM 1: 323, 327 (15 April 1641). Wieder, De stichting van New York, 178 (DRNN, 248); ACHR, ‘Notarial Papers 1, 1660–1676’, pp. 164–165 (14 September 1661; ERA 3: 116–117); NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 3 (11–12) (25 August 1660; CJVR 231–232), folder 57 (137–138) (25 August 1671; CJVR 440); Blackburn and Piwonka, Remembrance of Patria, 55, 274–293; Dilliard, Album of New Netherland, 63–67; Blackburn, ‘Dutch Material Culture: Silversmiths’. Jeuriaen Blanck, who at the baptism of one of his children was described as a ‘goldsmith’, was already in the colony in 1643, but no evidence exists that he actually practiced his craft. His son, also called Jeuriaen, was a silversmith and some of the earliest known silver objects made in New York were from his hand. 17

‘in

such a far distant country’

411

Because of their small size, items of jewelry were easy for colonists to take with them from the Dutch Republic. Furniture was a completely different matter. Often, chairs and tables were sold prior to going to New Netherland, or given to someone in the Dutch Republic to look after. It was even an indication of impending departure, as in the case of Abraham Geens, of whom witnesses told a notary that he must have been on the point of departing, since he had already sold his furniture. In most cases household furniture was made in the colony, probably by carpenters or by the colonists themselves, since few cabinet-makers were present among the craftsmen in the colony. In the early years chests were used as chairs or tables. A document concerning an incident of manslaughter in 1631 reveals that the victim grabbed a knife from a chest from which they were eating; in this instance the chest was serving the purpose of a table. Such details come to light only now and then. Some scarce references to furniture can be found in correspondence. In 1661, Jeremias van Rensselaer took delivery of, among other things, eight Spanish chairs, a mirror, a leedekant [bed], and a kassie [small cupboard] from the Dutch Republic. The chairs had been ordered on the account of the patroonship and were intended for sessions of the court of Rensselaerswijck. According to Jeremias, they had previously sat upon pinewood benches.18 Little furniture that was in the colony prior to 1664 remains. The collection of the Albany Institute of History and Art and that of the Museum of the City of New York contain chairs, tables, cupboards, and chests, but these date from the late seventeenth century and the eighteenth century. That is not surprising as chairs and tables are included in only a few inventories. Jonas Bronck’s inventory contains an extending table and two mirrors, one with an ebony frame,

18 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1695, unnumbered (28 April 1651), inv. no. 1838, pp. 218–219 (9 May 1653), inv. no. 1788, p. 45 (23 January 1651), inv. no. 1839, p. 835 (23 February 1655), inv. no. 2192, p. 421 (5 April 1652), inv. no. 306, fol. 123v/119v (24 February 1632); NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 3 (15–16) (14 September 1660; CJVR 238); CJVR 266, n. 580. I have only encountered a few furniture makers, among whom the chair maker Frederick Aertsz.: GAA, NA, inv. no. 1360, fol. 117v (11 December 1659); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 513 (16 March 1660; RNA 3: 147), ODR 3, p. 288 (27 September 1663; RNA 3: 363). It is possible that Lodewijck Pos, who is called a kistemaecker [chest maker] was also a furniture maker: NYMA, ‘Burgomasters and Schepens’ 1, not paginated (28 April 1655; ‘Powers of Attorney’, 178).

412

chapter seven

the other with a gilded frame. Aeltje Jans possessed, among other things, three old chairs and an old mirror. In the inventory of Jan Jansz. Damen six green doeskin cushions are listed, but these were in the front room, while only three old chairs standing in the barn connected to the house were listed. His other furniture consisted of a single small table. Surgeon Gijsbert van Imbroch, whose inventory is very extensive, owned but a few items of furniture: two benches, seven chairs, a barber’s chair, and a square table, while a round table also appeared at the auction of his goods. The proceeds from the sale of his furniture amounted to thirty-six guilders and thirty stivers, while the total value of the goods sold was more than 2,500 guilders in sewant. Few chairs and tables were available in New Netherland, and they were of little value. In this, the colony was no different from the Dutch Republic.19 Other furniture was more common. Chests in particular can be found in virtually all inventories. These were used to transport goods during the transatlantic crossing and, once in the colony, served as storage space and as seating and tables. When the chests are listed in the inventories, a summary was generally made of their contents. However, relatively little is known about the chests themselves. Sometimes it is stated whether they were large or small, and occasionally what color they were. The majority of them were made of wood, although there may have been a few iron chests, serving as strongboxes. Cupboards seldom appear, for the same reason that few chairs and tables occur. In the 1646 inventory of the property of Aeltje Jans an etens tresoor [sideboard] is listed. In 1661 in New Amsterdam a difference of opinion arose over the price of a chest, probably made by Frederick Aertsz. However, these are exceptions. Later in the seventeenth century and the eighteenth century, chests were made that in their style resembled those in the Dutch Republic, although the type of wood used and their construction were generally different.20

19 Blackburn and Piwonka, Remembrance of Patria, 164–167, 174–175, 179–180; Dilliard, Album of New Netherland; Blackburn, ‘Dutch Material Culture: Furniture’; NYSA, NYCM 2: 151h (2 November 1646; NYHM 2: 358–360); Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Achter de gevels van Delft, 189. On the other hand, Van Koolbergen reports of Weesp that every household had at least one table, six chairs and a few cupboards. Van Koolbergen, ‘De materiële cultuur van Weesp’, 15. 20 NYSA, NYCM 2: 151h (2 November 1646; NYHM 2: 358–360); NYMA, ODR

‘in

such a far distant country’

413

Beds appear seldom in the inventories, since people usually slept in box beds which appear in the lists rarely, as they were unmovable goods. If a bed is mentioned in an inventory, this usually refers to a mattress, and these appear regularly. The mattress in the meager possessions of Hans Nelisz. was filled with straw, but this is a rare specification. In Jan Jansz. Damen’s large front room stood an old half bed with a bolster, a whole bed with a bolster, four pillows, two green blankets, a white woolen blanket, and two white sheets, as well as a chamber pot. The box bed was not listed in the inventory, but the construction contract shows that one was present in the front room. Bedclothes can be found in almost all inventories. The exceptions to this are the few lists of possessions of the itinerant merchants. This is not surprising, since these people did not have their own accommodation in New Netherland but had to rent rooms. In the insolvent estate of Willem Quick, a mattress, a pillow, three blankets, five sheets, and two pillowcases are listed. That was the full extent of his bedclothes. In a few cases, curtains were also listed along with the bedclothes, sometimes with the specification that this referred to box-bed curtains. Curtains for windows are not mentioned.21 Apart from bedclothes, other textile goods also occur in the inventories. Towels, handkerchiefs, tablecloths, serviettes, and nappies appear in the lists, but table linen is not usually to be found in the estates of the less well off. Additionally, other textile piece goods measured in yards are to be found in various estates. This concerned cloth that was destined either to be made into clothing or to be traded with the Indians. By far the majority of textiles mentioned in the estates was in the form of clothing. Little clothing appears in the inventories of poor colonists; if it did, it was in many cases worn out. The estate of Willem Quick and Anna Metfoort included four skirts, three shirts, six undershirts, three aprons, and two pairs of stockings. Most of it was women’s clothing. While Anna Metfoort kept the clothes in which she was clad, making the inventory incomplete, it is nonetheless notable that no man’s clothing is mentioned.

3, p. 288 (27 September 1663; RNA 3: 363); Volk, ‘The Dutch Kast and the American Kas’; Denton, ‘The American Kas’; Blackburn and Piwonka, Remembrance of Patria, 178–179, 257–271; Kenney, Safford and Vincent, American Kasten. 21 Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Achter de gevels van Delft, 182; NYSA, NYCM 2: 93a (18 December 1643; NYHM 2: 185), 4: 96 (20 June 1641; NYHM 4: 114–115).

414

chapter seven

Probably Willem Quick owned little more clothing than that in which he was buried. Luxurious items of apparel made of more expensive material in colors other than black or brown are to be found only in the inventories of prosperous colonists. Jan Jansz. Damen owned a new crimson waistcoat, a suit made of colored bombazine, a colored doeskin suit with piping, and a red nightcap. In the case of Gijsbert van Imbroch some clothing also indicates prosperity, such as a leather jacket with silver and golden braiding, silk stockings, and a velvet cap. Shoes appear in almost all inventories, but the eighty pairs of men’s shoes that Jacob Jacobsz. Roy kept in a chest were without doubt intended for commercial purposes. In the colony’s early years, shoes were imported from the Dutch Republic, mostly to order. Anna van Rensselaer wrote to her sons in the colony: ‘If you again order shoes, write me what kind of leather you want, for I cannot dream that’.22 The fur used in clothing in New Netherland was obtained from the trade with the Indians. The estate of Vrouwtje Ides and Jacob Stoffelsz. contained a fur hat with a beaver lining. Gijsbert van Imbroch was the possessor of two Indian nightcaps, probably made of fur.23 In addition to clothing, tableware, such as pewter plates, bowls, and beakers, is the most prominent category of goods in the inventories. The estate of Vrouwtje Ides and Jacob Stoffelsz. contained ten plates, one jug, one dish, two beakers, four funnels, one small goblet, one mug, and one mustard pot, all made of pewter. Wooden plates are rare. Pewter tableware was more common in the estates of wealthy colonists, but there also is earthenware. This was often the red, lead-glazed variety, and occasionally majolica, which is often found during excavations. China is seldom found in the inventories. A rare exception was Jonas Bronck who owned a chest containing various pieces of china. He also had six alabaster saucers, equally exceptional. Normal kitchenware, such as kettles and pans, was mostly made of copper, iron, or bronze. Cutlery is found less frequently than crockery. Spoons are regularly included, the majority of which was of pewter. Forks were extremely rare, and do not appear in the inventories. The only man known to have possessed forks was Jeremias

22

NYSL, VRMP, box 48, I, folder 7 (March 1655; CJVR 17). NYSA, NYCM 4: 96 (20 June 1646; NYHM 4: 113–115); NYHM 1: 325 (15 April 1641). 23

‘in

such a far distant country’

415

van Rensselaer who, when he went to the colony in 1654, took with him fourteen pairs of knives and forks, possibly for trading purposes. Knives feature in a few inventories, but it is likely that more than those listed were present. It was common for men to carry a knife with them, both for defensive purposes and to eat with. Glassware is encountered regularly in excavations, but is relatively rarely found in the inventories. Most of it consisted of beer glasses, roemers [rummers; green wineglasses with a wide top part], and bottles.24 The inventories provide little information on the daily victuals that filled the pewter plates. The few inventories that list stocks of grain originate from farms, and it may be assumed that part of the grain was intended either for trade or for sowing. The meager estate of Hans Nelisz. contained a barrel of bacon fat and in the case of Jan Reijersz. we find some butter and maize meal.25 Up to approximately 1635, the colony did not yield sufficient victuals to meet the needs of all the colonists, which contradicts the abundance of the land depicted in the glowing reports aimed at attracting new colonists. Predikant Jonas Michaëlius complained in 1628 that ‘food here is scanty and poor’. The hard fare consisted of ‘beans and gray peas, which are hard enough, barley, stockfish etc. without much change’.26 The minister may have been used to a better standard of living, but such fare was normal for the lower classes in the Dutch Republic. Stockfish, for example, was regularly eaten by the poor in the Dutch Republic. Butter and milk were scarce in the colony. After the hard early years, the major proportion of the daily fare was produced in the colony itself. Detailed information can be gleaned from the instructions in 1654 to the Company’s jailer. He was allocated twelve stivers per day for the provisions for the ordinary prisoners, and for this he was to provide them with the standard Company rations: ‘1 1/2 lbs of meat, 3/4 lb of bacon, 1 lb of fish, 1 gill of oil, 1 gill of vinegar’ together with soup and sufficient bread.27 Another

24 NYHM 1: 325 (15 April 1641); Wilcoxen, ‘Household Artifacts in New Netherland’, 122, 125; Huey, ‘Archeological Excavations in the Site of Fort Orange’, 74; Wilcoxen, Dutch Trade and Ceramics; Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Achter de gevels van Delft, 238. 25 NYSA, NYCM 2: 93 (18 December 1643; NYHM 2: 185); ACHR, ‘A Deeds 1 1656–1678’, p. 193 (28 July 1665; FOR 1656–1678, 125). 26 Eekhof, Michaëlius, 101, 109, 124, 136 (NNN, 131). 27 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 50 (20 August 1654; LWA, 45).

416

chapter seven

outline of the rations was given three years later, and refers to the early years of New Amstel. Because of the shortage of food, Director Jacob Alrichs had been compelled to impose strict rationing on the colonists. Schoolmaster Evert Pietersz. complained that all that they were given per week was: seven pound of bread, five pound of meat, two cups of barley, one cup of peas, one pound of stockfish; a child [gets] half rations; one mutse [2.15 oz] oil, half a pint of vinegar, and those who daily work in the forest cannot get by on that, as a result of which a great grumbling has arisen.28

The city-colony of New Amstel in its first few years encountered the same problems as Manhattan in the 1620s, although Director Jacob Alrichs tried to import sufficient supplies. No alcoholic drinks occur in most of the descriptions of food. Alcohol, in the form of weak beer can be found, however, in the instructions of the jailer of New Amsterdam. Although the prisoners were put on bread and water, they were supplied with: three pounds of beef, one-and-a-half pounds of bacon, one loaf of bread a week, in the summer two cans of small beer, and in the winter one can of small beer a day, pottage, and dairy produce as is fitting.29

In the main, the rations in New Netherland correspond with what is known of the menus of orphanages and other institutions in the Dutch Republic, although it is possible that a little more meat was included in those of the colony, due to the easy availability of venison. At the same time it is evident that the rations pertain only to the food of soldiers, prisoners, and new colonists. Wealthy colonists had a richer and more varied diet. The correspondence of Jeremias and Maria van Rensselaer includes references to oysters, sugar cakes, and oranges, for instance. One point on which New Netherland differed from the Dutch Republic was the adoption of an Indian dish, sappaen. This was a pap of maize meal and water or milk, which continued to be a regular component of the diet after the Dutch period. For the rest, the Dutch carried on cooking their meals

28 NBTS, GASL, AC, box 1, no. 16 (12 August 1657; ER 1: 402; Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 1: 262). 29 NYMA, ODR 2, p. 148 (7 January 1658; RNA 2: 296).

‘in

such a far distant country’

417

in the way they had learned in the Dutch Republic. The collection of the Historic Hudson Valley in Tarrytown holds a cookbook that may have been used in New Netherland, De verstandige kock, [The Sensible Cook], part of the collection entitled Het vermakelycke landt-leven [The Pleasurable Country Life]. It was intended for a well to do public, and was first published in 1668, although the copy in Tarrytown that was owned by the Van Cortlandt family is a later edition from 1683.30 De verstandige kock is an exception. Cookbooks do not appear in the inventories from the period prior to 1664, although other books do, albeit in limited numbers. All these books had been imported from the Dutch Republic, as New York’s first printer, William Bradford, did not begin his activities until 1693, and in his first year printed one small work in Dutch. Of the early inventories only five contain references to books. In three of these the number of books is limited, and the books’ titles are not mentioned. A total of three books, without further specification, are referred to in the estate of Willem Quick. Jacob Roy possessed only two old books, plus a pocket book, probably a notebook or an almanac. Jan Jansz. Damen left a folio Bible, an old quarto Bible, and a chronicle. Jonas Bronck and Gijsbert van Imbroch, however, had substantial libraries. Bronck had a total of fifty-six books, including a ‘party of eighteen old small books, printed, by various authors, both German and Danish’ and ‘seventeen written books that are old’. Titles of the other twenty-one books are known. The majority of these were religious works, some of Lutheran, some of Calvinistic origin. The explanation for this is that the Lutheran Bronck was married to the Calvinist Teuntje Jeuriaens. His library contained a Lutheran Bible, book of psalms, ecclesiastical history, and a catechism next to Calvinistic works: a folio Bible, the ‘Institutie calvinus in folia’ [ John Calvin’s Institutio Christianæ Religionis], Heinrich Bullinger’s Huysboeck [House Book, a collection of fifty sermons], and the ‘Schultetus dominicalien’ [Idea concionum dominicalium, ad populum Haidelbergensem habitarum of Abrahamus Scultetus]. Bronck also possessed a few general works on religion and a small

30 Burema, De voeding in Nederland, 112–116; Jobse-van Putten, Eenvoudig maar voedzaam; Groenveld, Dekker and Willemse, Wezen en boefjes, 161–172; Rose, ‘Proeve van verandering’, 204–206; Van der Molen-Willebrands, ‘De verstandige kock of sorghvuldige huyshoudster’; Rose, The Sensible Cook, introduction.

418

chapter seven

number of works on navigation such as a Seespigel, [probably the Zeespiegel, inhoudende een korte onderwysinghe inde konst der zeevaert, en beschryvinghe der see’n en kusten van de oostersche, noordsche en westersche schipvaert by Willem Jansz. Blaeu], a cosmography, and a few helmsman’s handbooks, which were relics of his time as a captain. Lastly, he had a children’s book, a book on the law, a calendar, and a chronicle, all four in Danish.31 Gijsbert van Imbroch’s background is also reflected in the books in his possession. He was a surgeon from Aachen, and his library contained various anatomical and medical works by Christoph Wirtsung, Ambrosius Paré, Johannes de Vigo, and Nicolaes Tulp. He also had an extensive collection of schoolbooks, dozens of copies in some instances: 102 ABC books, 27 ‘letterconsten’ [Arts of Letters, writing manuals], 19 large ‘corte begrypen’ [Short Understanding], 20 small ‘corte begrypen’, and 9 ‘trappen der jeught’ [Steps of Youth]. Among the schoolbooks were also the 83 ‘written and printed histories of Tobias’, and ‘100 catechisms’. It suggests that he also acted as schoolmaster. Remarkable in Van Imbroch’s collection is a rare ‘handbook of the Catholic faith in High German’. Besides these, he also owned various other religious books, including works by Jean Taffin, Albertus Huttenus, Johan Sarcharson, Jacobus Borstius, and one ‘korte manier [Short Way] van Megapolensis’, the lost catechism of the New Amsterdam predikant. Lastly, some historical works were mentioned in Van Imbroch’s inventory, such as Van Meteren’s Historie [History], a Dutch translation of Livy, Commelin’s Frederick Hendrick, and Richard Baker’s Chronyck van het leven en bedrijf van al de koninghen van Engelandt [Chronicle of the Lives and Works of all the Kings of England ].32 If Van Imbroch had purchased all these works for his own reading, his interest would have been wide. At least some of them, in any event the schoolbooks, were intended to be sold. Even so, he had an extensive library, furnished with both books related to his profession and a good selection of religious and general books. In the cases of other colonists their total literary collections are an unknown quantity, but some indications exist. The correspondence

31 NYHM 3: 264 (26 June 1651; original missing); NYSA, NYCM 4: 96 (20 June 1641; NYHM 4: 115), 2: 54 (6 May 1643; NYHM 2: 121–122); Edelman, The Dutch Language Press in America, 20; Frijhoff, Wegen, 596–597. 32 UCHR, ‘Liber A’, pp. 95–106 (1 September 1665; KP 2: 566–570).

‘in

such a far distant country’

419

and accounts of Jeremias van Rensselaer show that he regularly ordered books from the Dutch Republic, sometimes for trading purposes. In 1654 he bought Commelin’s biography of Frederik Hendrik, Hooft’s biography of the French King Henry IV, and Vondel’s Josep (either Joseph in Egypten or Joseph in Dothan, or perhaps even both), while at a later date he also received Buyten leven op Zorgvliet, by Jacob Cats, first printed in 1658. Newspapers and prijscouranten [printed price-lists] were also available in New Netherland.33 Although secular literature was also available in the colony, the emphasis lay on religious books. In the early 1630s, Kiliaen van Rensselaer sent over a book of sermons by Scultetus, so that religious services could be maintained when no minister was present in Rensselaerswijck. He also sent eight copies of the ‘Pracktijcke der Godtsalicheyt’ [The Practice of Godliness] for the families in his colony. This was possibly De practycke ofte oeffeninghe der godtsaligheydt by Lewis Bayly in the 1633 or 1620 edition, or Voetius’s Meditatie van de ware practijcke der godtsalicheydt of 1628. In 1660, when Blom and Selijns were called to Wiltwijck and Breuckelen, the Company sent a number of ‘psalters, prayer books, and verse books to be used in the education of the congregation’.34 When Jeremias van Rensselaer joined the church in 1660, he asked his mother to send him a book of psalms. It had to be long and thin to fit in the pocket of his coat, and he wanted it to be furnished with gold clasps. Ten years later he also ordered a few prayer-books by Casparus Sibelius. However, his brother Rijckert was unable to obtain for him the second volume of Theologiae praxis, de ware practycque der godt-geleerdtheit [Theologiae praxis, the True Practice of Theology] by Adrianus Cocquius that he would dearly have liked to receive.35 Another category of books was the handbooks for administrators and law officials. The schout in Rensselaerswijck was provided with

33 CJVR 13 (21 July 1654); NYSL, VRMP, box 13, folder 12 (1661–1663), box 48, III, folder 17 (22 April 1659; CJVR 149), box 49, folder 54 (20 January 1664; CJVR 347); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 65 (23 April 1634; VRBM, 274); NYHS, Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers 2: 5 (12 August 1647; Guide, no. 460). 34 NYSA, NYCM 13: 81 (29 March 1660; DRCHNY 13: 155). 35 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 17 (20 July 1632; VRBM, 208), fol. 107v (12 May 1638; VRBM, 418); NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 3 (pp. 11–12) (8 June 1660; CJVR 231), folder 55 (pp. 133–134) (26 October 1670; CJVR 430), folder 59 (pp. 141–142) (25 August 1671; CJVR 442), folder 68 (pp. 159–160) (3 July 1674; CJVR 467), box 49, folder 64 (21 March 1671; CJVR 435).

420

chapter seven

a notary’s book and a copy of Joost de Damhouder’s Practycke in criminele saecken [Practice in Criminal Matters]. Commies Arent van Curler was sent by Kiliaen van Rensselaer De Groot’s Inleydinge tot de hollandtsche regts-geleertheyt [Introduction to Dutch Law], probably the same copy that was later discovered among the papers of Brant van Slichtenhorst. A book, imported from the Dutch Republic, with examples of legal acts was used in New Amstel.36 In November 1674, various Dutch books were present in the city hall of New York: one book in folio entitled: Placards, Ordinances, and Charters of the Hon. Great and Mighty Lords States of Holland and West-Friesland, one ditto Placards, Ordinances of the Lords States General, one ditto Handbook of Imperial and Civil Laws, one ditto Byelaws of Amsterdam, three ditto in quarto: Consultations and Opinions, first, second, and third part, one ditto Dutch Practice and Laws, one ditto Wisbuste Sea Laws.

As these books were no longer needed now that the English judicial system was used, they were given into the keeping of burgemeester Johannes van Brugh.37 In general, the inventories in the Dutch period present a sober, but recognizably Dutch picture. Many goods had to be imported from the Dutch Republic, and these were expensive. Later in the colony’s existence, specialized craftsmen immigrated, and it may be

36 NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 71v (27 April 1634; VRBM, 294), fol. 149 (18 July 1641; VRBM, 564); Beernink, Arend van Slichtenhorst, 272 (1652; MCR, 202); GAA, AB, inv. no. 541 (10 October 1658; DRCHNY 2: 54). 37 NYMA, ORCC 6, p. 519 (9 November 1674; RNA 7: 139). Possible identifications include: Hollandts placcaet-boeck: begrijpende meest alle de voornaemste placcaten, ordonnantien ende octroyen uytgegeeven by de Edd. Groot-mogende Heeren Staten, van Hollandt ende WestVrieslandt: sedert den jaere 1580. tot in den loopende jare 1645 (Amsterdam 1645); Repertorium van de placcaten, octroyen ende ordonnantien ende andere acten ende munimenten, geemaneert ende uytg. by de Hoogh-Mogende Heeren de Staten Generael der Vereenichde Nederlanden, berustende ter griffie vande gemelte Heeren Staten Generael, beginnende anno 1584 ende eyndende anno 1642 (Den Haag 1643); Handvesten, privilegien, octroyen, costumen en willekeuren der stad Amstelredam, door last van de Ed. Groot-achtbare heeren burgermeesteren en regeerders van dien met seer vele stucken en munimenten op nieuws verm. (Amsterdam 1663); Consultatien, advyzen en advertissementen, gegeven ende geschreven bij verscheiden treffelijke rechtsgeleerden in Holland (third ed., Rotterdam 1661–1670); Kornelis van Nieustad and Jacob Kooren, Hollandse praktijk in rechten: bestaande in vonnissen, observantien van oordeelen en consultatien (Rotterdam 1655); ’t Boeck der Zee-rechten, inhoudende dat hoochste ende oudste Godtlantsche Water-recht dat de gemeene Cooplieden ende Schippers geordineert ende ghemaeckt hebben tot Wisbuy (Amsterdam 1664).

‘in

such a far distant country’

421

assumed that prices then fell. Also playing a role was the fact that many of the colonists in the period up to 1664 had not had time to amass any significant fortune. Things were different for their successors in the later years of the seventeenth century, and certainly in the eighteenth century, as is witnessed by the inventories of that time.

The Course of Life On many of the occurrences that played a central role in the life of a Dutch colonist in New Netherland, such as birth, baptism, sex, wedding, marriage, death, and burial, the information available is scarce. Only when private documents, such as the correspondence of a prominent family like the Van Rensselaers, are available, can details be found. Similarly, evidence of many customs of the seventeenthcentury Dutch Republic cannot be found in New Netherland, although in many cases it may be assumed that they were also maintained in the colony. Yet there is sufficient evidence for cultural similarities. In early December of 1670, Jeremias van Rensselaer wrote in his letter book: In the year of our Savior Jesus Christ, on the 1/11 December, was born my fourth son. [On] Thursday night about two o’clock, my wife was through God’s mercy very hastily delivered, we having only with us the midwife and Maria Loockermans Pieterss. On the 4/14 December, Sunday, he has received Christian baptism and was named Joannes, after my wife’s brother Joannes deceased and after my uncle Johan van Weely, my grandfather, and my half-brother Joannes van Rensselaer deceased. His godmother, who presented him for baptism, [was] Margrita Schuylers, and his godfathers [were] his grandfather Oloff Stevens (in whose place Phlip Schuyler) and my uncle Johan van Weely, in whose place stood Gerret Swart, former schout. Who baptized him was our pastor, do[minee] Gidion Schaets. May the Lord God let him grow up in virtue, amen.38

This long quotation contains several points of interest. First, Jeremias’s wife, Maria van Cortlandt, gave birth in their own house at Watervliet. The location is less obvious than it would appear. In some instances

38

432).

NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 56 (pp. 135–136) (December 1670; CJVR

422

chapter seven

a woman, either accompanied by her husband or not, returned to the Dutch Republic for the confinement, presumably to be close to family. In 1652, Sophia van Wijckersloot married Dirck van Hamel, who several years later was to be appointed secretary of Rensselaerswijck. The couple went to the patroonship together, but in the summer of 1659 Sophia returned alone to the Dutch Republic, where in September 1659 she gave birth to her third child, very likely at the house in Utrecht of her father, Hendrick van Wijckersloot, member of the Utrecht vroedschap. In the following spring she returned to the colony, presumably in the company of her infant son Hendrick. Also in the case of Margaretha de Riemer, wife of Cornelis Steenwijck, pregnancy was probably the reason for her temporary return to the Dutch Republic. Such journeys to the motherland were the prerogative of the wealthy colonists, who could afford to make the crossing. For Maria van Cortlandt, a journey to the Dutch Republic was not an option. She was born in New Netherland, and if she had not wanted the confinement to take place in her own home, it would have been more likely that she would have gone to her parents’ house in New Amsterdam than to the Dutch Republic. However, as far as is known, she bore all her children in her own house in Rensselaerswijck.39 At the birth of Johannes van Rensselaer in 1670 only the midwife and Maria Loockermans, a relative of Maria van Cortlandt, were present. Both these women were collected by sleigh two hours earlier, at about midnight. Jeremias later wrote to his father-in-law that the ‘little fellow, thank God, [was there] so quickly that there was no time to send for our nearest neighbor’s wife’.40 Jeremias’s correspondence does not reveal who were present at the birth of his other children, but a midwife was certainly there, as midwives had been working in New Netherland since the 1630s and possibly earlier. Neighbors and female family members also came with all haste to the house, as was the custom in the Dutch Republic. Births were pre-eminently women’s affairs. At the birth of the son of Grietje Hendricks Westercamp in Wiltwijck in 1662 no fewer than seven

39 Hoffman, ‘Armory. Van Wijckersloot—Van Hamel—Vosch’; NYSL, VRMP, box 48, III, folder 25 (8 October 1659; CJVR 185–186); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1580, fol. 13 (7 February 1659). 40 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 56 (pp. 135–136) (5/15 January 1671; CJVR 432).

‘in

such a far distant country’

423

women were present. In general, the husband waited in an adjoining room. In 1662, Warnaer Wessels, who had been imprisoned because of a debt, was freed at the request of several women who declared that his wife was in labor. For Hendrick Jochemsz., innkeeper in Beverwijck, his wife’s confinement was the reason he neglected to pay duty on a barrel of beer. When summoned to the court on this matter, his excuse was accepted by the magistrates. Three days later his daughter Christina was baptized.41 Jeremias van Rensselaer named his son Johannes and gave four reasons for this choice of name. It was also the name of one of his wife’s brothers, an uncle on his mother’s side, his maternal grandfather, and finally Jeremias’s own half-brother. Jeremias had named his earlier children after other family members. The first son had been named after Jeremias’s father Kiliaen, while the second child, a daughter, was called Anna, after her paternal grandmother. The second son was given the name Hendrick. Jeremias wrote to his brotherin-law Stephanus van Cortlandt: ‘We have named him Hendrick, after my grandfather and eldest brother, deceased, as the Hendricks had quite died out of the family’.42 It all matches the customary naming pattern in the Dutch Republic and in New Netherland.43 Baptism could show a connection between the choice of name and the name of a godparent, although this was no hard and fast rule. At the baptism of Johannes, Jeremias van Rensselaer had nominated his uncle Johan van Wely as godfather, but as the latter was in the Dutch Republic, his place at the font was taken by the former schout of Rensselaerswijck, Gerrit Swart. This system of substitutes was used regularly with the baptism of children of Jeremias van Rensselaer, and in most cases the name of the child was not

41 UCHR, ‘Book 1’, p. 129 (1 November 1662; KP 1: 39–40); NYSA, NYCM 2: 114 (9 July 1644; NYHM 2: 228), 2: 115 (1 July 1644; NYHM 2: 229), 10–1: 63 (2 March 1662); BDC 1: 64 (5 March 1662); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 68 (9 December 1653; FOCM, 71); Gélis, De boom en de vrucht, 162–164, 166–167; Dekker, Van den Eerenbeemt and De Leeuw, Levensloop, cultuur en mentaliteit, 23. 42 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 17 (pp. 53–54) (27 August 1663; CJVR 326), folder 18 (pp. 55–56) (12 September 1663; CJVR 328), folder 35 (pp. 89–90) (August 1665; CJVR 380), folder 40 (pp. 103–104) (November 1667; CJVR 394). 43 Ebeling, Voor- en familienamen in Nederland, 40–45; Frijhoff, Wegen, 134–135; Tebbenhoff, ‘Tacit Rules and Hidden Family Structures’; Stryker-Rodda, ‘New Netherland Naming Systems’; Valck Lucassen, ‘Familieaantekeningen Ebbinck en Gerbade’.

424

chapter seven

that of one of the godparents. At the baptism of his first son, Kiliaen, Jeremias had chosen four godparents: his brother Jan Baptist, and his father-in-law, mother, and mother-in-law. None of these was present at the baptism. They were represented by four stand-ins, Abraham Staets, Pieter Claerbout, Margaretha Schuyler, and Anthonia van Rijswijck, respectively. At the baptism of Kiliaen it was impossible to have one of the child’s namesakes present as a godparent. Grandfather Kiliaen had already died, and no adult member of the family bore the same name. Four of Kiliaen’s sons named a son after their father. Only in the case of Rijckert van Rensselaer was it not his first, but his second son, as he named his first son after his maternal grandfather. It is not surprising that more godparents were present at the baptism of Jeremias’s first son, who was the first candidate to continue the family line, than at those of the children that followed. Furthermore, the choice of four absent godparents gave Jeremias the opportunity of strengthening his network within the community in which he lived. No register of baptisms is extant for Beverwijck, so it is unknown how this system of substitutes was recorded. Unlike Curaçao, the register of baptisms in New Amsterdam contains no explicit reference to this custom. Occasionally godparents are listed that appear in no other source for the colony and who are likely to have been elsewhere at the time of the baptism. That makes it risky in individual cases to draw any definite conclusions from the registrations of godparents about their stay in New Netherland.44 In general, the choice of godparents reflected the familial and social networks and is closely linked with religion and status. That becomes evident in the cases of schepenen and burgemeesters, who regularly appear as godparents of the children of their colleagues, who of course in many cases were also family members. Often WIC employees acted as godparents to colleagues’ children. At the baptism of Stuyvesant’s first son in 1647, the majority of godparents were members of the council. A year later, Stuyvesant asked the directors in Amsterdam to be godfathers to his second son. This strengthened

44 Rooijakkers, Rituele repertoires, 431; Ebeling, Voor- en familienamen in Nederland, 42–43; NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 17 (pp. 53–54) (27 August 1663; CJVR 326); Olthuis, De doopspraktijk der gereformeerde kerken, 199–200; De Vries, ‘De Van Rensselaers’, 203–205; GAA, ACA, inv. no. 224, pp. 27–34 (Knappert, ‘De eerste honderd jaren der Protestantsche gemeente op Curaçao’, 54–55).

‘in

such a far distant country’

425

his position in the colony in this time of conflict with the population. In this case the directors acquiesced to the director general’s request, although they wrote that previously the Amsterdam chamber had always refused such requests. The WIC directors asked to be advised of the child’s name, so that they could make an appropriate baptismal gift as soon as the Company’s financial situation permitted it. This note, as well as the remark that no precedent existed for a matter of this sort, indicates that the directors would rather have passed up on this honor, but that they did not want to disappoint their director general. In the New Amsterdam register of baptisms the Amsterdam directors are therefore listed as godfathers of Nicolaes Willem Stuyvesant, one of the cases in which it is certain that they were not present at the ceremony. However, it is not known who the substitute witnesses were. Neither is there any information whether the Amsterdam chamber fulfilled its promise of a baptismal gift. Such gifts could involve considerable sums of money. On 13 August 1673, when the colony was once more under Dutch rule, the Admiralty of Amsterdam and the States of Zeeland were godfather to the son of burgemeester Ægidius Luyck, and Cornelis Evertsen de Jongste acted as one of the witnesses. The value of the baptismal gift for Cornelis Jacob Luyck was 630 guilders, quite a large sum. The correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer contains a reference to two silver salt-cellars as baptismal gifts, certainly a valuable present. Other baptismal gifts were silver spoons, examples of which still can be found in museums.45 In New Netherland no trace can be found of special meals or other festivities to celebrate a birth or a baptism, although these very likely took place, as such customs were widespread in the Dutch Republic. Nor is much known about what went on at a baptism. The only account available of a baptismal ceremony is devoted mainly to a description of the clothing of the baptized child, which in this case was rather exceptional. The child was the illegitimate son of Arent van Curler, a married man, and Anna Schaets, the daughter of the minister in Beverwijck. The child was presented for baptism

45 Wagenaar, Galle, 48; Frijhoff, Wegen, 139; BDC 1: 23 (13 October 1647), 25 (2 December 1648), 110 (13 August 1673); De Waard, Zeeuwsche expeditie, XLV; NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 27 (pp. 73–74) (11/21 October 1664; CJVR 367); Dilliard, Album of New Netherland, 114; Blackburn and Piwonka, Remembrance of Patria, 277.

426

chapter seven

in heavy mourning clothing and bedecked with various black ribbons and bows. Stuyvesant disapproved of the attitude of the predikant toward his daughter’s behavior and deplored the schism in the congregation that resulted from it. At a recent celebration of the Lord’s Supper, half of the membership stayed away. As Stuyvesant wrote, even down in New Amsterdam, word had spread that, in place of mortification and conversion, to ‘the scandal of the holy sacrament of baptism, uncommon and before this never used ceremonies and waggery [were] carried out with a child of whoring’. Stuyvesant wrote in sarcastic tone to Vice-Director La Montagne at Fort Orange: I readily leave to anybody’s choice and approval in what kind of napkins or swaddles children are presented for baptism, [as well as] how to name them, but concerning this subject, it seems, under correction of a better judgment, that this child of whoring might better have been named Barrabas, that is frolicsome father’s son, than Benoni, child of grief.46

Stuyvesant’s personal disgust is clear, but his letter was also prompted by the fact that in the absence of a classis in New Netherland it was his duty to prevent ‘vexations and offences in [God’s] tender church in this far-away land’. Apart from reporting the presence of the black ribbons and bows, the account actually tells little about the baptismal ceremony itself. Another form of extramarital sex was prenuptial intercourse. Of the earliest 150 marriages (1639–ca. 1652) recorded in the register of marriages of New Amsterdam, the name of the first child can be found in the register of baptisms in ninety cases. In seven of these the period between the first publishing of the banns of marriage and the birth of the first child is less than 211 days, or seven months, a period on the basis of which premarital conception may be assumed. Of course this quantification entails many problems, such as the identification of the people involved and the fact that the dates in registers of marriages and baptisms are not the exact dates of the marriage and birth, but rather of the publication of banns and of baptisms. The number of incidences of premarital conception may therefore be greater than the seven that I found. Florence Koorn has carried out a comparable study for Ootmarsum in Overijssel

46

NYSA, NYCM 15: 49 (30 August 1663); Wilcoxen, ‘Arent van Curler’s Children’.

‘in

such a far distant country’

427

between 1725 and 1729. She traced the first child in 71 out of 143 marriages. In only two cases was the first child born within seven months, which indicates a lower rate of prenuptial intercourse than in New Amsterdam. Dirk-Jaap Noordam calculated for Maasland between 1670 and 1830 that 27 percent of the brides were pregnant on their wedding days, which is higher than New Amsterdam.47 Although prenuptial sex was frowned upon by some in the Dutch Republic, there are no traces of general moral outrage about it in New Netherland. Sex was generally thought permissible after a couple had become betrothed, as a token of which they gave each other a gift, such as a ring or a handkerchief. It was a different matter if, after intercourse had occurred, the promises of marriage appeared to have been insincere and a child had been conceived, whose father did not wish to marry the mother. A number of women in New Netherland entered into legal proceedings to compel the father to marry, or at least contribute to the cost of the upbringing of the child. The demand for marriage was in most instances intended to emphasize that the child had been born of a steady relationship, rather than adulterous fornication. Actual marriage was rarely the real intention, as the couple’s relations were already strained. In many cases, the woman succeeded in obtaining financial and honorary compensation, especially if the man admitted paternity. For example, Geertruijt Wijngaerts, who in 1660 had come to New Amsterdam as a maidservant, a year later bore the child of Geleyn Verplanck, the son of a merchant and a minor. The liaison between him and Geertruijt was clearly a relationship between two socially unequal persons. Geleyn was not inclined to marry Geertruijt, and claimed that he had not made any promise of marriage. But he admitted that the child was his. The court in New Amsterdam sentenced him to pay four hundred guilders, half in beavers, half sewant, for the deflowering and the costs of the confinement. He was also to pay maintenance, one guilder per week until the child was twelve years old.48

47

Koorn, ‘Illegitimiteit en eergevoel’, 87; Noordam, Leven in Maasland, 162. Koorn, ‘Illegitimiteit en eergevoel’, 77–78; Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland, 70–73, 75–82, 88; Van der Heijden, Huwelijk in Holland; GAA, NA, inv. no. 2487, p. 297 (31 March 1660); NYMA, ODR 3, p. 186 (10 May 1661; RNA 3: 297), p. 310 (4 October 1661; RNA 3: 377), p. 313 (11 October 1661; RNA 3: 379); BDC 1: 60 (2 March 1661). In Friesland and Zeeland there was no opportunity for maid48

428

chapter seven

The case of Grietje Hendricks Westercamp in Wiltwijck was rather more difficult. Pieter Jacobsz. would not admit that the child was his and also declared that he had made no promise of marriage. Grietje, however, claimed that intercourse with him had taken place eight days before Christmas in the mill-house of Pieter Jacobsz. and that the child had been born in mid-September. Seven women present at the birth stated that Grietje had sworn three times that Pieter was the father, but this was not considered sufficient evidence to reach a judgment. Pieter was able to prove that he was not the only one to have slept with Grietje. In addition, he contested the chronology: intercourse had taken place much earlier than Grietje alleged, so if the child was indeed his, then she would have had to have been pregnant for thirteen months and four days, which was impossible. Ultimately, Pieter Jacobsz. was able to extract himself from the affair by swearing under oath that he was not the father of the child. However, he had to pay two hundred guilders for sleeping with Grietje. The child had in the meantime been baptized. Initially, predikant Hermannus Blom had filled in the words adhuc nescio [as yet unknown] where the name of the father was normally written. Later he changed this to Pieter Jacobsz., ‘miller of this place’. Pieter’s oath had not convinced the minister.49 A step further than the giving of presents and the exchanging of promises of marriage was the publication of the banns of marriage. Rose Joele and François Soleil had reached this stage, whereupon they had ‘conversation of the flesh with each other’. In itself this was not improper, but it was to become so when François subsequently refused to marry Rose. He defended himself before the director general and council with an unsavory mishmash of arguments: that she is not fit to have a man, because she has a bad breath, and also because she has agreed to marry someone else in the West Indies,

servants to file paternity suits, while this was permissible in Holland. Thus in this New Netherland followed the legal customs of Holland, rather than Friesland and Zeeland. Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland, 89–90; Heerma van Voss, Defloratie en onderzoek naar het vaderschap, 55–60. 49 UCHR, ‘Book 1’, pp. 124–125 (17 October 1662; KP 1: 36–37), p. 129 (17 October 1662; KP 1: 39–40), p. 181 (17 October 1662; KP 1: 57–58); Kingston, Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, Church Records vol. 1, p. 25 (October 1663; Hoes, Baptismal and Marriage Registers of the Old Dutch Church of Kingston, 2); Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland, 88–93; Van Zwieten, ‘“[O]n her Woman’s troth”’.

‘in

such a far distant country’

429

and third, because they do not agree with each other, as she is very choleric, and further because she is able to let all men die who be with her, as she has a white lung.50

He therefore requested that Rose be examined by experts to determine whether or not she actually had tuberculosis. Director general and council did not acquiesce to this and put François in jail, until he decided to make the best of a bad job and agree to marry Rose. An affair such as this one, and several instances of unmarried cohabitation, in particular amongst the English on Long Island, prompted director general and council, by means of several ordinances, to underline that, once the banns had been read out three times, there must be a minimum of delay until the marriage took place. A blind eye was turned to sex before marriage, insofar as it did not give rise to problems. On the other hand, unmarried cohabitation was considered as absolutely impermissible, as it was in the Dutch Republic.51 On 12 July 1662, in New Amsterdam, Jeremias van Rensselaer married Maria van Cortlandt, the seventeen-year-old daughter of burgemeester Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt. A day later he requested his brother Jan Baptist in Amsterdam to inform their mother Anna of the event. Had they not been separated by such distance, he would not have had the nerve to marry without first asking for his mother’s prior approval of the match. But he had no doubt ‘that she would be pleased to hear of my house wife [sic] I shall still call her bride’. Jeremias did not find it fitting to sing her praises too greatly: but I thank the good Lord for having granted me such a good partner and we shall beseech him that He may let us live together long in pace and health.52

50 NYSA, NYCM 8: 87–88 (25 July 1656). As the original was partly destroyed by fire, the quotation has been supplemented with material taken from Eekhof, Hervormde kerk, 2: 119. NYSA, NYCM 8: 102 (31 July 1656). The first announcement of the banns was on 25 March 1656 (MDC ). 51 NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 40 (19 January 1654; LWA, 37; LO, 152–153), 129 (15 January 1658; LWA, 94–95; LO, 328–329), 5: 197–198 (19 January 1654; NYHM 5: 108–109), 199–200 (20 January 1654; NYHM 5: 109), 207–208 (10 February 1654; NYHM 5: 111–112), 210 (10 February 1654; NYHM 5: 112–113), 8: 647–648 (15 January 1658; LO, 328–329), 1049 (25 November 1658), 1051–1052 (25 November 1658), 1053 (25 November 1658), 1057 (30 November 1658), 1060–1061 (12 December 1658), 1063 (12 December 1658). 52 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 11 (pp. 30–40) (ca. 13 July 1662; CJVR 296–297); MDC, 27 April 1662; BDC 1: 19 (23 July 1645).

430

chapter seven

Jeremias was thirty years old, and the difference in age between him and Maria was considerable. He had been of age for quite some time, and his mother’s permission was therefore no longer a legal requirement to his marrying. Nonetheless, it is remarkable that he did not consult his family before settling on a wife. For a merchant family like the Van Rensselaers, any marriage was first and foremost an alliance with another family, in which business interests played a major and sometimes decisive role. Jeremias’s mother must have been aware that a match with a member of the Van Cortlandt family was a good move. The Van Rensselaers had had business contacts with the Van Cortlandts for quite some time, and several years earlier, through the intercession of Anna van Rensselaer, Maria’s older brother Stephanus van Cortlandt had as a young man been taken on by a merchant friend in Amsterdam to learn the business. The families had therefore known each other for a number of years, but in spite of this Jeremias’s tone was apologetic when on 19 August 1662 he wrote to his mother: I know that you must have thought it strange to hear this, fearing perhaps that in haste I had taken a foolish step, because I had not informed you of it before. This is due to my timidity, for I had been thinking of her already a year or two before, when now and then I did an errand at the Manhatans.53

Jeremias was afraid that his mother would think ‘that she is still a little young and therefore not well able to take care of a household’, but he assured her that all was going well. Alas, Anna van Rensselaer’s reaction is not extant, but she sent two silver salt-cellars as a baptism present for Jeremias’s first son, which can be interpreted as a sign of approval.54 Jeremias was very happy that the Lord God has granted me such a good spouse, with whom I can get along so well and live with peaceably in such a far distant country separated from all the friends.55

53 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 13 (pp. 43–44) (19 August 1662; CJVR 300–301), box 48, II, folder 9 (24 March 1657; CJVR 46); Kooijmans, Vriendschap, 149–150. 54 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 27 (pp. 73–74) (11 October 1664; CJVR 367). 55 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 15 (pp. 49–50) (11 May 1663; CJVR 322).

‘in

such a far distant country’

431

The emphasis on ‘in such a far distant country’ raises the question whether Jeremias, having chosen as his wife a young woman who had been born in the colony as the daughter of an established colonist, had decided to stay in New Netherland definitively. Initially this was not the case. In 1662 Jeremias wrote to his mother that, when his brother Jan Baptist returned to New Netherland in two years to take care of matters in the patroonship, he would take his wife to the Dutch Republic. That was not to be, not even when his other brother Rijckert was in Rensselaerswijck from 1664 to 1670. The problems concerning the authority over the patroonship under the administration of the English and the poor economic conditions during that period made it inopportune for Jeremias to leave the colony. In his last letter to his brother Jan Baptist in August 1674, six weeks before his death, Jeremias wrote that he still hoped to return to the Dutch Republic in the following spring. But the remark that his wife, who was pregnant once again, did not want him to leave, indicates that she would remain in America and that he would return there. By this time Jeremias clearly thought that his future lay in America.56 In the case of Jeremias, his correspondence shows that he made the choice who was to be his partner for life himself. We do not know this of other New Netherlanders. On the other hand, Jeremias wrote absolutely nothing about the details of the wedding. The little information available shows that a wedding was a good reason for festivities, unsurprisingly. But the few reports of wedding celebrations contain little more information than that food and drink was served, that in some instances quarrels occurred, that once in a while something was stolen, and that the bridesmaids present wore decorated coronets. These are all expressions of gaiety that were also prevalent in the Dutch Republic.57

56

NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 13 (pp. 43–44) (19 August 1662; CJVR 301), folder 70 (pp. 163–164) (28 August 1674; CJVR 472). 57 Van der Donck, Vertoogh, 29 (NNN, 326); NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder 27 (pp. 26–26v) (4 March 1649; MCR, 67–68); NYSA, NYCM 9: 36–37 (23 January 1660); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 361 (5 July 1655; RNA 1: 330), AMNA 1, p. 134 (20 December 1659; RNA 7: 242), ODR 3, p. 199 (21 May 1661; RNA 3: 306), ODR 4, p. 353 (8 April 1664; RNA 5: 42); ACHR, CMFO 1658–1659, p. 111 (17 December 1658; FOCM, 418); Van Boheemen and Van Haaren, ‘Ter bruiloft genodigd’.

432

chapter seven

As in the Dutch Republic, in New Netherland poems were written in honor of weddings. The nuptials of Ægidius Luyck, Rector of the Latin School in New Amsterdam, and Judith Isendoorn, were graced with two works by predikant Henricus Selijns. The first is an ode to be sung to the tune of o kersnacht [Oh Christmas night], known from the chorus of the nuns of the Order of St Clara from Vondel’s Gijsbrecht van Aemstel, a well-known play by the most prominent of Dutch seventeenth-century playwrights.58 It was an appropriate choice, for the marriage ceremony took place on 26 December 1663. In the song, Selijns makes a link between the coming of the Christ-child and the couple’s union: And as they bring this child before them, Luyck comes and marries Isendooren Standing before this Christ-like crib; And finds when her consent is shown Flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, For Judith is his second rib.

The second ode, Bruydloft Toorts [Bridal Torch], begins in sombre tones. The ‘fire of love’ has been extinguished by ‘fire of war’, and Cupid has been chased away by the Indians, who in June 1663 had created a bloodbath in Wiltwijck. His [i.e., Cupid’s] word is not yet cold, and does he not behold, Alas! House after house, with wildt [Indian] monsters posted? Child upon child burnt up? and man on man lain cold? Barn upon barn consumed? and pregnant woman roasted? They flee, each where he can, from Wiltwijck is my home.59

Selijns finds the cause of the disaster in ‘three lamentable general sins’, namely ‘lechery, drunkenness and wicked haughtiness’. As a result, Cupid has lost his bow and arrows. Ultimately he recovers them when a peace settlement is reached with the Indians, and the first thing he then does is hit Luyck and Isendoorn with his arrows of love. These are fine works of poetry, of which it is not known whether they were recited or sung at the wedding. Jacob Steendam

58 De Bruijn and Spies, Vondel vocaal, 56–57. The melody was possibly composed by Cornelis Tymensz. Padbrué: Grijp, Het Nederlandse lied in de Gouden Eeuw, 32, 303. 59 NYHS, Selijns, volume of poetry, not paginated. I have also used a microfilm in the possession of Jos van der Linde, to whom my thanks are due. Both poems can also be found, with translations, in Murphy, Anthology, 132–146.

‘in

such a far distant country’

433

too has written odes for such occasions in New Netherland, as he had done earlier for weddings at Fort Elmina. Of course poems were written for weddings in the Dutch Republic too, but Selijns’s Bruydloft Toorts differs from these through its reference to the Indians.60 Two incidents in New Netherland express public opinion concerning the sealing of marriage vows. When Philip Schoof left the church in New Amsterdam with his bride Janneke Cray, daughter of Teunis Cray, Anneke Sibout shouted ‘that they slept together and therefore did not deserve to have palm strewed’. This casual reference to the tradition of decorating the marital bed with palms and flowers was, of course, not the reason that this matter came to court. Philip felt that his good name had been seriously called into question by the insult. Before the court Anneke said that they were good friends and that her remark was merely a joke. When asked if she had anything to say about the plaintiff, she gave the standard response in cases of slander, that she could only say that he was honorable and virtuous. This was the so-called amende honorable [honorable reparation], the customary manner in which to retract an insult. And with that the case was closed.61 The second incident is, as far as is known, the only instance of charivari-like behavior in New Netherland. Pieter Jansz. Slot, son of a former schepen of Haerlem, was to be married. The banns were published on 2 February 1663. On the same day, a May pole was erected before the door of Pieter Jansz. Slot’s father’s house ‘in his honor’ by a number of young men from the town. The May pole was then festooned with pieces of old stockings, symbolizing that the bride was no longer a virgin. The bridegroom took a dim view of this scorn and mockery, and chopped the May pole down. The following day another May pole was erected, which was also chopped down. This occurrence repeated itself for a third time. The placing

60

Steendam, Distelvinck, 1: 62 (wedding of Vincent Adriaensz. Roskam and Maria Rodrigo, 24 November 1647); Steendam, Zeede-sangen voor de Batavische jonckheyt, 86 (Isaac Bedloo and Elisabeth de Potter, 1653), 88 (Pieter Jacobsz. Marius and Maria Pieters, 15 October 1655) and 91 (Lucas Andriesz. Sabijn and Eva Louwerens van der Wel, 22 October 1655). 61 NYMA, ODR 2, p. 294 (27 August 1658; RNA 2: 425); Van Boheemen and Van Haaren, ‘Ter bruiloft genodigd’, 186. Examples of this tradition in Stuiveling, Bredero’s Groot lied-boeck 1: 150 and in Jan Steen’s painting ‘De huwelijksnacht van Tobias en Sara’ [The Wedding Night of Tobias and Sara] ( Jansen, Jan Steen, 203).

434

chapter seven

of the May pole was accompanied on each occasion by the ‘music’ of kettles and pans. The father, Jan Pietersz. Slot, had alerted the schout, Jan La Montagne, but when he attempted to prevent the young villagers from assembling he was threatened with firearms and axes. Further incidents of vandalism and fights took place. What had aroused the displeasure of the youth of Haerlem is not reported, but perhaps the husband and wife-to-be had refused to provide them with kwanselbier [literally: barter beer], a customary treat for adolescents in the Dutch Republic on the occasion of an engagement. No clear references to this custom occur in New Netherland, but the context makes it a possibility.62 Marital life proved a bumpy road for some colonists. Occasionally the authorities became involved, and in almost every one of those instances the magistrates tried to restore peace and tranquility. Pieter Jansz. Metselaer, for example, was caught by his wife Trijntje Pieters in the whorehouse of Paulus Heymans. An argument ensued, and Pieter hit his wife, who then went to the director general and council and asked them to forbid her husband from ever going there again. Otherwise, so she said, she would have little pleasure with him. Pieter Jansz. was told by the director general and council that he must live, eat, drink, and sleep with his wife as was befitting an honorable husband. However, that was not the only action undertaken by the provincial government. On the same day, Paulus Heymans was warned that if he and his family did not improve their behavior, they would be sent back to the Dutch Republic.63 The moment whorehouses were at the root of marital problems or scandal, measures were taken. It was generally confined to issuing warnings. In May 1654 Cornelis van Tienhoven informed the New Amsterdam court that a certain house was the center of ‘very indecent and disgraceful things’, the terminology customarily reserved for whorehouses. The women involved were Marie de Truy, nicknamed Eenhoorn [Unicorn], wife of publican Jan Peeck, and Geertje Jacobs, also known as the Schoone Boerin [Pretty Farmer’s Wife], who was married to Geurt Coerten. It is unlikely that either woman sup-

62 NYSA, NYCM 10–2: 21–22 (5 February 1663); Riker, Revised History of Harlem, 197–198; Rooijakkers, Rituele repertoires, 326–329; Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland, 67–68. 63 NYSA, NYCM 6: 69–70 (27 July 1655; CM 1655–1656, 68–69).

‘in

such a far distant country’

435

ported herself completely from the proceeds of prostitution, but both were warned that they must improve their behavior or risk banishment from the colony. The fiscael was given instructions to keep a sharp eye on these women, something that, in view of his reputation, could well be entrusted to Cornelis van Tienhoven. Three years later Geertje Jacobs was indeed sent back to the Dutch Republic because of her bad behavior. In the case of another woman, Magdalena Dircks, alias Vliegende Engel [Flying Angel], who had also been banished, the Amsterdam directors displayed leniency. She and her husband Harmen Hendricksz. were allowed to return to New Netherland, provided that they led a quiet and honest life and no longer keep an inn.64 In general, the measures taken against whorehouses had little effect. New Netherland, and New Amsterdam in particular, had a bad reputation, according to Anna van Rensselaer. She explicitly warned the then unmarried Jeremias not to keep company with women of easy virtue, of which she thought there were many in New Netherland. It may be questioned whether New Amsterdam was much worse in prostitution than Old Amsterdam, which had a reputation as the capital of prostitution.65 The above-mentioned incident concerning Pieter Jansz. Metselaer is one of the few in which prostitution played a role in marital discord. Most cases involved simple quarrels, ending in fisticuffs, sometimes as the result of incompatibility of character. During an argument in 1656, Jacob Jansz. Stol assaulted his wife Geertruit Andries and threw pieces of burning wood at her. Even blood was drawn, but nonetheless the magistrates of Beverwijck opined that this did not fall under the ordinances concerning fighting since it had taken place between man and wife. Stol got away without even a warning. A further explanation is that Geertruit would not make a statement and that dissension was an exception in this marriage.66 That cannot be said of the squabbles between Arent Juriaensz.

64 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 227 (4 May 1654; RNA 1: 192); NYSA, NYCM 5: 253 (23 May 1654; NYHM 5: 137), 12: 80, no. 5 (20 May 1658; Corres. 1654–1658, 175), 83c (13 June 1658; Corres. 1654–1658, 185), 84 (19 June 1658; Corres. 1654–1658, 186). 65 NYSL, VRMP, box 48 I, folder 13 (5 December 1656; CJVR 37); Van de Pol, Amsterdams hoerdom, 12. 66 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 246 (1 February 1656; FOCM, 217).

436

chapter seven

Lantsman and Belitje Lodewijcks. He originated from Oldenzaal in Twente; she came from Amsterdam, and was the daughter of Lodewijck Pos, captain of the ratelwacht [rattle guard] in New Amsterdam. Arent and Belitje married in New Amsterdam in 1660. There appear to have been no problems in the early years of their marriage, and two children were born to them. However, in October 1664 Arent was arrested in his own house by Schout Pieter Tonneman. The noise of the argument with his wife had caused a nuisance to their neighbors, and the drunken Arent made matters worse by threatening the schout with a firearm. In the meantime, Belitje had fled the house with the children and gone to her parents to stay with them for several months. However, this separation had taken place without the permission of the authorities, and it is therefore not surprising that, when Arent petitioned the magistrates to order his wife to return, his words did not fall on deaf ears. In an attempt at reconciliation, the couple promised the court to behave properly. They then went home together. Three months later new trouble arose. Belitje, accompanied by her parents, came to ask the court to grant her a divorce. The magistrates did not want to acquiesce without another attempt at reconciliation, and asked the two predikanten of New Amsterdam, Megapolensis and Drisius, to mediate. The ministers were also unable to reconcile the parties. In the meantime it had become clear that Belitje’s parents-in-law were the cause of the problem. Hence the magistrates instructed Arent and Belitje to try once again to patch things up. All went well enough for a while, and in May 1666 the couple had a third child baptized. However, in March 1667 Lodewijck Pos went to court to complain that his son-in-law had struck his daughter, whereupon she had again moved in with her parents. Only then did the court agree to a temporary separation, ordering Arent to pay four guilders per week towards the upkeep of his children. After a cooling-off period of several months, Arent and Belitje decided to live together again. This was not to last, and once again the pattern of argument, leaving home, and reconciliation repeated itself.67

67 MDC, 23 April 1660; BDC 1: 63 (30 December 1661), 72 (1 February 1664), 83 (16 May 1666); NYMA, ODR 4, p. 493 (25 October 1664; RNA 5: 148), p. 565 (25 March 1665; RNA 5: 206), p. 566 (29 March 1665; RNA 5: 206–207), p. 630 (22 June 1665; RNA 5: 262), p. 631 (24 June 1665; RNA 5: 263), ORCC 5, pp. 11–12 (4 July 1665; RNA 5: 271), pp. 20–21 (11 July 1665; RNA 5: 275–276), p. 35 (25

‘in

such a far distant country’

437

A bad marriage in which the parents-in-law tried to intervene is not exceptional, and neither is the intervention of the ministers in the attempt at reconciliation, despite the fact that Arent and Belitje were not members of their church. However, the magistrates were reluctant to grant a temporary separation, not to mention a definitive divorce. For years endeavors were made to preserve the marriage and to compel the couple to live in peace and tranquility by means of extracting promises from them to do so. The restraint of the magistrates in New Netherland is no more pronounced than that of their counterparts in Holland. The New Netherland sources reveal nothing about the background to the magistrates’ attitudes, although for the Dutch Republic it has been determined that the conviction that marriage was a holy institution played an important role. Any marital difficulties were to be dealt with in acquiescence and borne patiently. That the court in New Amsterdam was not prepared to consider divorce in the case of Arent and Belitje is more understandable when compared with the sort of instance in which they did so.68 Adultery was the most prevalent and accepted ground for divorce in the Dutch Republic, and in New Netherland to an equal extent. Another reason, accepted rather less generally, was wrongful desertion. The case of John Hickes, schout of Vlissingen, was very clear. In a petition to the director general and council he stated that his wife Hardwood Longh had run away and for nine years had been living with another man, by whom she had five or six children. Director general and council did not hesitate in granting him a divorce, thus giving him the possibility to remarry. In other cases adultery and wrongful desertion were also accepted by the director general and council without any problem as grounds for a divorce.69 Several cases of bigamy occurred in New Netherland, equally good reason for the dissolution of a marriage, although in such cases formally speaking this did not involve divorce. Michiel Anthonisz. van

July 1665; RNA 5: 282), p. 293 (5 March 1667; RNA 6: 62), p. 320 (11 June 1667; RNA 6: 77), p. 517 (31 August 1669; RNA 6: 193), ORCC 6, p. 277 (14 November 1673; RNA 7: 27), ORCC 4, p. 298 (26 March 1667; RNA 6: 65) 68 Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland, chapter 6, in particular p. 176. 69 NYSA, NYCM 6: 49–50 (1 June 1655; CM 1655–1656, 52), 8: 415 (23 January 1657), 417 (2 January 1657), 419 (8 January 1657), 419 (16 January 1657), 421 (23 January 1656); NYMA, ODR 2, p. 422 (9 December 1659; RNA 3: 90); Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland, 178–180, 201.

438

chapter seven

Utrecht had heard nothing from his wife Grietje Jacobs for five years, until he received the message that she had died in the Dutch Republic. He subsequently married Femmetje Alberts in Beverwijck. It was a surprise when Grietje suddenly turned up in New Netherland. The reported death turned out to have been that of her mother and not herself. The consistory of Beverwijck brought the matter to court. After extensive deliberation, and in consideration of the fact that Femmetje Alberts, the second ‘wife’, was prepared to give up her ‘husband’ since Grietje Jacobs possessed the oldest rights, the magistrates of Beverwijck decided to declare the marriage null and void and restore Femmetje to ‘her former liberty’.70 The basis for the abhorrence of whoring and adultery in both New Netherland and the Dutch Republic was the idea that sexual intercourse was proper only within marriage. Another impermissible form of sex was sodomy, sometimes in the form of rape. Nicolaes Gregorius Hillebrant, a twenty-nine-year-old WIC soldier from Prague, was literally caught with his pants down in Beverwijck in 1658 when he attempted to rape the seven-year-old Pieter Adriaensz. Kneeling down, ‘manhood out of his trousers’, he was trying to unclothe the struggling lad, when suddenly Rutger Jacobsz. appeared behind him and shouted: ‘You rascal, what are you trying to do?’. Rutger Jacobsz. took Pieter home, followed by Nicolaes who said: ‘Do you want to say something? I shall say you are lying like a rascal’. Next, Nicolaes attempted to persuade Rutger to have a drink with him. He was so insistent that bystanders asked: ‘Nicolaes, what’s the matter with you, have you something on your conscience that you’re trying to force the man to drink with you?’. Nicolaes’ attempts at a ritual reconciliation by means of drinking with Rutger met with no success. Naturally, the matter came before the court. The magistrates at Beverwijck decided to send the accused to the director general and council in New Amsterdam as they did not have the power to try a case in which capital punishment was applicable. The judgment is not known.71 In the case of another soldier, Jan Quisthout van der Linden from

70

ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, pp. 285–286 (4 July 1656; FOCM, 248–249). ACHR, ‘Mortgages no. 1, 1652–1660’, pp. 349–350 (20 August 1658; ERA 4: 69–70), CMFO 1658–1659, pp. 91–93 (26 August 1658; FOCM, 404–405); NYSA, NYCM 8: 992 (2 October 1658). 71

‘in

such a far distant country’

439

Brussels, the punishment was severe. He had committed sodomy with an orphan-boy from Amsterdam, Hendrick Harmsz., who had been placed with him as an apprentice. The punishment consisted of being put in a sack and drowned in the river. The victim was whipped and placed with another master. The method of execution differs from what was suggested by Fiscael Nicasius de Sille: according to him, Quisthout should be burned alive and all his possessions confiscated. The death sentence was usual for men who confessed to having committed sodomy in the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century. Of the seven death sentences carried out in the Dutch Republic during the seventeenth century for this offence, three were by hanging, two by strangulation, and two by burning. Death by drowning was not practiced, although in one case, which ended in banishment of the guilty party, it had been demanded by the prosecutor. As in the earlier case of Jan Creoly, these two instances concern the type of sodomy that was usual in the Dutch Republic until 1700, in which adult males had sexual relations with adolescents.72 Just as in the Dutch Republic, last wills drawn up in New Netherland contain the standard expression that nothing is more certain than death itself, and nothing less certain than when it shall occur. The mother of Jeremias van Rensselaer died at one o’clock in the afternoon of 12 June 1670 in Amsterdam, in the presence of four of her children. The same day, Jan Baptist wrote to his brothers Jeremias and Rijckert in New Netherland to impart the sad tidings. The letter was also signed by his other brother Nicolaes and his sisters Leonora and Susanna. It is the only letter in the whole of Jeremias’s correspondence that bears a joint signature, an indication of the importance placed on the announcement of a death.73 The death of Anna van Rensselaer at almost seventy years of age, after seven weeks of debilitating illness, was not a surprise. That was different from the passing away of Maria, the five-year-old daughter of Jeronimus Ebbingh and Johanna de Laet.74 In October 1665

72 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1447, not paginated (17 December 1657); NYSA, NYCM 9: 251 (13 May 1660), 295 (21 May 1660), 294–295 (17 June 1660), 296–298 (17 June 1660), 295 (21 May 1660), 10–2: 275 (16 August 1663); Spierenburg, ‘Homoseksualiteit’, 491; Noordam, Riskante relaties, 52, 66–67. 73 NYSL, VRMP, box 49, folder 66 (12 June 1670; CJVR 422–423). 74 She was born on 13 January 1660 in Amsterdam, where she was baptized one day later: GAA, DTB, inv. no. 43, p. 428; Valck Lucassen, ‘Familieaantekeningen

440

chapter seven

she caught a cold, against which she was given a syrup by surgeon Hans Kierstede. It was of little help. The cold worsened, and Maria’s chest became constricted. On 12 October her worried parents sent for predikant and doctor Samuel Megapolensis, son of Johannes Megapolensis.75 He also prescribed a syrup. The same evening she was administered a enema of sweetened milk by Hans Kierstede to see whether the problems had been caused by worms. This too had no effect. The following day Maria played by the fireside with her silver trinkets, but she became increasingly weaker and at night tossed and turned with a high fever. On 14 October she joined the family at table for the midday meal, but had no appetite. By the time evening had come, she had become weaker, her fever increased, and when she asked to be allowed to sleep with her parents her request was granted. An hour before her death she sat up in bed without assistance. Her mother came to stand beside the bed with Paulus de Hulter, a son from her earlier marriage to Johan de Hulter, and asked if she knew who he was. ‘That is little Paul, little Paul who is crying’, answered Maria. Her father asked her if she also loved her father. ‘So much, dear Father’ she replied fervently. Moments later she gave two little sobs, and with her last gasp her little mouth stayed half open.76 It is an emotional account, which shows how much the death of his daughter affected the father. Jeronimus Ebbingh described the last days of Maria’s life in much detail, but, while he appears to have been a religious man, his notes contained no religious observations. On her deathbed Maria Ebbingh did not quote from the Bible, such as can be seen in abundance in some of the descriptions of the deaths of children. And in his family notes written at the time of Maria’s death, the father did not include the phrase that she ‘passed away quietly from this world in God’, as he had done a few years earlier on the death of his daughter Francyna. She had died

Ebbinck en Gerbade’, 221. Cf. Jacobs, ‘Johannes de Laet en de Nieuwe Wereld’, 123, where the place of birth was mistakenly named as New Amsterdam. 75 After his study of theology in Utrecht, Samuel Megapolensis had studied medicine in Leiden, against the wishes of the classis of Amsterdam who deemed the combination of doctor and predikant undesirable. GAA, ACA, inv. no. 6, p. 279, 308, 309; inv. no. 165, p. 100 (2 July 1663; ER 1: 531–532); Du Rieu, Album studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae, 494 (14 November 1661). 76 Valck Lucassen, ‘Familieaantekeningen Ebbinck en Gerbade’, 221–222.

‘in

such a far distant country’

441

in 1662 at the age of one, and was interred in the church at New Amsterdam in front of the bench of the incumbent schepenen, to be followed a year later by her only weeks-old brother, Albertus. Child death was common, but the account of the death of Maria Ebbingh is exceptional as few other descriptions of the deaths of colonists in New Netherland are extant.77 Just as in New Amsterdam, in some cases in Beverwijck burial took place inside the church. When predikant Gideon Schaets died in 1694, breaking open the church floor and digging his grave cost two guilders and ten stivers. A grave inside the church was the prerogative of people of wealth and standing, both in the colony and in the Dutch Republic. For those of more modest means a cemetery was available outside the church, usually in the churchyard. In New Amsterdam the cemetery was on the Heerestraet, a little to the north of the present Morris Street. In 1656 this burial ground was already overfull and rather dilapidated, and other locations were sought. A number of years later, a new cemetery outside the city was put into use.78 Interments also took place outside the church in Breuckelen. Carpenter Aucke Jansz. requested of the consistory that the whole churchyard be fenced off, and in particular that section in which his wife was buried. He was told that the consistory was not the owner of the churchyard, but that they would inform the court at Breuckelen that it was necessary that it be enclosed with boarding as protection against the pigs, which had been, and were still, rooting among the graves. The court placed the ball once more in the consistory’s court, saying that the church should take care of the matter, and so a contract was entered into with Aucke Jansz. The costs were to be met by all the inhabitants. In the Dutch Republic it was not customary that the consistory undertook such tasks, as the church building was owned by the secular authorities. When several years later, for the same reason, the churchyard in New Amsterdam had to be enclosed, the magistrates allotted the task not to the consistory but to the churchwardens, Govert Loockermans and Johannes de Peijster. This

77 Groenendijk and Van Lieburg, Voor edeler staat geschapen; Valck Lucassen, ‘Familieaantekeningen Ebbinck en Gerbade’, 221. 78 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 492 (24 January 1656; RNA 2: 24–25); NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 39–40 (2 February 1662); Eekhof, Hervormde kerk 1: 165; Phelps Stokes, Iconography, 2: 221–222; Den Boer, ‘Naar een geschiedenis van de dood’, 176.

442

chapter seven

was more in line with the practice in the motherland. The church funds were insufficient to meet the costs, and the money was advanced by the city government of New Amsterdam.79 Care of the graveyard was generally in the hands of the churchwardens appointed by the local authorities, as was the practice in the Dutch Republic. Gravediggers and aansprekers [the person who, by announcement, informed others of the death], functions which in New Netherland were often combined with that of sexton and precentor, were also appointed by the local court, and they enjoyed a monopoly. Hendrick Rooseboom, gravedigger and aanspreker in Willemstadt, as Albany was then known, in 1674 complained that the Lutherans buried their own dead and had appointed their own gravedigger. Rooseboom’s protest resulted in a confirmation of his exclusive position by the local magistrates.80 In New Amsterdam Claes van Elslandt senior in 1661 was one of the gravediggers, but his conduct left something to be desired. He was told by the burgemeesters that he should take better care of digging the graves inside the church and in the graveyard. In addition, they pointed out that it was his duty to look after the bier being fetched and brought back to the proper place; to invite, according to old custom, everybody to the funeral, to announce [the death], to walk steadily before the corpse, and to collect, demand, and receive pay only for his service, without demanding and requesting more money on this account.81

Some of the other burial duties were carried out by Jan Gillisz. Kock. It was his responsibility to ensure that the bell was tolled, that the funeral pall was well looked after and that the fee for the hire thereof was paid. He was also to keep a list of who was buried. The hire of palls was, as in the Dutch Republic, one of the sources of income for the poor relief funds. In New Amsterdam the cost of hiring a funeral pall was eighteen guilders. It was less costly in Beverwijck, five guilders for the small pall and ten guilders for the large one.

79 OFDRCB, 48 (27 September 1662), 52–54 (25 October 1662); NYMA, ODR 4, p. 619 (17 June 1665; RNA 5: 253), ORCC 5, p. 101 (13 November 1665; RNA 5: 313). 80 NYSA, NYCM 23: 296 (4 January 1674), 313 (21 February 1674), 408 (undated, probably February 1674). 81 NYMA, AMNA 2, p. 6 (4 April 1661; MOM 2: 80).

‘in

such a far distant country’

443

These sums, which were often paid in sewant, were nominally a little larger than in the Dutch Republic, but for the rest few differences can be found between the funeral rites in the colony and the motherland.82 Another item of expense at a funeral consisted of the refreshments provided for the guests. The sources reveal nothing about elaborate funeral meals, but liquid refreshments were consumed in some volume. After the funeral of Jacob Claesz. Coppen, a half aam [approximately twenty gallons] of French wine to the value of five beavers was drunk. At the interment of WIC soldier Jems Bronck the cost of the refreshments amounted to about fifty guilders. Perhaps doot coekjes [death biscuits] were also served. These were not reported in the seventeenth century, although the flour and milk that appeared on an undertaker’s bill from Bergen in 1690 are indications of their possible presence. Recipes for ‘funeral biscuits’ occur in eighteenthcentury cookery books. Of a more lasting nature was the silver spoon that was made for the occasion of the funeral of Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt in 1684. In the case of such costly gifts it is likely that they were given only to family members as a memento.83 Another memorial of the deceased were the epitaphs composed by Henricus Selijns. A quarter of all the poems in his collection of poetry is made up of this genre. A number of these relate to deceased colonists, but Selijns also wrote poems on the death of friends in the Dutch Republic. On the occasion of the death of Johannes Megapolensis, Selijns, who at the time was minister in Waverveen, wrote: New Netherlander, weep, Check not the gushing tear. In perfect shape, doth sleep Megapolensis here,

82 NYMA, AMNA 2, p. 4 (25 February 1661; MOM 2: 77–78), ORCC 5, p. 141 (16 January 1666; RNA 5: 331); Venema, Kinderen van weelde en armoede, 65. In Beverwijck the amount for the pall varied; see Venema, Deacons’ Accounts, passim. See also NYSL, VRMP, box 49, folder 59 (1670–1689). 83 NYMA, ODR 3, p. 307 (4 October 1661; RNA 3: 376), ODR 1, p. 81 (17 February 1653; RNA 1: 53), p. 121 (21 July 1653; RNA 1: 89); Talman, ‘Death Customs among the Colonial Dutch’; Rose, ‘Proeve van verandering’, 208; Dilliard, Album of New Netherland, 114.

444

chapter seven New Netherland’s great treasure. His never-tiring work Was day and night to pray, And zeal in th’ church exert. Now let him rest, where may He scorn all worldly pleasure.84

The particulars on the funeral of Jeremias van Rensselaer are of a somewhat less poetic nature. In the invoice of aanspreker and gravedigger Hendrick Rooseboom almost all of these elements appear. He charged for announcing the death in Bethlehem, the area to the south-west of Beverwijck that still bears this name, Beverwijck itself, and Schenectady, and these together account for more than half of the costs. The digging of the grave cost twelve guilders, tolling the bell eight guilders, and the rental of the pall amounted to ten guilders. Eight broken rummers were also charged for, adding another ten guilders to the total. In all, Maria van Cortlandt paid 101 guilders for her husband’s funeral.85 To a great extent, details of the most important moments in the lives of the people in New Netherland come from the correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer. This is a valuable source of information, but then, he was a member of the colony’s elite. Little is known about the less eminent colonists. The details from the minutes of the courts provide a little more information, but on the whole the information is fragmentary. Still, the general conclusion that customs in the colony display great similarities to those in the Dutch Republic is justified.

Conflicts and Violence In August 1636, the gunner of Fort Amsterdam gave a foy, a farewell dinner. A tent was set up on one of the points of the fort, in which a table and benches were placed. When the banquet was in full swing, the trumpeter began to play his instrument, according to David Pietersz. de Vries, whose eye-witness account is the only source

84 NYHS, volume of Selijns’s poetry, not paginated (Murphy, Anthology, 158); Van der Linde, ‘Selijns’, 48. 85 NYSL, VRMP, box 49, folder (17 October 1674).

‘in

such a far distant country’

445

for this occurrence. De Vries does not report why the trumpeter began to play. Perhaps he wanted to brighten up the festivities with a little music, but his trumpeting may also have been the signal for the beginning of curfew, and that the feast should be brought to a close. In later years, a bell was rung at nine in the evening to indicate that all alehouses should close and everyone should retire to bed. However, in 1636 no bell was as yet available in New Amsterdam, and a trumpet call may have been used as an alternative. In any event, the trumpeter’s call aroused the displeasure of two WIC employees, Andries Hudde and Jacob van Curler, who began to curse him. The trumpeter rewarded this with a santerquanter [cuff ] to the ears of each, whereupon they went home to collect a sword to wreak their revenge on him. They ended up in the house of the Commander, Wouter van Twiller, who dissuaded them from further action. Nevertheless, ‘many unpleasant words’ were spoken. ‘One of them shouted that I am the same man that took the life of Count Floris [Floris the Fifth]’. These final verses from ‘History liedt van Graef Floris ende Geraert van Velsen’ are the answer to the question ‘how is your temper now?’ and indicate that the tempers were still running high. A night’s sleep restored the calm.86 Rows such as this can be encountered regularly in the New Netherland sources, although references to late medieval Dutch songs are rare. What caused the conflict is shrouded in the mists of time, but it contains elements that recur in other disputes: swear-words, fisticuffs, and pointed weapons, not used in this case. And while not explicitly named, it may be assumed that alcohol also played a role, as the incident took place at a feast. That arguments occurred in New Netherland, and that these sometimes escalated into vituperation, fights, and manslaughter is not remarkable. What is more interesting is to see how these began, when and how curses and insults were exchanged, under what circumstances this led to physical violence and, finally, how conflicts were resolved or dealt with by the courts.

86 De Vries, Korte Historiael, 223 (NNN, 198–199); Camerata Trajectina, Pacxken van minnen, track 13; Boer, ‘Het lied van Geeraert van Velsen’, 280, note 1; Van de Graft, Middelnederlandse historieliederen, 50–55; Burgers, ‘Eer en schande van Floris V’, 12–21. I thank Louis Grijp, of the P.J. Meertensinstituut, Amsterdam, for these references.

446

chapter seven

A considerable number of fights can be found in the minutes of New Netherland courts in which no cause or reason for the argument is given. In most cases the magistrates were not concerned about the cause, but they were interested in who was the first to draw a knife, for example. In the incidents for which more information is available, a variety of causes played a role, such as the deliberate or accidental damaging of another’s property, damage caused by free-roaming livestock, or the late payment of debts. The latter played a role in an uncharacteristic outburst by the usually calm Ludovicus Cobus, the secretary of the court at Albany, who may have been drunk. On the evening of 24 June 1670, Ludovicus Cobus stood in the street in front of the house of Wijnant Gerritsz., shouting that the latter owed him one hundred thalers: You devilish fool, you are lying abed and hear this perfectly well; come out and clear yourself; you owe me at least a hundred daelders and now you are sponging on some one else.

When Wijnant’s wife, midwife Trijntje Melchers, came out, Ludovicus directed his swearwords at her: you mother Melchels with your license, you big slut with your fat legs, you will give birth to a big turd to which kackkedorus [a quack doctor] will be midwife.87

By shouting this ingenious insult at the top of his voice from the street, Ludovicus Cobus made the conflict public to pressure Wijnant into paying the debt. However, he was sufficiently circumspect not to enter Wijnant’s house. He would have done his case little good by committing trespass. His challenge to Wijnant to come outside was a way in which to hurt Wijnant’s pride. Were Wijnant not to do so, he would be seen as a coward. The insult to Trijntje Melchers was a somewhat unsubtle mixture of attacking the professional good name of the midwife and declaring her to be foul by verbally throwing excrement. However, the evidence of the witnesses shows that Ludovicus overplayed his hand. His public display of mudslinging brought himself into discredit rather than Wijnant. 87 ACHR, ‘Notarial Papers I 1660–1676’, pp. 502–503 (27 June 1670; ERA 3: 315–316); ACHR, ‘Notarial Papers I 1660–1676’, p. 504 (4 July 1670; ERA 3: 316–317). One of the meanings of kakadoris is ‘quack doctor’. The word as used here also has a strong connection with kak [shit]. So ‘shit doctor’ would also be a good translation.

‘in

such a far distant country’

447

This incident again shows the importance of honor in conflicts. In the last decades, honor and dishonor have enjoyed increasing attention from historians studying the early modern period. Honor can be defined as ‘someone’s good name as seen by others’. Formulated differently, in the early modern period it concerned the good name of an individual in the eyes of a collective. The contrast between individual and collective in this definition also explains why Ludovicus Cobus’s verbal abuse towards Wijnant Gerritsz. was fruitless. In this instance the matter was limited to the two individuals, without the collective component. It was this collective component that gave honor the function of a distinguishing mechanism, and in that way it was linked closely with the prevalent ideal of a community of honest citizens, bound in solidarity. Honor was one of the aspects by which citizens could distinguish themselves from foreigners, for example. Imputations that cast a smirch on someone’s good name involved matters that attracted collective disapproval. This concerned a large variety of insults, accusations, gossip, and slanderous utterances, whereby diverse aspects of honor are involved.88 Of course, honor was not the issue to the same extent in all instances. Various incidences of fights and abuse took place in which the cause was not a question of honor, but became so when the conflict escalated. An example is the incident between Catelina Trico and surgeon Paulus van der Beeck in January 1645 in New Amsterdam. Catelina demanded to know why he hit her daughter, who may have been in his employ as a maidservant. Paulus denied the accusation, and called Catelina a liar, to which her reply was that he was a lying villain. She raised her hand, but Paulus was quicker than she, and struck out at her. He then called her a whore and a sewant thief, thus calling into question her sexual honor and accusing her of baseness of character. Catelina had Paulus van der Beeck summoned by the director and council. The cause of the argument, the alleged assault on Catelina’s daughter, no longer played a role in the matter. The charge brought against Paulus concerned only the verbal abuse and the blow. The court asked for written evidence, and Catelina had Egbert van Borsum called as a witness, whose statement shows the cause of the argument. Supported by his evidence,

88

Roodenburg, ‘Eer en oneer’; Van de Pol, Amsterdams hoerdom, 67.

448

chapter seven

Catelina Trico demanded redress for the damage done to her reputation. Paulus van der Beeck was instructed to prove the validity of his accusations, or otherwise declare that he knew Catelina to be only honest and virtuous. Paulus chose the latter way of settling the conflict, but was nonetheless fined two-and-a-half guilders for the blow he had struck.89 In this case, the court in New Amsterdam took charge of restoring the peace. However, many notarial attestations concerning defamation were drawn for incidents that did not come before the court. Having the testimony of a witness recorded was in some way a final warning to the other party, who then still had the opportunity of trying to achieve reconciliation in a less formal manner. In the Dutch Republic this took place via the consistory or via buurtmeesters [neighborhood leaders], for example. In New Netherland the neighborhoods are evident only in the latter years, and then only in the largest community, New Amsterdam. The function of buurtmeester in New Amsterdam may have been fulfilled by the local magistrates in the early period. Furthermore, it is also conceivable that parties involved in minor conflicts were reconciled through the intervention of friends or neighbors.90 For women, the most commonly heard insult was the word ‘whore’, which Paulus van der Beeck used against Catelina Trico. This did not necessarily refer to prostitution as such, but rather more generally to wanton behavior. Sometimes it was elaborated upon to form allemans hoer [whore of all and sundry] or jodenhoer [ Jews’ whore]. The terms of abuse applied to men show rather more variations. Schelm [scoundrel] was the most used in New Netherland, as in the Dutch Republic. Dief [thief ] was also used regularly, as was hond [hound], with the variants bloethondt [bloodhound] or reeckel [dog]. Vercken [pig], and swijn [swine] are less common in the animal category. Calling someone a leugenaer [liar] was a widely used form of insult, occasionally also seen in its expanded version: ‘the biggest liar

89 NYSA, NYCM 2: 139e (undated, January 1645; NYHM 2: 286), 4: 214 (5 January 1645; NYHM 4: 254), 214 (12 January 1645; NYHM 4: 255); Roodenburg, ‘De notaris en de erehandel’. 90 Roodenburg, ‘De notaris en de erehandel’, 372, 368; Roodenburg, ‘Naar een etnografie van de vroegmoderne stad’, 224, 241–242; Dorren, ‘Communities within the Community’, 180; Dorren, Eenheid en verscheidenheid, 67–92; Bogaers, ‘Geleund over de onderdeur’.

‘in

such a far distant country’

449

in the colony’. Such supplements to terms of abuse occur with some frequency. For example, Brant Aertsz. van Slichtenhorst, director of Rensselaerswijck, then over sixty years of age, was called an ‘old grey thief and scoundrel’. In other instances too the choice of the insults was adapted to the person at whom they were directed. Hans Vos, court messenger at Rensselaerswijck, was called verklicker [informer] and diefleijer [thief catcher], a ‘title’ also once bestowed on Willem Bredenbent, deputy schout on Manhattan. The men appointed to inspect chimneys in New Amsterdam for their safety against fire were sometimes dubbed ‘chimney sweeps’. Ethnic terms of abuse are relatively rare, while in view of the widely varying backgrounds of the population of New Netherland they were to be expected. Mof [kraut] or ‘Danish dog’ appear in only a few instances. The term ‘Turk’ crops up now and then, in one instance applied to Anthony Jansz. van Salee, who had been born in Morocco. Occurring once is the expression ‘wild dog’, possibly meaning Indian dog. This was followed by the equally unique riposte of spitter baart [spitter beard].91 An interesting incident showing the connection between terms of abuse and gossip took place in Haerlem in 1666. Daniël Terneur was called ‘rogue of rogues’ by Lijsbet Nachtegaal. Before the local court she stated that she would consider him to be a rascal as long as he did not forbid his children from calling her a whore. Furthermore, according to Lijsbet, Daniël had killed someone in France with a sword. That was also a reason to accuse him of dishonesty. Daniël denied the first count, and demanded proof of the second. The witness that Lijsbet had called declared that she had heard Daniël himself say that his sword was the reason that he did not dare go to France. To this, Daniël answered that he had attended a funeral in the city of amejens [possibly Amiens], that the papists got involved in a fight against the reformed and that some were killed and that therefore [he] had to flee.

91 NYMA, ORCC 5, p. 255 (9 October 1666; RNA 6: 40); NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder 11 (10 and 10v) (3 August 1648; MCR, 35–36), folder 73–80 (73–80) (2 February 1651; MCR, 149), folder 23 (22 and 22v) (30 March 1649; MCR, 58), box 40 A, folder 2 (53–58) (31 March 1650; MCR, 113); NYHM 1: 11 (29 April 1638), 37 (19 July 1638); Herschkowitz, ‘The troublesome Turk’, 300; Roodenburg, ‘De notaris en de erehandel’, 376; NYMA, ODR 2, p. 212 (25 March 1658; RNA 2: 360), pp. 183–184 (18 February 1658; RNA 2: 332).

450

chapter seven

So the gossip contained some truth. When asked, Lijsbet said that she had not known Daniël in France, but that those who had known him knew what the true facts were, thus implying that Daniël’s version was untrue. The court in Haerlem did not know what to do about the situation, and referred the case to the court in New York. Lijsbet offered to support her allegations with evidence, but requested sufficient time to obtain this from France. The New York court did not acquiesce, and ordered her to appear before the court in Haerlem and openly admit that she had been wrong.92 Both insults and gossip were seen as calumnies. Gossip was an important instrument in social regulation, but it became slander if something was alleged which could not be proved. Lijsbet Nachtegaal was not able to support her allegations, and that is the reason that judgment in the court case went against her. That pattern is repeated in various cases of slander. The party that felt that his or her honor had been besmirched first had to provide evidence in the form of statements from witnesses to prove that the disputed remarks had been made. The defending party then had the choice either of proving what had been said was true or of making an immediate retraction by means of amende honorable. That was the usual outcome, as the injured party would be unlikely to bring a case if producing the evidence to justify the alleged slander was a simple matter. The situation of Lijsbet Nachtegaal, who offered to support her allegations with evidence, is thus unusual. The content of the slander, which in so many cases was unspecified, was extremely diverse and, for example, had to do with the theft of firewood, a stay in the spinhuis [women’s house of correction] in Amsterdam, fraud in making up a bill, and the malicious desertion of a spouse. Honor did not depend only on one’s own behavior. In some cases a man was made a figure of fun because his wife was alleged to have committed adultery. One of the first cases dealt with by the newly installed court of burgemeesters and schepenen in New Amsterdam concerned a complaint from Joost Goderis. He related that he had taken a canoe to Oestereiland [Oyster Island], the present Ellis Island, where he met eight men. One of these, Guilliaem de Wijs, asked Joost for permission to ‘fuck the plaintiff ’s wife, because’ he said,

92 NYPL, Riker Collection, vol. 10, pp. 6–9 (27 September 1666); NYMA, ORCC 5, pp. 254–255 (9 October 1666; RNA 6: 39–40).

‘in

such a far distant country’

451

‘Allard Anthony does it’. Joost was then called a hoorenbeest [horned animal, meaning cuckold] and sung to mockingly: ‘Joost Goderis should wear horns like the beasts of the forest’. Isaac Bedloo and Jacob Buys then shouted that Allard Anthony had had his wife. When Goderis later asked Bedloo why he had insulted him, the latter answered that Goderis was an idiot and had himself said what was said. Upon this, Joost hit him, whereupon Isaac Bedloo drew a knife and wounded Joost in the neck. This was, in any event, the occurrence according to Joost Goderis. It was difficult to persuade the witnesses to make a statement under oath. Burgemeesters and schepenen designated two of their number to hear the witnesses. This procedure was possibly inspired by the fact that at that time Allard Anthony was also a schepen. It is in any event notable that all the witnesses afterwards claimed that the name of Allard Anthony had not been mentioned. On other details of the incident, their evidence also differed. Words such as horned animal and cuckold had been used, but the witnesses denied that these had been directed at Joost Goderis. It is probable that Joost dropped his case because he had insufficient evidence. The theme of the horn wearer can also be seen in another incident in New Netherland, namely when Herman Jansz. van Valckenburgh insulted Johannes Dijckman, the commies of Fort Orange, by indicating with outstretched arms the size of the span of the horns he should be wearing.93 While insults and scandal-mongering started as matters between individuals, as soon as it led to fights the officer came into play as complainant, and the incident became a matter for the authorities. As early as 1638 a ban on fighting was included in a general ordinance. Four years later a specific ordinance followed against drawing a knife and inflicting wounds. An offender could expect a fine

93 NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 78–79 (10 February 1653; RNA 1: 51), p. 82 (17 February 1653; RNA 1: 53–54), pp. 87–88 (4 March 1653; RNA 1: 58–59), pp. 88–90 (4 March 1653; RNA 1: 59–60), p. 90 (8 March 1653; RNA 1: 60–61), p. 94 (10 March 1653; RNA 1: 65), p. 102 (17 March 1653; RNA 1: 72), p. 107 (24 March 1653; RNA 1: 76); Lyon, ‘Joost Goderis’. This is as far as known the first occurrence of neuken [to fuck] in the Dutch language in its sexual meaning. See Sanders, ‘Neuken’. ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, pp. 189–190 (25 February 1655; FOCM, 176), pp. 192–195 (26–27 February 1655; FOCM, 179–181). A third incident concerns Anthony Jansz. van Salee: NYHM 1: 11 (29 April 1638); Leuker and Roodenburg, ‘“Die dan hare wyven laten afweyen”’; Van de Pol, Amsterdams hoerdom, 75; Roodenburg, ‘De notaris en de erehandel’, 376.

452

chapter seven

of fifty guilders or a sentence of three months’ forced labor, in this case working with the Company’s slaves. In this document explicit reference was made to an ordinance of the States General of a year earlier. When the ban on fighting was repeated in 1647, New Netherland was under the exclusive supervision of the Amsterdam chamber, and reference was thus made to the ‘commendable customs’ of that city. In the by-law of 31 May 1647 a fine of hundred guilders was set for the drawing of a knife, to be increased to three hundred guilders in the event that someone was injured. In general, the fines actually imposed were for a lesser amount, particularly if it could be proved that the knife had been drawn in self-defense. Again in 1657 all ‘fighting, wounding, knife-drawing, and mischief ’ was banned. Surgeons, when treating cuts and stab wounds, were obliged to question the patient and notify the schout. It was also the duty of innkeepers and tappers to report all incidents to the fiscael. This last provision indicates that it was particularly in the inns that fights broke out. This also explains why, in some instances, the wounds were not inflicted with a knife, but with a broken glass.94 The majority of the fights that led to court appearances in New Netherland took place between two men. Violence between men and women was rare. An exceptional case is that of Trijn Herxker, who after an exchange of abuse with Huych Aertsz., drew a knife, which was subsequently taken away from her by bystanders. It was much more usual that the women tried to keep matters in hand, for example by urging the menfolk not to draw knives. Maritje Damen intervened when her husband, Hendrick Andriesz. van Doesburg, stood drunk in the street in Beverwijck at ten in the evening with an unsheathed sabre in his hand. He was not threatening anyone at that moment, but as a preventive measure she took the weapon away from him anyway. Women also fought among themselves. In 1657 Engeltje Cornelis was charged because she was alleged to have entered the house of Wijnant Gerritsz. and insulted and struck his wife Trijntje Melchers. Engeltje did not deny striking the other woman,

94 NYSA, NYCM 4: 3 (22 April 1638; NYHM 4: 4; LO, 12), 129 (11 July 1642; NYHM 4: 151; LO, 33), 290 (31 May 1647; NYHM 4: 367–368; LO, 61–62), 16–1: 5 (31 May 1647; LWA, 8), 125 (15 December 1657; LWA, 92; LO, 324); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 1 (31 May 1647; RNA 1: 2), p. 50 (3 December 1657; RNA 1: 34), p. 54 (25 December 1657; RNA 1: 35–36).

‘in

such a far distant country’

453

but argued that this had taken place in self-defense, and not in the house but on the threshold. This may have made the charge less serious, but whether it had any effect cannot be established since it is not known what sentence was passed by the court. In the few other instances of female fights, blows were struck, people were kicked, and in one case someone was bitten in the ear, but women drawing knives was virtually unknown.95 In some fights between men, attempts were made to inflict a cut in the opponent’s cheek, so-called bekkensnijden [face-cutting]. On one hand this was literally a loss of face, on the other hand the ‘red line’ that resulted was worn by some as a sign of standing, as it showed daring and ability to withstand pain. The two meanings are not mutually exclusive, but no trace can be found of anyone in New Netherland having pride in carrying such a scar. In the southern Dutch province of Noord-Brabant this type of injury took place mostly at the time of fairs or during the annual market. The same timing occurred in an incident in Rensselaerswijck in 1649. On 21 September, a day before the usual date of the so-called Amsterdam fair, Jan Dircksz. van Bremen was the subject of an attack by Abraham Stevensz. de Croaet and Dirck Hendricksz. van Hilversum. Jan Dircksz. was cut with a knife from the right to the left side from above to below his lower lip in his chin, so that the right side is hanging completely loose.96

Face-cutting was punished severely by the courts. For disfiguring Meuwis Hoogenboom in this way, Jacob Loockermans was fined three hundred guilders, and he was also ordered to pay the costs of the surgeon.97 While the primary objective in face-cutting was to damage someone’s standing, Jochem Wesselsz. Becker made a different part of his opponent’s body his target. On Wednesday 7 July 1655 he became

95 NYHM 1: 256 (31 January 1640); NYSA, NYCM 16–2: 113 (4 September 1657; FOCM, 331), 114–115 (2 October 1657; FOCM, 334); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 3 (23 April 1652; FOCM, 5); NYMA, ODR 3, p. 54 (14 September 1660; RNA 3: 208), ODR 4, p. 7 (12 September 1662; RNA 4: 130–131). 96 NYSL, VRMP, box 40, folder 42 (41 and 41v) (21 September 1649; MCR, 94). 97 NYSA, NYCM 16–2: 101–102 (28 July 1657; FOCM, 322); Roodenburg, ‘Eer en oneer’, 131; Rooijakkers, Rituele repertoires, 401–403.

454

chapter seven

involved in an argument with Gerrit van Slichtenhorst about a pile of firewood. After an exchange of words each of them took hold of an axe, and the row was about to turn nasty. Bystanders snatched the axes from them, but that was not to be the end of the matter as far as Jochem was concerned. He ran home, took a sword, and was ready to attack Gerrit with it. Gerrit fled into the house of Thomas Paulusz. Jochem Becker followed, but once inside he was relieved of the sword by Paulusz. Gerrit then saw his chance to counterattack. At some stage in the struggle, Jochem was on top of Gerrit, made a grab at his adversary and pulled ‘at his male organ in a scandalous way, causing him to yell and scream’. This incensed Gerrit, and the bystanders also found the attack on Gerrit’s manhood disgraceful. One of them threatened to cut off Jochem’s hand with an axe if he did not let go at once. Frightened by this, Jochem stood up and ran away. Gerrit van Slichtenhorst ran home, came back with an unsheathed cutlass and challenged Jochem to a fight to the death, or to see who was the more courageous of the two. Jochem took to his heels, showing himself to be less brave. Johan de Deckere, the officer of Beverwijck, pressed charges against them both. The prosecutor demanded the imposition of a fine of one thousand guilders on Jochem Becker and six hundred guilders on Gerrit van Slichtenhorst. Ultimately, Jochem was fined one hundred guilders, principally for the attack on Gerrit’s private parts, and the latter got away with a fine of twenty-five guilders.98 More serious than fights in which a knife was drawn were the incidents resulting in death. Premeditated murder was extremely rare, and virtually all cases in which a death occurred were fights that got out of hand and in which manslaughter was committed. This happened in 1631 between Jonas Fredericksz. and Roelof Hendricksz. They had had words about a net with which Roelof had been fishing. Jonas complained that after Roelof had used the net he had left it lying about for others to tidy away. Later, during a meal, the argument turned nasty. Jonas grabbed a knife from the chest at which they sat to eat, said ‘Ho! Defend yourself ’ and attacked. Roelof also

98 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, pp. 219–221 (13 July 1655; FOCM, 197–199), pp. 222–223 (14 July 1655; FOCM, 200), pp. 229–230 (27 July 1655; FOCM, 204), p. 234 (24 August 1655; FOCM, 206), p. 235 (30 November 1655; FOCM, 208–209), p. 238 (7 December 1655; FOCM, 211).

‘in

such a far distant country’

455

drew a knife, and in the struggle Jonas was stabbed twice in the chest. Nonetheless, he chased after Roelof, stabbed him in the back and then fell to the ground. He died of his wounds shortly after. For the benefit of his heirs, the witnesses to the incident stated later in Amsterdam that Roelof was in New Netherland pardoned for the manslaughter at the request of the friends and relatives of the victim. That Roelof Hendricksz. was not punished can be explained by the fact that he was not the first to draw a knife and had inflicted the fatal wounds in self-defense. Interesting in this is the role of the friends and relatives, of whom several were present in the colony. This is an important difference from the everyday arguments and fights, which also occurs in instances of manslaughter.99 More details about the interaction between the family of the victim and the authorities are revealed in another incident, a few years later. Cornelis van Vorst, director of the patroonship Pavonia, in April 1634 traveled to Fort Orange, where Hans Jorisz. Hontom was commies. The two men became involved in an argument, and according to a witness an exchange of words took place ‘in French or Italian, always in a language that the witness did not understand’. What the witness understood was that Van Vorst had said that ‘some of those who sat on the council were scoundrels’. As an employee of the Company, Hontom could not let this pass, and asked him three times whether he would not retract the remark. Van Vorst refused, whereupon Hontom struck him, causing his nose to bleed. In the fight that followed, Hontom received a stab wound in the chest, from which he died on the spot. Naturally, an inquiry followed. Fiscael Coenraet Notelman gathered statements, which he took with him on his return to the Dutch Republic to enable the WIC directors to acquaint themselves fully with the matter. An additional problem was that the manslaughter took place in the jurisdiction of Rensselaerswijck, which in the eyes of Van Rensselaer implied that he, rather than the WIC, had the prerogative to grant a pardon. How the matter was dealt with further cannot be reconstructed fully but the case, including a request for pardon from Van Vorst, eventually came before the Heren XIX, who in 1638 decided that the

99 GAA, NA, inv. no. 306, fol. 123v/119v (24 February 1632), fol. 125/120 (24 February 1632).

456

chapter seven

Amsterdam chamber would deal with the pardon as soon as possible, including reconciliation with the widow. The Heren XIX were of the opinion that reconciliation was a reasonable outcome, and it is likely that this was the result. In this case the authorities wanted proof that reconciliation actually had taken place. In essence, this is no different from what happened in the fatal shooting of an Indian woman by Willem Teller. The reason that in the case of Van Vorst the reconciliation took place in the Dutch Republic was because Hontom’s widow lived in Amsterdam. However, other cases of manslaughter were dealt with in the colony.100 Forgiveness by victims’ next of kin can be encountered frequently in New Netherland. After the death of Claes Cornelisz. Swits, who was shot in the back in Schenectady by Philip Hendricksz. Brouwer in 1663, the family set down in a notarial statement that they from the bottom of their hearts, forgave said Phillip Hendricxsz and acquit him of said unfortunate manslaughter committed upon said Claes Cornelisz, not desiring or meaning to take any revenge therefor, nor that any should ever be taken by their kin, begging all honorable courts and tribunals before whom these presents may come to grant the like immunity, pardon, and forgiveness to said Philip Hendricxse.101

In this case, the family acquiesced with the wish of the victim who had forgiven Philip Hendricksz. immediately after the incident, since he did not intend to kill. The fact that the members of the family so expressly declined to exercise their right to revenge indicates that taking revenge was seen as a realistic alternative, even if this seldom occurred in practice. It could lead to a feud that would split the whole community into two camps. The magnanimous forgiveness of manslaughter was a reasonable alternative for the restoration of a family’s good name, certainly if the perpetrator expressed remorse and provided redress. This is a continuation of the conception in the Middle Ages that manslaughter was in the first place a private matter between the perpetrator and the victim’s family. The way in

100 GAA, NA, inv. no. 843, p. 1107 (25 February 1636); Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 50, doc. 32 (20 August 1635); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.6 (24 April 1638); NSMA, VRBMs, letter book, fol. 121 (29 May 1640; VRBM, 475); Frijhoff, Wegen, 669. 101 ACHR, ‘Notarial Papers 1, 1660–1676’, pp. 410–411 (1 March 1664; ERA 3: 267–269). See also NYSA, NYCM 15: 75 (15 November 1663).

‘in

such a far distant country’

457

which manslaughter was dealt with in New Netherland is not at variance with that in the Dutch Republic.102 However, as far as the courts were concerned, the forgiveness of the victim or his family did not automatically imply exemption from legal proceedings, as can be seen in the case of WIC soldier Jacob Jeuriaensz., who was stabbed by fellow soldier Jochem Beeckman. Jacob Jeuriaensz. on his sick-bed forgave Beeckman, as he had himself provoked the fight. More important was that Jeuriaensz. disobeyed the instructions of surgeon Hans Kierstede by getting up, causing the wound to reopen on several occasions. The patient lost a large amount of blood and ultimately died. The act of forgiveness was not considered in the acquittal, but reference was made to Exodus 21: 19, which specified that if the victim shall rise again from his bed, he that struck him shall not be punished.103 Another aspect that was taken into consideration by the magistrates was whether the perpetrator submitted himself to justice. In two incidents this was not the case, and the perpetrator took flight. Jan Gijsbertsz. van Rotterdam, who stabbed Gerrit Jansz. to death in a duel-like knife fight, did not wait for the course of justice to be run. In this case no extenuating circumstances applied, and it is not surprising therefore that Jan Gijsbertsz. was sentenced to death in absentia.104 In the case of Andries Herpertsz. in June 1662 it is much less clear why he took to his heels after having stabbed Seger Cornelisz. van Voorhout. Andries Herpertsz. was a man of some standing in Beverwijck, where he had been magistrate several times. Furthermore, he could have pleaded self-defense. Jacob Sandersz. Glen gave a description of the incident in a letter to Jeremias van Rensselaer, who was on Manhattan for his wedding: Know also tha[t An]dries Herpertsz and Seger Cornelissen had words and started to fight, and Seger dealt Andries Herpertsz a couple of

102 De Schepper and Vrolijk, ‘Vrede en orde door gratie’, 109; Van Deursen, Mensen van klein vermogen, 134–136; Rooseboom, Receuil van verscheyde keuren, 200. 103 NYHM 1: 144–145 (12 May 1639); NYHM 1: 151–152 (17 May 1639); NYHM 1: 178–179 (18 June 1639); NYSA, NYCM 4: 42–43 (16 June 1639; NYHM 4: 51). 104 NYSA, NYCM 4: 19–20 (30 September 1638; NYHM 4: 24–25); NYHM 1: 26 (18 May 1638); NYHM 1: 51–52 (undated, probably August 1638); NYHM 1: 52–53 (undated, probably August 1638); GAA, NA, inv. no. 1279, fol. 94v (18 December 1638).

458

chapter seven blows with the cue of the pool table, and Andries ran [after him] with a knife, and stabbed said Seger Cornelissen in his left side, below the short ribs, and after this, Andries dealt h[im] yet five blows on the head, so that they claim that his braincase is cracked.105

Seger died two days later of the stomach wound. Andries Herpertsz. and Seger Cornelisz. had in the meantime been reconciled, and the family also forgave the manslaughter, albeit that the proviso was made that the perpetrator should avoid the company of the victim’s family. Was this the reason that Andries sought refuge elsewhere? In any event, he was publicly summoned to appear before the court and explain his deed. Andries did not turn up, although his wife submitted a petition to the director general and council in which she requested exemption from prosecution for him. However, the authorities would not acquiesce so long as he did not personally submit to the authority of the court. In the Dutch Republic it was not uncommon that a fugitive who had committed manslaughter submitted a petition for clemency, or that such a petition was granted. The refusal in this case is therefore likely to have been an unpleasant surprise for the wife of Andries Herpertsz.106 All these insults, fights, and cases of manslaughter create the impression that the colonists were aggressive people, who resorted to violence over the most trifling of matters as soon as honor was called into question. But was this really so? Some incidents of manslaughter occurred other than the five mentioned above, although it may be doubted whether they all actually fall into the category of manslaughter. But even including the doubtful incidents, the tally adds up to a total of fifteen in the period prior to 1664, although this figure is probably incomplete for the first fourteen years of the colony’s existence. Nonetheless, fifteen is quite a large number when compared with the two incidents that Van Deursen found in Graft in North Holland in the whole of the seventeenth century. Of course, with its approximately three thousand inhabitants, Graft was smaller than New Netherland, which in about 1664 numbered some seven

105 NYSL, VRMP, box 49, folder 27 (end of June 1662; CJVR 295); NYSA, NYCM 14: 60 (30 June 1662). 106 ACHR, ‘Notarial Papers 1, 1660–1676’, pp. 231–232 (27 June 1662; ERA 3: 165–167); NYSA, NYCM 14: 61 ( June 1662), 78 (undated), 10–1: 174–176 (11 July 1662); De Schepper and Vrolijk, ‘Vrede en orde door gratie’, 111.

‘in

such a far distant country’

459

to eight thousand colonists. On the other hand, however, the period for Graft is considerably longer than the roughly forty years of New Netherland. Rather less problematic, and therefore more revealing than a quantitative comparison, is the qualitative comparison that existed between colony and motherland in case of conflicts and violence. Attitudes towards these phenomena were essentially the same, the government played the same role, and the epithets and curse words were also generally the same.107

A Year in New Netherland The Gregorian calendar was used in New Netherland, as in Holland and Zeeland. As a result, a ten days’ difference exists between the chronology in the colony and that of the English colonies in North America, where Annunciation Day, 25 March, was generally treated as the beginning of the New Year. In New Netherland the New Year began on 1 January. Besides the holiday of New Year’s, the calendar year had a number of days that served as landmarks, which were treated as special, and on which specific rituals were carried out.108 The most important instrument to herald daily and weekly occurrences was the bell, which was sounded every evening at nine o’clock to mark closing time for the taphouses and to summon the members of the burgher guard who were on duty to assemble in the guardhouse. The summoning of fugitive criminals and the proclamation of ordinances took place at the court building, after the sounding of a bell had first alerted the population. The bell was also rung in the event of emergencies, such as fire. Of course not every community had a bell. In some places a trumpeter or drummer was used before a bell was brought over from the Dutch Republic. In New Amsterdam and Beverwijck the nocturnal hours were eventually marked from the time of curfew until four in the morning by the night-watchman, whose duty it was to sound his rattle every hour at each street-corner and to cry out the time.109 107

Van Deursen, Een dorp in de polder, 252. Strubbe and Voet, De chronologie van de middeleeuwen en de moderne tijden in de Nederlanden, 46–48, 51–59. 109 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 252 (4 August 1654; RNA 1: 223); ACHR, CMFO 1658–1659, p. 165 (8 August 1659; FOCM, 451). 108

460

chapter seven

Each week special days were allotted to justice, commerce, and religion: days for the court to be in session, market-days, and Sundays. A large proportion of the adult population of New Netherland came into contact with the local court, and the importance of the court was such that it was widely known when the sessions were held. On the day of the session, its commencement was heralded publicly by the sounding of a bell. The choice of the day for the session varied from town to town, although Tuesday, the traditional day for justice, was generally preferred. However, in the 1630s and 1640s the court sessions of the director general and council were held on Thursdays. From 1653 onwards the meetings of the burgemeesters and schepenen of New Amsterdam, who had been delegated part of the judicial tasks of the director general and council, took place on Monday mornings from nine o’clock onwards. In 1658 it switched to Tuesdays. In later years, separate meetings of the burgemeesters were held on Thursday mornings, during which they dealt with administrative matters. In Beverwijck the court held session every week at ten on a Tuesday morning. This was changed to Thursday under English rule. In most of the smaller settlements in New Netherland, the court meetings were not held weekly. In Wiltwijck for instance the Tuesday meetings were in principle held every fortnight. After the English takeover, the first Tuesday of the month was the appointed day for all cases that had to be heard before a jury. No judicial sessions were held during some periods of the year, for example at the end of July and the beginning of August, during harvest time. In New Amsterdam the regular court sessions were suspended from mid-December until three weeks after Christmas, although this was not strictly adhered to.110 Another important day in the week was market-day. In 1656, Saturday was proclaimed market-day in New Amsterdam. The beach

110

NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 7 (pp. 89–97) (16 November 1651; MCR, 173); NYSA, NYCM 4: 3 (22 April 1638; NYHM 4: 4), 335, point 3 (25 September 1647; NYHM 4: 441), 8: 943 (13 August 1658), 9: 610 (16 May 1661; DRCHNY 13: 197; LO, 398; O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 2: 434), 610 (16 May 1661; DRCHNY 13: 197; LO, 398; O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland 2: 434); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 2 (15 April 1652; FOCM, 4); UCHR, ‘Book 1’, p. 11 (12 July 1661; KP 1: 2); NYMA, ORCC 5, p. 138 (16 January 1666; RNA 5: 330), ODR 1, p. 122 (21 July 1653; RNA 1: 90), p. 299 (14 December 1654; RNA 1: 274); Shattuck, ‘Civil Society’, 199.

‘in

such a far distant country’

461

in front of the house of surgeon Hans Kierstede, today the corner of Pearl Street and Whitehall Street, was designated as the place where the inhabitants of the towns and villages around New Amsterdam could offer for sale their meat, butter, cheese, turnips, carrots, and other wares. Thursday was market-day in Breuckelen. No information is available about the market-days of other places.111 Sunday was the day of rest and of worship, as laid down in the Bible in the Fourth Commandment and confirmed by the Synod of Dordrecht. Bell ringing marked the commencement of the church services. Nonobservance of the Sabbath had already been forbidden in New Netherland in the instructions to Willem Verhulst in 1625.112 While that ban was worded in general terms, later ordinances were much more specific. In the course of time, various edicts were issued for the advancement of rest on Sundays. Until 1663, they differed only in less important details. In principle, all work was forbidden, although exceptions were made for some activities that could not be put off. Further, forbidden exercises and amusement, drinking [themselves] drunk, frequenting taverns or taphouses, dancing, playing cards, ticktacken [backgammon], balslaen [literally: hitting the ball], clossen [bowling], kegelen [nine pins], going boating, traveling with barges, carts, or wagons, before, between, or during the Holy worship

was not permitted.113 The wording indicates that such activities were permissible only after the two Sunday services. This distinction can also be seen in the many court cases brought against offenders. Numerous reports were made of beer being served in taphouses while divine service was under way in the church. Generally, the offence resulted in the imposition of a fine of six guilders for the tapper.

111 NYMA, ODR 2, p. 12 (18 September 1656; RNA 2: 169), ODR 1, p. 36 (12 September 1656; RNA 1: 23); NYSA, NYCM 8: 523 (11 April 1657; DRCHNY 14: 390), 182–183 (13 September 1656; LO, 251), 16–1: 84 (13 September 1656; LWA, 66–67; LO, 249–250); Phelps Stokes, Iconography 4: 263–264. 112 Wieder, De stichting van New York, 122 (DRNN, 36); Frijhoff, Wegen, 303; Stronks, ‘Het kerkvolk op de zondagen’. 113 NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 38–41 (26 October 1656; RNA 1: 24–26); NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 91 (26 October 1656; LWA, 71; LO, 259). Prof. J.R. Pole drew my attention to the fact that in LO, 259, balslaen has been translated as ‘cricket’. This unfortunate and suggestive translation has given rise to the idea that the king of sports was already played in North America in the seventeenth century. While that is not unfeasible, this ordinance is insufficient proof.

462

chapter seven

The person being served had to pay a fine of four guilders. Contraventions of the ban on Sunday working were considerably less common than those of drinking at the time of the service, but some incidents occurred, such as that of Jan de Wit, miller in New Amsterdam, who cleaned his millstone on a Sunday and was subsequently rewarded with a fine of six guilders for his industry.114 In 1663 a growing lack of clarity among the people whether all these interdictions were effective for the whole Sunday or only a part of it, prompted the director general and council to draw up a much stricter ordinance. The description of what was not permitted was expanded, for example, with ‘the much too licentious and dissolute play, bawling, and shouting of the children in the streets and highways’. Also stipulated was the explicit precept of rest for the whole Sabbath day, from sunrise to sunset. The usual fine remained, but repeat offenders faced the prospect of corporal punishment. Burgemeesters and schepenen received this new ordinance on 15 September 1663, but left it aside for several months without promulgating it. After a few offenders had been charged, they voiced their opinion to the director general and council that ‘various points in such are too severe and at too great a variance with Dutch freedoms’. In May 1664, the city government requested director general and council to give this further consideration, but whether this happened and what the result was is unknown. What the content was of those ‘various points’ is also unknown. In the antithesis between the two administrative organs in New Amsterdam it is tempting to see a reflection of the controversy between Voetians and Coccejanen in the Dutch Republic about the observance of the Sabbath. It is even conceivable that Johannes Megapolensis was then the source of inspiration of the new edict. His son Samuel, who in 1664 returned to New Amsterdam, had studied under Voetius in Utrecht. However, this is all speculation. What is clear is that in 1673 the city government had different thoughts about it than in 1664. The magistrates of New Orange at that time issued an ordinance concerning the day of rest, in which was specified that it applied to the whole of the

114 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 131 (12 May 1654; FOCM, 125), p. 234 (26 August 1655; FOCM, 207), p. 236 (30 November 1655; FOCM, 209); NYSA, NYCM 10–1: 241 (16 October 1662).

‘in

such a far distant country’

463

Sabbath. The precepts for Sunday observance and the attempts to ensure that everyone adhered to them indicate that these did not apply only to the members of the Reformed Church, who were already expected to attend the church services, but to the entire population.115 The same holds true for bededagen, days of general fasting and prayer, proclaimed by the provincial government. On bededagen, services were held and the same regulations applied as on regular Sundays. These days were proclaimed in the Dutch Republic to invoke God’s blessing in the event of exceptional occurrences or to thank the Lord for His grace and favor. In New Netherland, some of these bededagen, always held on a Wednesday, were designated for matters that concerned the whole colony. In 1645, a bededag was proclaimed to acknowledge the peace agreement with the Indians and in 1655 another was proclaimed when the expedition against New Sweden was about to start. Other bededagen were proclaimed as the result of occurrences that affected the Dutch Republic, such as the Treaty of Münster, which was marked in the colony by a bededag on 1 February 1649, or the end of the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1654. Towards the end of the 1650s the wording of the letters in which the local authorities were informed of the proclamation of the bededag became increasingly general. The first few lines contained a description of the state of the colony, wherein the reason for the bededag was more and more a summing-up of various reasons. The bededagen gradually took on a more general character and turned into annual or monthly occurrences, as first happened in 1648. Over the course of time this tailed off, and in later proclamations once again the first Wednesday of the month was designated for bededagen. The Dutch Republic also tended towards fixed annual bededagen, but while for a short period weekly bededagen were held in patria, no fixed bededag on the first Wednesday of the month occurred. In New Netherland all the bededagen were proclaimed by director general and council, in a few cases at the request of a minister. The bededag letters instructed

115 NYSA, NYCM 10–2: 293 (15 September 1663; LO, 448–449), 10–3: 119 (18 March 1664); NYMA, ODR 4, p. 236 (15 September 1663; RNA 4: 301–302), p. 348 (18 March 1664; RNA 5: 38–39), p. 375 (13 May 1664; RNA 5:60), ORCC 6, pp. 218–219 (28 August 1673; RNA 6: 405–406); Visser, Geschiedenis van den sabbatstrijd.

464

chapter seven

the ministers to match their sermons to the character of the bededag. The proclamation of bededagen for the whole of New Netherland is a sign that the provincial administration saw the colony as a single entity.116 Besides the monthly bededagen, a number of religious feast days took place during the year, such as Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost. After the Reformation only four of the original Roman Catholic feast days and holy days remained. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper mostly took place four times a year on or near these four days, especially Christmas and Easter. The dates of the other two celebrations of the Lord’s Supper could vary from place to place. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated at Pentecost in Breuckelen; in Wiltwijck on the other hand it did not generally take place until a few weeks later. The fourth celebration of the Lord’s Supper mostly took place at the end of September or the beginning of October.117 Apart from these days sanctioned by church and government, various other days of the year were connected with specific customs and traditions. Some of these were, in the eyes of the two governments, remnants of the period prior to the Reformation, and several attempts were made to ban them. Various ordinances were promulgated, but the fact that they had to be repeated year after year suggests that they met with little success. Nonetheless, the minutes of the court contain few expressions of popular customs that were punished by the court of schepenen. Furthermore, the descriptions of them are so brief that they can be seen only as an indication of the existence of a particular tradition or custom, without anything substantial to be said about them. In addition, a few customs spread throughout the year were not frowned upon by the government. Various small references indicate that special significance was

116

NYSA, NYCM 4: 233–234 (31 August 1645; NYHM 4: 280–281), 425 (16 January 1649; NYHM 4: 579), 377–378 (16 April 1648; NYHM 4: 506–510), 6: 75–77 (16 August 1655; CM 1655–1656, 74–75), 5: 312–316 (29 July 1654; NYHM 5: 159–160); NYSA, NYCM 15: 122 (6 May 1664; DRCHNY 13: 373–374); NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 375–377 (20 August 1655; RNA 1: 342–344); Van Rooden, ‘Dissenters en bededagen’; Kist, Neêrlands bededagen en biddagsbrieven, 1: 208–237. 117 OFDRCB, 12–14 (12 September 1660), 166–184 (1660–1664); Kingston, Reformed Protestant Dutch church, Church Records vol. 1; Wouters and Abels, Nieuw en ongezien, 1: 204–210; Spaans, Haarlem na de Reformatie, 131.

‘in

such a far distant country’

465

attached to New Year’s Day. In 1647, 1 January was the day allocated to the taking of office of the newly appointed Nine Men. New Year’s wishes were common in letters written during the first half of January, even if in many cases these epistles were read months later on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The transition from the old year to the new was generally celebrated with festivities and drink. One of the more noisy customs was the habit of discharging firearms in the air. This met with the disapproval of the government, as the director general and council considered shooting at night a waste of gunpowder and a possible cause of nasty accidents. At the end of December 1655 the director general and council issued an ordinance which, in addition to celebratory shooting, also banned a number of other customs observed around New Year, such as the erection of May poles, the beating of drums, and public drunkenness. Similar ordinances were also regularly issued in December of the years following. At the beginning of 1650, Abraham Stevensz. de Croaet was fined the sum of forty guilders by the court at Rensselaerswijck for ‘the offence of shooting at night-time’. He was not the only one to observe this custom. Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert and his companions on their expedition to the Mohawks and Oneidas in 1634 and 1635 were regularly requested by the Indians to fire their weapons. One of the few occasions when they acquiesced was on 31 December 1634: ‘And on this night we fired three honor salvos in honor of the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’.118 A last New Year’s custom that made its way to New Netherland concerns the duivekater. In the Dutch Republic this bread, in the shape of an animal, was baked specially for the period between Christmas and Epiphany, and was regularly given as a present to laborers and

118 NYSA, NYCM 4: 335, point 4 (25 September 1647; NYHM 4: 441), 6: 207 (31 December 1655; CM 1655–1656, 173–174), 16–1: 62 (LWA, 52–53; LO, 205–206); ACHR, CMFO 1658–1659, p. 209 (10 December 1659; FOCM, 474); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 28 (31 December 1655; RNA 1: 18–19), pp. 464–465 (31 December 1655; RNA 1: 419–421), ODR 2, p. 104 (28 December 1656; RNA 2: 254), AMNA 1, p. 169 (31 December 1660; RNA 7: 262), ODR 3, p. 396 (30 December 1661; RNA 3: 431); NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 1 (47–52) (17 February 1650; MCR, 105); Huntington Library, San Marino, HM 819, journal of Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert, p. 15 (31 December 1634; Gehring and Starna, A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, 14); Ter Gouw, De volksvermaken, 117–118.

466

chapter seven

maidservants. On 1 January 1664 two women in Breuckelen who were regularly supplied with provisions by the deacons received a duivekater on the occasion of New Year.119 Several other feast days, such as Epiphany, or Twelfth Night, followed New Year’s Day, but no trace can be found of any form of celebration of these days in New Netherland. Several other customs are linked with the season of winter, such as sleigh riding, skating, and kolven [precursor of golf ] on the ice. These activities were engaged in with regularity, but they were not without their dangers. In 1659 Jeremias van Rensselaer reported to his brother Jan Baptist that the past winter had been fairly cold, so that we could have all the racing with the sleigh we wanted. But I have been in trouble again, for my sleigh turned over with me on the river, or was upset by another sleigh, so that I severely hurt my left hand, from which I suffered much pain, but now it is again nearly all right.120

Jeremias had already been injured in a fall from a horse three years earlier. This occurred on Christmas Eve, when he went out riding with several others. Riding horses fast was also a favorite winter pastime. However, Director Brant van Slichtenhorst of Rensselaerswijck disapproved of the sport when the farmhands used their masters’ horses for this entertainment, risking the chance of the horses becoming crippled. The director’s warnings had the opposite effect. One of the farmhands, Claes Teunisz., also known as Uylenspiegel, deliberately rode several times past the director’s door very fast, ‘out of pure mischief and in spite of the court’. He was of course punished. Fortunately, other, more innocent, pastimes were also available. After Jeremias van Rensselaer had become a member of the church, a husband, and a father, he no longer mentioned tobogganing and pleasure rides in his correspondence. Now he devoted the long winter evenings to the singing of psalms and visiting around the neighborhood. In December 1664 he wrote to the new English Governor Richard Nicolls: ‘There is no special news here, except [that we follow] the old winter custom, namely, of one neighbor visiting the other’.121 119 OFDRCB, 181 (1 January 1664); Van de Graft, ‘De duivekater’; Nannings, Brood- en gebakvormen, 54–57, 192. 120 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 A, folder 25 (11 May 1659; CJVR 159–160). 121 NYSL, VRMP, box 50, addendum (4 June 1657; CJVR 48), box 40, folder

‘in

such a far distant country’

467

Candlemas, 2 February, the celebration of Christ’s presentation at the temple in Jerusalem, did not have a special place in the calendar of the Reformed Church. However, in Amsterdam 2 February did have a special significance as the day on which the new city administration took office. This was also adhered to in New Amsterdam, the first time in 1652 on the appointment of the new members of the Nine Men, and afterwards yearly on the appointment of burgemeesters and schepenen. Of importance to a larger group were the customs surrounding Shrove Tuesday. Although this festival had lost much of its meaning after the Reformation, the evening before Ash Wednesday was still held in honor. Its celebration was limited to small groups, as a statement from Dirck Hendricksz. van Hilversum shows. When questioned about a fight, he told the court that ‘Adriaen Huijbertss invited him on Shrove Tuesday to his house out of friendship’. Probably a few others were there for a couple of drinks, something that the courts did not frown upon so long as it did not result in fighting. ‘Dressing up’, a tradition on the evening of Shrove Tuesday, also took place within the home without any objection from the court, although walking the streets in fancy dress or costume was not permitted. Only one incidence is recorded. In 1654 Abraham Stevensz. de Croaet (him again!) was fined six guilders for appearing on the streets dressed in women’s clothing on Shrove Tuesday. Since it was the first occasion and he excused himself by ignorance, he got off lightly this time. The court assured him of a heavy penalty in the event of a repetition.122 Another traditional custom on Shrove Tuesday was ganstrekken [pulling the goose], in which a live goose was suspended on a rope, head down, between two trees. The animal’s neck was greased with soap or oil. Participants then rode past on horseback and attempted to pull off the goose’s head. This custom also crops up a few times in New Netherland, to the horror of director general and council. In their view, it was 19 (18 and 18v) (17 December 1648; MCR, 50–52), box 50 B, folder 3 (11–12) (8 June 1660; CJVR 231), box 50 B, folder 31 (81–82) (21/31 December 1664; CJVR 370). 122 NYSL, VRMP, box 40 A, folder 1 (47–52) (18 March 1650; MCR, 110); Nat. Arch., SG, loketkas WIC, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt’, letter Q (28 October 1644; DRCHNY 1: 213); ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 105 (3 March 1654; FOCM, 101); Ter Gouw, De volksvermaken, 198.

468

chapter seven at the feast of Bacchus on the Eve of Lent completely frivolous, needless, and disreputable by subjects and neighbors to celebrate such pagan and popish festivals and to introduce such bad customs into this country.123

The farmhands who dared to engage in this, despite having been given prior warning, were fined. In the case of Harmen Smeeman, the instigator of this evil doing, the fine imposed was heavier because he had also threatened Stuyvesant and some other members of the council.124 The incident led to a conflict between the director general and council and the city government of New Amsterdam. The burgemeesters and schepenen were of the opinion that as ganstrekken was tolerated in some places in the fatherland, it could have been permitted also in New Netherland. Furthermore they found that director general and council, in prohibiting ganstrekken, had encroached upon the jurisdiction of the administration. In unambiguous words, director general and council declared that the establishment of a lower court of justice under the name and title of either ‘schout, burgemeesters and schepenen’ or ‘magistraten’ does in no way infringe upon or diminish the power and authority of the director general and council to pass ordinances, or issue interdicts, especially if they are for the glory of God, the welfare of the inhabitants, or the prevention of sin, vice, corruption, and misfortunes, and the correction, fine, or punishment according to the law of those who wantonly disobey them.125

This exchange has every appearance of a conflict of jurisdiction, which of course it was, but behind it was a variance of views about the permissibility of ganstrekken. As was to be the case a few years later in the difference of opinion about the extent of the observance of the Sabbath, in this instance the burgemeesters and schepenen demonstrate rather more flexibility than do their superiors. A year later the chance of a repetition of the conflict was elimi-

123 NYSA, NYCM 5: 221 (26 February 1654; NYHM 5: 119); Ter Gouw, De volksvermaken, 199; Stuiveling, Brederode’s groot lied-boek 1: 47–49; ‘Arent Pieter Gysen’ on the CD Muziek uit de Gouden Eeuw by Camerata Trajectina; Thomas, Man and the Natural World, 150–165; Davids, ‘De zondeval van de dierenbeul’, 240–241. 124 NYSA, NYCM 5: 217–221 (25 February 1654; NYHM 5: 117–118). 125 NYSA, NYCM 5: 222 (26 February 1654; NYHM 5: 119); NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 210–211 (2 March 1654; RNA 1: 172–173).

‘in

such a far distant country’

469

nated in advance. Cornelis van Tienhoven, who at that time was both fiscael and schout, reported to the burgemeesters and schepenen that he had heard that some country folk were again planning to pull the goose. As this had been forbidden by director general and council, he asked the city government whether they were planning to do something about it. The burgemeesters and schepenen thereupon decided that Fiscael Van Tienhoven, ex officio, should give the country folk timely warning of the ban. It is but a short annotation in the minutes of New Amsterdam, but much can be read from it. First, it is significant that Van Tienhoven informed the city government of the impending event, although the ban on ganstrekken fell under the rights of director general and council. By first informing burgemeesters and schepenen, and thus giving them the opportunity to take appropriate measures, disagreements were removed in advance, while at the same time it was subtly made clear where which authority lay: the city government did not have the right independently to allow or forbid ganstrekken, but they had the right to put into practice the ban imposed by their superiors. The answer of the burgemeesters and schepenen shows that they chose not to exercise that right. They asked Van Tienhoven not to act as schout, but expressly as fiscael, thus as the representative of director general and council. Several years later a request for permission to engage in ganstrekken was addressed to the director general and council who, of course, refused.126 The custom was also engaged in in places other than New Amsterdam, such as in 1655 in Beverwijck where it went unpunished.127 The consistory of Wiltwijck fulminated against it in a petition to the local court in 1664. Ganstrekken as such was not named, but under reference to 1 Corinthians 5, the consistory denounced the public, annoying, and scandalous Bacchus days of vastelavont [Shrove Tuesday], derived from the heathens [and] from their idol Bacchus, the God of wines and drunkenness.

The consistory requested the court to act against it, so that in this way the sins and abominations may be more and more kept away from this newly growing community, in honor of God’s

126 NYMA, ODR 1, p. 312 (8 February 1655; RNA 1: 286); NYSA, NYCM 8: 742 (26 February 1658). 127 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 193 (27 February 1655; FOCM, 180).

470

chapter seven name, the edification of this congregation, and the bliss and welfare of this place.128

It must have been music to the ears of director general and council. Much information can be found about Shrove Tuesday, but little is known about Easter. The only thing that can be found in the New Netherland sources is that the Last Supper was held. More is known about the first of May. As far as popular festivals are concerned, only the attempts of the director general and council to forbid the erection of May poles are worthy of mention. This occurred not immediately prior to May Day, but was included in the ordinances outlawing breaches of the order at New Year. In Beverwijck May Day was the day on which new magistrates were installed. Further, it was, as in the Dutch Republic, the customary day for moving household. It was one of the days on which payment became due for the 15th penny on immovable property, and the date therefore appears in contracts referring to the sale or rent of property, or as a date on which payments became due. From 1658, 1 May was also the day that marked the beginning of the market for lean cattle, to be fattened up over the summer, which continued until the end of May.129 Two days of religious significance took place during late spring: Ascension (the day on which Christ ascended to heaven) and Pentecost (when the Holy Ghost descended on the apostles). The only thing that can be found about these two days in the New Netherland period is papegaaischieten [wooden parrot shooting] by the burgher guard in Beverwijck shortly after Pentecost. In Zeeland, for example, papegaaischieten also took place around this time. It is possible that in the summer months the New Netherlanders made pleasure trips to places in the neighborhood, but the sources contain little information on this habit, except for Selijns’s remark about Stuyvesant’s farm, ‘which is the place for recreation and pleasure in Manhattan where people from the town come for evening prayers as well’. Summer was also the time for the harvest, which demanded the time

128

UCHR, ‘Book 1’, p. 297 (12 February 1664; KP 1: 126–127). NYSA, NYCM 16–1: 62 (31 December 1655; LWA, 52–53), 8: 1047–1048 (28 November 1658; LO, 364–365); NYMA, ODR 1, pp. 53–54 (15 January 1658; RNA 1: 36–37), p. 63 (7 January 1659; RNA 1: 42); Spaans, Haarlem na de Reformatie, 134; Burrows and Wallace, Gotham, 392. 129

‘in

such a far distant country’

471

and attention of the colonists, especially in the small towns and villages where the majority of the population was involved in agriculture.130 A date referred to frequently in the New Netherland sources is 22 September, the day of the fair in Amsterdam. Whether there actually was a fair or annual market in New Netherland on 22 September is unknown, but this date is mentioned regularly as one of the dates upon which payments became due. More is known about the markets held in October and November. The annual cattle market in New Amsterdam took place on 15 October, while the pig market was held on 1 November. This was later changed into a single market for fat cattle, to be held from 20 October to the end of November. Strangers who came to New Amsterdam in that period were not subject to arrest or summons, but could go about their business with impunity. Combined with the translation of the announcement of the cattle market in 1659, this suggests that the markets in New Amsterdam were also of importance for the surrounding English colonies.131 If any form of the celebration of Sinterklaas [the feast of St Nicholas] took place in New Netherland, this has left no traces in the sources. With regard to Christmas, apart from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, extra food and drink were stocked up. For example, in 1667 the English Governor Richard Nicolls ordered from Jeremias van Rensselaer ‘four barrels of good beer, which must be well malted and as good as we can make it’. It was to be delivered before Christmas. From the nineteenth century onwards, American authors have written much about Sinterklaas and Christmas, and to a lesser extent about other Dutch festivals. For the most part these are reinvented traditions, part of a ‘Holland revival’.132

130 ACHR, CMFO 1652–1656, p. 210 (11 May 1655; FOCM, 192); Van de Graft and De Haan, Nederlandse volksgebruiken, 99; OFDRCB, 226, 227 (4 October 1660). 131 NYHM 1: 22 (1 May 1638); NYSA, NYCM 4: 101 (25 September 1641; NYHM 4: 121), 8: 1047–1048 (28 November 1658; LO, 364–365); NYMA, ODR 1, p. 63 (7 January 1659; RNA 1: 42), AMNA 1, pp. 100–102 (7 March 1659; RNA 7: 215–216). 132 NYSL, VRMP, box 50 B, folder 41 (pp. 105–106) (ca. November 1667; CJVR 395); Frijhoff, Wegen, 828 and further.

472

chapter seven Conclusion

At first glance material culture, the course of life, conflicts, and violence, and the subdivision of the year would appear to have little in common. However, the common factor can be found in their origins. They were all transplanted forms of culture, taken from the Dutch Republic to North America by the colonists. The subsequent development shows itself clearly in domestic architecture. Initially the homes of the colonists were exceptionally primitive, simple pits in the earth. For New Netherland as a whole such temporary constructions in all probability were not longlived, although it is possible that in later years new colonists in newly established settlements also housed themselves in this manner. Soon wooden houses were erected. To a major extent the houses in New Netherland were built following the Dutch model. From the middle of the eighteenth century increasingly the architecture began to vary from that of the Dutch Republic. Various factors contributed to this. The influence of English architectural styles, the availability of local building materials that required other techniques and the sparse contact with the motherland, caused the divergence of the lines of development of the colony and motherland. This process of change is more clearly recognizable in the architecture than in the other subjects covered in this chapter, for which no material relics are available and written sources must suffice. In other aspects of the material culture it is clear that New Netherland was no rich society with a broad spectrum of refined implements and luxurious consumables. Tables were uncommon, coinage is seldom mentioned in the inventories and the few ornamental objects were, as the books, imported from the Dutch Republic. In view of the size of the population, it is not surprising that specialized craftsmen such as silversmiths, chair makers, and book printers can be found in the colony only in the course of time. Our information is limited on the course of life of the colonists and the manner in which important events in those lives were viewed. To some extent, birth, baptism, courtship, wedding, marriage, sex, death, and burial escape the attention of governmental interference, and few personal records from New Netherland are extant. When the government authorities involved themselves with such rites of passage it was usually only in exceptional cases. It is the ordinary things in life that are so difficult to find. For example, we have no

‘in

such a far distant country’

473

records of nursery rhymes in the colony in the seventeenth century, while they certainly existed. Right up to the ninth generation, thus a long way into the twentieth century, descendants of the first colonists knew by heart nursery rhymes in Dutch that have a recognizable version in modern Dutch.133 The question remains whether the roots lie in the seventeenth century or if this concerns reinvented traditions that were given a new lease of life in the nineteenth century, whereby in some instances examples from the Netherlands were adopted and seen as ‘authentic New Netherlands’. That problem can be avoided by restricting ourselves to the seventeenth-century source material, but the results sometimes are extremely meager. Some of the customs surrounding birth and baptism, such as the naming of children after someone, the choice of godparents and baptismal gifts, display clear parallels with customs in the Dutch Republic, but nothing indicates special meals to celebrate a birth, for example. The similarities in the case of premarital sex and breach of promise are obvious, a consequence of the fact that the legal system in New Netherland was in broad outlines the same as that of the Dutch Republic. Little is known about the celebrations surrounding a wedding, or about the way in which married couples got along with one another. The small number of incidences of marital discord that came before the courts were the most serious ones, and these are probably only the tip of the iceberg. As with prostitution in New Netherland, details are extant only if a complaint was made to authorities. A little more is known about death and funerals, such as about the care of a burial ground and the hire of a pall. The costs of a funeral with all that went with it can also be discovered in some instances, an example of which is the funeral of Jeremias van Rensselaer. A much more important role than in daily life was played by the government in conflicts and incidences of violence. In all but one case, our information comes from court records. There must have been diverse incidents in which heated exchanges of words took place, but as soon as matters had calmed down the parties shook hands and the whole conflict was forgotten. The cases that reached the courts in the colony show that honor played an important role,

133

Burhans, ‘Enduring Dutch Nursery Rhyme’.

474

chapter seven

in particular in cases of slander. The swearwords that were used in rows varied only in a few instances from what was common in the Dutch Republic. The most important objective of the magistrates was to restore peace and tranquillity, among other ways by having one of the parties make an amende honorable. This too is in accordance with the customs in the Dutch Republic. The authorities also took action in the case of incidents in which knives were drawn, but in cases of manslaughter the victims’ relatives played an important role. A gradual shift of the authority to pardon took place in cases like this. While the matter of Hans Hontom, killed by Cornelis van Vorst, was dealt with in the Dutch Republic, in later instances the cases were handled entirely in the colony. In the division of the day in New Netherland the bell played an important role. Not only did it signal the beginning of curfew, it was also rung to mark the commencement of the weekly or fortnightly sessions of the local courts and, of course, the church services. Noticeable both in the ordinances concerning the observance of the Sabbath and in the frequency of the bededagen is the religious tint of the highest powers in the colony. That director general and council were stricter than the authorities in New Amsterdam can also be seen from the goings on surrounding ganstrekken. That was just one of the customs around Shrove Tuesday. Little is known about the other festivals. Only in the case of the celebration of New Year are a few popular customs ascertainable, such as night shooting. It is also true of this custom that the reason that something is known about it lies in the authorities’ disapproval of it. In fact this is not surprising. The size of the population of the colony and the length of the period studied here are such that, unfortunately, little more can be expected. It can also be said of other subjects dealt with in this chapter that the information available is generally limited. And yet the similarity with the Dutch Republic is obvious.

CONCLUSION

Among the overseas colonies of the Dutch Republic, New Netherland was not of prime economic importance. Yet, it was unique. Whereas most Dutch colonies in the seventeenth century never developed into much more than trading posts, New Netherland became the first Dutch settlement colony, preceding that of the Cape of Good Hope. This unique development entailed some problems, since the Dutch Republic had no previous experience with settlement colonies. In the first decades of the seventeenth century Willem Usselincx had envisioned Dutch colonial settlements, that would be closely linked with spreading the Reformed religion. Usselincx’s ideas did not have much influence, as they were considered too ambitious and too far-fetched by most magistrates and merchants. After the Twelve Years’ Truce with Spain expired, the resumption of the war brought with it the founding of the West India Company [wic] in 1621, set up to be an instrument of war against the Catholic adversaries of the Dutch Republic. Among the objectives of the Company, the founding of settlement colonies was subsidiary to privateering and warfare. During the 1620s and 1630s not everyone was convinced that New Netherland should indeed be a settlement colony. The Walloon families who went over in 1624 and 1625 may have regarded their passage as a journey to the promised land, even though we lack sufficient information to be completely sure of their hopes and dreams. For the West India Company directors in Amsterdam, however, the Walloon presence in the colony was merely a means to strengthen the Dutch claim to it. The idea that New Netherland could be more than an isolated trading post in which fur trade would bring a quick profit was as slow to gain ground as the realization that a settlement colony would require considerable and prolonged investment before any returns would be forthcoming. The different opinions on colonization came to the fore in the conflict between the trade and colonization factions in the Amsterdam chamber of the Company. After a brief period in the 1620s when the colonization faction dominated, the policies relating to New Netherland in the 1630s were determined by the trade faction. Before that change occurred, however, the colonization faction had acquired

476

conclusion

approval for instituting the patroonship system. This privatized form of colonization was not successful, partly because the conflict between the patroons and the Company deprived the former of the income from the fur trade, which was required to keep the patroonships going. More important, full-scale colonization simply proved to be too expensive for most private merchants. Within a couple of years almost all of the patroons terminated their involvement. During the 1630s and the early 1640s the West India Company did little to stimulate emigration. Nevertheless, the number of colonists steadily increased. The majority of these were employees of either the WIC or of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, who after the expiration of their contracts decided to stay in New Netherland. After the West India Company, under pressure from the States General, abolished the monopoly on the fur trade, immigration increased. The wars with the Indians in the 1640s, resulting from the attempts of Director Kieft to exact contributions from the Indians, caused a setback in the colony’s development. The wars were the main catalyst in an emerging conflict between the colonists and the WIC. The desire of the colonists to have a greater say in the running of the colony ran counter to the aims of the Company, which clung to a form of government better suited to a trading post than to a settlement colony. It was not until the end of the 1640s that the WIC took measures to stimulate immigration, such as advancing passage money and enlisting soldiers who wanted to settle in New Netherland as colonists. The changing economic situation in the Dutch Republic in the 1650s with its heightened unemployment, may also have contributed to the increased immigration. Although these factors combined to result in a considerable population growth, it was too little, too late to save New Netherland from an English takeover. Even though the impulse for the takeover came from London, the neighboring English colonies to the north and south had been applying pressure on New Netherland for some time. By the time Dutch control of the colony ended, between 7,000 and 8,000 colonists lived in New Netherland. The growth of the population had slowly led to a process of scale enlargement in which the similarities between colony and patria gradually became clearer. This process is at its most evident in the forms of government. New Netherland started off as a trading post, and its form of government as such was geared to its needs. Both governmental and judicial

conclusion

477

power were invested in the body of director (general) and council, who represented the sovereigns, the States General and the West India Company. When the colonists demanded some influence in the government of the colony, they were granted this in the elementary form of advisory bodies. At the beginning of the 1650s the so-called Nine Men finally obtained civil jurisdiction over New Amsterdam. Some governmental powers were also transferred to local authorities, but criminal justice for the greater part remained the prerogative of director general and council. In the instructions for local officials, examples from the Dutch Republic were followed, sometimes even literally, as in the case of the schout of Wiltwijck. While in the 1640s the references to patria were still phrased in general terms, from 1650 onwards we find specific references to the customs of Amsterdam. The parallels are most obvious in New Amsterdam, where even the date on which the burgemeesters and schepenen were appointed was derived from Old Amsterdam. In the economy of New Netherland similarities with the Dutch Republic are also to be seen, but in this area they are less clear. Even though diversification gradually increased, the economy of the colony remained strongly oriented towards export, mainly of peltries and tobacco. Although the export of grain was negligible in the Dutch years, agriculture itself was of great importance for the subsistence of the colonists. Little is known about agricultural practices, but similarities with those in the east of the United Provinces would have been stronger than with those in the west. This is because emigrating farmers for the most part originated from Gelderland, Drenthe, Utrecht, and Overijssel, rather than from the province of Holland. The colony developed an economic structure different from that of patria as a result of its emphasis on fur trade and agriculture. The similarities with the Dutch Republic are rather to be found in the way in which matters were organized. The method of taxation and the regulation of trades, especially of bakers and brewers, are telling examples. In ecclesiastical matters, primacy was firmly located in the Dutch Republic, with the classis of Amsterdam having oversight in New Netherland. Contrary to the situation in Brazil, no classis was ever established in New Netherland. Below the level of classis the ecclesiastical organization in New Netherland matched that in the Dutch Republic. Many religious practices concerning the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the discipline over church members were adopted

478

conclusion

from patria. The general preference for the Reformed Religion did not prohibit people of other religious persuasions, such as Lutherans and Quakers, from settling in the colony. Although the Reformed Church was the public church, its membership remained low at less than 20 percent of the population. Many more attended its religious services. At first the social stratification of the colony showed little diversity. But as the population increased, differences between rich and poor became more pronounced. The top layer of the colonial society, the rich merchants who also formed the city government of New Amsterdam, was not a closed group. Even towards the end of the Dutch period, newcomers could easily enter into the economic elite and subsequently also into the governmental elite. For farmers, the colony offered good opportunities to acquire a better position than they would have had if they had stayed in the Dutch Republic. Owing to the rapid growth of the population, fueled by immigration, New Netherland society had an open character, but even so the ways in which status was expressed were largely similar to those in patria. An example is the distinction between citizens and outsiders, as formalized in the system of burgher rights. The parallels with the Dutch Republic are also apparent in daily life. The architecture of houses was based on the practices in Waterland in North Holland. Although information is scarce, the traditions surrounding birth, baptism, and marriage point to the desire of the colonists to live as they had been accustomed to in the Dutch Republic. The colonists not originating from the Dutch Republic for the most part quickly adapted to the dominant culture. In these facets of New Netherland’s colonial culture, the example was the Dutch Republic, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly. But another idea was also current: the idea that New Netherland was a young and tender society. And as the Amsterdam directors put it in 1640 ‘in the infancy of a newly opened country’1 prudence was required. Peace and concord in this young and tender society, partly in the form of religious uniformity, were to be preserved with the utmost care.

1

NYSA, NYCM 12: 1, p. 6 (12 March 1654; DRCHNY 14: 252).

conclusion

479

At the same time, however, the directors were convinced that economic and religious freedom had to be allowed if New Netherland were to flourish. In the opinion of the Amsterdam directors Lutherans, Quakers, and Jews were admissible as colonists, but with certain restrictions on their freedom of worship. In the case of the Lutherans the authorities succeeded in denying freedom of worship without causing much disturbance. Strong measures by director general and council against the Quakers on Long Island, on the other hand, turned out to be a threat to peace and concord. The director general and council, as well as the ministers in New Amsterdam, based their attitude towards Lutherans, Quakers, and Jews, on the idea that while freedom of conscience was inviolable, and thus these groups were free to worship privately, freedom of public worship and such ungodly practices as pulling the goose, and failing to observe the Sabbath, would endanger the entire community by invoking God’s wrath. The local authorities did not completely share the ideas of the provincial government as to what was right and proper. The city government of New Amsterdam, for instance, did not object to pulling the goose and thought the ordinance of 1663 on the observation of the Sabbath too rigorous. But the balance of power in the colony was such that local magistrates could not on their own authority take measures contrary to the wishes of director general and council. The colonists viewed the Dutch Republic as their outstanding model, but considerable differences existed between colony and motherland, for instance in climate, flora, and fauna. New Netherland was located in a temperate climate zone, but winters were colder than the colonists were used to. Animals and plants existed that were unique to North America, while other species occurred in considerably larger numbers than in Europe. And as elsewhere in North America, nature in New Netherland was gradually changed by the import of European species. Also in the economy a number of differences existed, such as the use of sewant and beavers as currency. In agriculture the use of maize as a crop was adopted from the Indians. Material culture in New Netherland was rather primitive in comparison with the Dutch Republic. In ecclesiastical matters, the way in which the salaries for ministers were supplied differed from the situation in the Dutch Republic. An important difference from patria was the presence of

480

conclusion

Indians and slaves. Slavery was common in almost all European colonies. New Netherland did not have a large community of slaves and free blacks, which made up only 5 to 10 percent of the total population. Attempts at conversion to Christianity that were undertaken up to the mid-1650s met with two obstacles: the theological question of whether a Christian could be a slave, and the rising demands for the religious knowledge made on prospective converts. Whether converted or not, the status of blacks within colonial society remained low. Both the ecclesiastical authorities in patria and the early ministers in New Netherland had a strong desire to convert Indians to Christianity, but practical problems prevented the realization of their aim. Linguistic barriers and the large cultural gap between the Indians and the colonists made conversion an extremely difficult task. The presence of indigenous people as well as slaves was specific for the colonial situation. That is also true for the rapid growth of the population, which did not occur in other seventeenth-century Dutch colonies, which were trading posts rather than settlement colonies. The directors in Amsterdam and the authorities in the colony were aware that New Netherland was a new society and that not all elements of the culture of the Dutch Republic could be introduced simultaneously and to the same extent. The introduction had to happen in a gradual, controlled process of growth. This view of the rulers explains why the concept of ‘crystallization’, in which the direction of evolution of a colonial culture is determined by the first settlers, does not apply to New Netherland. If it had, the Walloons who went over in 1624 and 1625 would have been able to set up a colony according to their own ideas, presuming they had wished to do so. It may be stretching the evidence to conclude that the departure of many of the Walloons from New Netherland was due to the fact that they could not determine the direction of the culture they found themselves in, but that their influence on the character of the colony was small is beyond doubt. Since the transatlantic balance of power, both in governmental and in ecclesiastical issues, resulted in New Netherland being more Netherlandish than New, it is not surprising that the Dutch character of the colony began to fade after the English takeover. The diminishing intensity of contact with the Dutch Republic and the sudden stop to Dutch immigration started a process in which the culture of

conclusion

481

the Dutch under English rule was cut off from patria and went its own way. That way was partly determined by the contact with the English, who gradually became the largest ethnic group. But even though the English controlled the colony and the forms of government became distinctly English, the Dutch retained ethnic traits through which they distinguished themselves. The most important of these was the Reformed Church, which obtained independence from the Amsterdam classis only in 1772, almost a century after the end of Dutch rule. By that time another medium for ethnic cohesion, the Dutch language, was declining in importance. By the 1760s a dispute arose in New York City about the language to be used in sermons. It was not until 1835 that the last sermon in Dutch was held in Tappan, NY, when the present church building was erected. On significant anniversaries, even into the twentieth century, there was Dutch preaching for sentimental purposes. The word ‘Dutch’ in its name was dropped by the Reformed Church in America in 1867. Even then remnants of the Dutch language remained in existence. In the beginning of the twentieth century some descendants still spoke a form of Dutch. In other respects Dutch culture showed itself to be resilient. Nursery rhymes, proverbs, typical expressions, place names, foodways, and the like are still traceable, albeit with difficulty. Even though New Netherland existed for no more than forty years, the marks of that short span of time are still to be found along the Hudson. In October 1676, almost two years after New Netherland had again come under English rule, New York merchant Cornelis Steenwijck received a charter from the West India Company. The document, on vellum with a red-gold ribbon, authorized him to take possession of ‘the coasts and lands of Nova Scotia and Acadie with all the lands and islands pertaining thereto, in so far as these are stretching from the River Pountegouet to the East and North’. Steenwijck was empowered to settle there, make treaties with the ‘Naturellen [Indians] of the land’ and all others in the name of the West India Company and the States General. He was allowed to trade and engage in fishing. If anyone wished to settle there under the jurisdiction of the West India Company, they had to take an oath, which included allegiance to the Prince of Orange. Steenwijck had a duty to maintain the Reformed religion. The Dutch Republic had reached a peace agreement with England in 1674, but it was still at war with France, which in 1604 had settled the lands now granted to Steenwijck. It was up to him to

482

conclusion

decide how and when to take possession of these lands. The charter represents the last Dutch attempt to obtain a colony in North America in the seventeenth century.2 Nothing ever came of it.

2 NYHS, Cornelis Steenwijck Papers, folder 1 (27 October 1676); Nat. Arch. archive second WIC, inv. no. 333, fol. 12 (25 January 1678), fol. 135 (21 October 1678). I thank this reference to Ineke Schippers.

APPENDIXES1 1. Director, director general, governor, 1623–1680 1624 1624 1625–1626 1626–1632 1632–1633 1633–1638 1638–1647 1647–1664 1664–1668 1668–1673 1673 1673–1674 1674–1680

Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont Cornelis Jacobsz. May Willem Verhulst Pieter Minuit Bastiaen Jansz. Krol2 Wouter van Twiller Willem Kieft Petrus Stuyvesant Richard Nicolls3 Francis Lovelace4 Cornelis Evertsen de Jongste and Jacob Benckes Anthony Colve Edmund Andros5

1 Unless indicated differently, these appendixes are based on O’Callaghan, The Register of New Netherland. 2 Eekhof, Bastiaen Jansz. Krol, 42. 3 Christoph, Nicolls-Lovelace Papers, ix. 4 Ibid. 5 Christoph and Christoph, Andros Papers 1674–1676, xvi; Christoph and Christoph, Andros Papers 1679–1680, xix.

appendixes

484

2. Councilors, 1625–1664 For the years missing in the table no data are available. a. 1625–1639 ’256 ’26 ’30 ’33 ’347 ’358 ’369 ’37 ’38 ’39 Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont Daniël van Krieckenbeeck François Vesaert Jan Lampo Joost van den Bogaert Gerrit Fongersz. Pieter Minuit Krijn Fredericksz. Isaac de Rasière Pieter van Bijlevelt Jacob Elbertsz. Wissinck Jan Jansz. Brouwer Sijmen Dircksz. Pos Reijnier Harmensz. Jan Meijndertsz. Jacob Jansz. Hesse Marten Gerritsz. van Bergen Andries Hudde Jacques Bentyn Lubbert van Dincklagen Claes van Elslandt Dirck Corsz. Stam Michiel Sijmensz. Jacob van Curler Willem Rieuwertsz. Johannes La Montagne Ulrich Lupolt Cornelis van der Hoykens

6

x x x x x x x x

x

x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x

x

x x x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x x

Wieder, De stichting van New York, 130, 137. Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 50, doc. 32 (20 August 1635; Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’). 8 Ibid. 9 Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 51, doc. 28 (14 August 1636; Van Laer, ‘Letters of Wouter van Twiller’). 7

appendixes

485

b. 1642–1653 ’42 Johannes La Montagne Cornelis van der Hoykens Willem Kieft Lubbert van Dincklagen Brian Newton Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift Jacob Loper Jelmer Thomasz. Hendrick van Dijck Jan Claesz. Bol Adriaen Keyser Cornelis van Tienhoven Cornelis van Werckhoven Nicasius de Sille

’43 ’44 ’45

’46

’47

’48

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x x x x x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

’49 ’50 ’51 ’52 ’53

x

x

x x

c. 1654–1664 ’54 Johannes La Montagne Cornelis van Tienhoven Cornelis van Werckhoven Nicasius de Sille Cornelis van Ruyven Pieter Tonneman Johan de Deckere

’55 ’56 ’57

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

’58

’59

’60

’61 ’62 ’63 ’64

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

486

appendixes 3. Fiscael, 1625–1674

1625–1632 1632–1634 1634 1634–1635 1636–1638? 1638?–1639 1639–1647 1647–1652 1652 1652–1656 1656–1664 1673–1674

Jan Lampo Coenraet Notelman Lubbert van Dincklagen10 Coenraet Notelman11 Jacques Bentyn12 Ulrich Lupolt Cornelis van der Hoykens Hendrick van Dijck Brian Newton (substituting) Cornelis van Tienhoven Nicasius de Sille Willem Knijff

10 GAA, NA, inv. no. 916, fol. 118–118v (21 April 1634); Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 50, doc. 32 (20 August 1635; Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’). 11 Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 50, doc. 32 (20 August 1635; Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’). 12 GAA, NA, inv. no. 1280, fol. 60v–61 (5 May 1639), where Bentyn declares to have returned to the Dutch Republic in July 1638.

appendixes

487

4. Secretary, 1625–1674 1626–1628 1628–1632 1632?–1638 1638–1649 1649–1650 1650–1651 1651–1652 1652–1653 1653–1664 1673–1674

Isaac de Rasière Jan van Remunde Andries Hudde13 Cornelis van Tienhoven Adriaen Keyser Jacob Kip Cornelis van Tienhoven Carel van Bruggen Cornelis van Ruyven Nicolaes Bayard

13 Whether Andries Hudde was already secretary in 1632 is unclear. In 1636 he co-signed a letter to the directors as secretary: Nat. Arch., OWIC, inv. no. 51, doc. 28 (14 August 1636; Van Laer, ‘Letters of Wouter van Twiller’). In an Amsterdam notarial document he declares that on 28 April 1638 he was still exmployed as secretary in New Netherland: GAA, NA, inv. no. 318, fol. 64/67 (31 January 1639).

appendixes

488

5. Twelve, Eight, and Nine Men, 1641–1652 No data are available for 1648 and 1651. In 1642, 1646, and probably 1645, there was no advisory body. Twelve Men ’41 Jacques Bentyn Marijn Adriaensz. Jan Jansz. Damen Hendrick Jansz. Snijder David Pietersz. de Vries Jacob Stoffelsz. Abraham Pietersz. Molenaer Frederick Lubbertsz. Jochem Pietersz. Kuijter Gerrit Dircksz. George Rapalje Abraham Planck Jacob Walingen Jan Evertsz. Bout Cornelis Melijn Isaack Allerton Gerrit Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven Thomas Hall Barent Dircksz. Augustijn Heermans Arnoldus van Hardenberg Govert Loockermans Jacob Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven Hendrick Hendricksz. Kip Michiel Jansz. Adriaen van der Donck

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Eight Men ’43

’44

x

14

Nine Men ’47

’49

’50 ’52

x x

x x

x

x

x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

14 Nat. Arch., SG, inv. no. 12564.25 ‘Stucken raeckende den staet van Nieu Nederlandt ende de proceduren tegen Cornelis Melijn ende den aencleve van dien’, letter Q (28 October 1644; DRCHNY 1: 213); Breeden-Raedt, C 4. In The Register of New Netherland, 54, O’Callaghan also provides the names for the Eight Men in 1645, which he bases on the signatories of a peace treaty conducted with the Indians in that year (NYSA, NYCM 4: 232–233 (30 August 1645; NYHM 4: 279–280)). I do not think the signatories acted in the capacity of the Eight Men, especially as there is no sign of activity from this advisory body at all in 1645.

appendixes

Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt Elbert Elbertsz. Stoothof Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift Pieter Cornelisz. Molenaer David Provoost Willem Beeckman Jacob van Curler Allard Anthony Isaac de Foreest Arent van Hattem Marten Kregier15

489

Twelve Men

Eight Men

Nine Men

’41

’43

’47

’44

’49

’50 ’52

x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

15 At the installation of the first city government, Kregier, together with Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift and Willem Beeckman is called ‘geweesen gemeensman’ [former representative of the community] and it is therefore very likely that he was a member of the Nine Men: NYPL, Bontemantel Collection: New Netherland Papers, box 1, folder ‘Official promulgation of New Amsterdam as a municipality, 1653’ (2 February 1653; Phelps Stokes, Iconography 4: 133–136; Guide, 555).

appendixes

490

6. City government New Amsterdam, 1653–1664

Arent van Hattem Marten Kregier Paulus Leendertsz. van der Grift Allard Anthony Willem Beeckman Maximilianus van Geel Pieter Wolphertsz. van Couwenhoven Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt Jochem Pietersz. Kuijter Johannes Nevius Johannes Pietersz. van Brugh Johannes de Peijster Jacob Gerritsz. Strijcker Jan Vigne Pieter Cornelisz. van der Veen Hendrick Hendricksz. Kip Govert Loockermans Hendrick Jansz. van der Vin Adriaen Bloemmaert Cornelis Steenwijck Isaac de Foreest Jeronimus Ebbingh Jacob Kip Timotheus Gabry Jacob Backer Isaac Grevenraet Jacques Cousseau Christoffel Hooglant Nicolaes de Meijer

’53 ’54 ’55 ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59 ’60 ’61

’62 ’63 ’64

b o b o o b o b o o s s s

s b s

b

s

o

b

b

o

o

b

o o

o b

b b

b

b o

s

o

s

o b s

b b s

b

b o

o

o

o

s o s o

s

b

b

o

b

b

o

o

b

b

s s

s s s

s s

o s

s o o o

s

s s

o

s

s s

s s

s

s

s

s s

o

o

o

o

b

o

s s

s

o s s

s

s s

s s s

s

s

s s

b: burgemeester; s: schepen; o: orphan master [weesmeester].

o

o

s s s s

s s s

s

s s s

s s s

appendixes

491

7. Magistrates of New York City and New Orange, 1665–167416

Cornelis Steenwijck Oloff Stevensz. van Cortlandt Timotheus Gabry Johannes Pietersz. van Brugh Johannes de Peijster Jacob Kip Jacques Cousseau Thomas Willett Thomas de Laval Cornelis van Ruyven John Lawrence Isaac Bedloo Ralph Whitfield Matthias Nicolls François Boon Christoffel Hooglant Nicolaes de Meijer Thomas Lovelace Ægidius Luyck Willem Beeckman Jeronimus Ebbingh Laurens van der Spiegel Geleyn Verplanck François Rombouts Stephanus van Cortlandt

’65–1 ’65–2

’66 ’67 ’68 ’69

b

a

b s

a

s s s s

a

m a d a d a

m

a

a d

a

a

’70 ’71

a

b b s

a a

a

a d m m a d a a

’73 ’74

m

a

a

’72

a a a a a a a a

a

b s

m a a

a a a

a d m

a a m s

a a

a b s s s s

b s s s

b: burgemeester; s: schepen; m: mayor; a: alderman; d: deputy mayor.

16 The dates for 1665–1672 are from the resolutions of the city government, in RNA 5 and 6.

appendixes

492

8. Schout New Amsterdam/Sheriff New York, 1653–1674 1653–1656 1656–1660 1660–1664 1664–1667 1667–1670 1670–1673 1673–1674

17 18 19

Cornelis van Tienhoven Nicasius de Sille Pieter Tonneman Allard Anthony17 John Manning18 Allard Anthony19 Anthony de Milt

BGE 1: 107 (12 December 1664). RNA 6: 88 (30 July 1667); RNA 6: 98–99 (22 October 1667). RNA 6: 261 (13 October 1670).

20

m m m m m m m m m m m

m

’53

m m m m m m

’54

m m m e

m m

m

’55

m e m e

m

m m

’56

m m e

m m

m

’57

m m

e

m

m

m

’58

m

m

m m

m e

’59

m m

m m m

’60

m m

m m

m

m

m

m

’61

m m m m

m

m

’62

This table is based on O’Callaghan, Register, Venema, Beverwijck, appendix 5, and discussion with Martha Shattuck.

m: magistrate; e: extraordinary magistrate.

Abraham Staets Volckert Jansz. Douw Cornelis Teunisz. van Westbroeck Jan Labatie Rutger Jacobsz. Andries Herpertsz. Jan Verbeeck Jan Thomasz. Whitbeck Jacob Jansz. Schermerhoorn Pieter Hartgers Sander Leendertsz. Glen Frans Barentsz. Pastoor Dirck Jansz. Croon Jan Hendricksz. van Bael Philip Pietersz. Schuyler Goosen Gerritsz. van Schaick Adriaen Gerritsz. François Boon Evert Jansz. Wendel Gerrit van Slichtenhorst Stoffel Jansz. Jan Kostersz. van Aecken

’52

9. Magistrates Beverwijck, 1652–166420

m m

m

m

m m

’63

m m m

m

m

m

’64

appendixes 493

appendixes

494

10. Reformed ministers, 1628–1674 Jonas Michaëlius Everardus Bogardus Johannes Megapolensis Johannes Cornelisz. Backer(us) Samuel Drisius Johannes Polhemius Gideon Schaets Hermannus Blom Henricus Selijns Everardus Welius Samuel Megapolensis Ægidius Luyck Wilhelmus van Nieuwenhuysen

Manhattan Manhattan Rensselaerswijck New Amsterdam New Amsterdam New Amsterdam Long Island Rensselaerswijck Beverwijck Wiltwijck Breuckelen New York New Amstel New Amsterdam New Amsterdam New York

1628–1632 1632–1647 1642–1648 1648–1670 1647–1649 1652–1673 1654–1676 1652–1658 1658–1694 1660–1667 1660–1664 1682–1701 1657–1659 1664–1668 1671–1672 1671–1681

LIST OF ARCHIVAL SOURCES

The list below contains all the archival sources referred to in the annotation. I have added some sources to make the list of more use to other researchers. The list is by no means complete, but the most important collections are included. Gehring’s Guide to Dutch Manuscripts has been an invaluable tool in compiling it, and provides an overview of many Dutch documents in American repositories not included in the list below. I have inserted the abbreviations as used in the annotation, as well as references to available translations, where applicable. During my research, I have in many cases made use of microfilms and photocopies in the collections of the New Netherland Project at the New York State Library in Albany and the Gemeentearchief Amsterdam.1 THE NETHERLANDS amsterdam Nederlands Scheepvaartmuseum Amsterdam (NSMA) Van Rensselaer Bowier manuscripts (VRBMs) 2 11 17 24 35 37 38

Letter of Symon Dircksz. Pos, councilor in New Netherland, to Kiliaen van Rensselaer, 16 September 1630 (VRBM, 169–170) Log of the ship Rensselaerswijck on its voyage from Amsterdam to New Netherland and return, 25 September 1636–7 November 1637 (VRBM, 355–389) Ordinance of the colony of Rensselaerswijck, prohibiting storing grain and tobacco without inspection (19 July 1640; VRBM, 515) Journal of Antony de Hooges on his voyage to New Netherland in the Coninck David, 30 July–29 November 1641 (VRBM, 580–603) Registration by Kiliaen van Rensselaer and associates of a colony above and below Fort Orange, on both sides of the North River (19 November 1629; VRBM, 157) First combination of colonies in New Netherland and shares each partner is to have in them (1 February 1630; VRBM, 164–165) Contract with Evert Pels, brewer (extract) (5 June 1642; VRBM, 679)

1 Articles on sources for New Netherland include: Gehring, Guide; Gehring, ‘Documentary Sources’; Gehring, ‘A Survey of Documents Relating to New Netherland’; Gehring, ‘New Netherland Documentary Projects: New Netherland Project’; Jacobs, ‘Dutch Protestant Churches’; Jacobs, ‘Dutch Sources on Native American History’; Ernst, ‘Het Amsterdamse notarieel archief ’; Spijkerman, ‘The Amsterdam Municipal Archives’; Christoph, ‘Story of the New Netherland Project’; Folkerts, ‘De Nederlandse archieven in de staat New York’; Martinez, ‘New Netherland Documentary Projects’; Gelderblom, Zuid-Nederlandse kooplieden, 267–270; Van den Boogaart, ‘The Archive of the First West India Company’. Much information on the archival sources, their history, and previous translations can be found in the introductions that Gehring and Van Laer added to the volumes of translations they prepared.

list of archival sources

496 46

Inventory of animals in the colony sent over by Jan Baptist van Rensselaer (ca. 1651; VRBM, 732–740) 63 Redress of the abuses and faults in the colony of Rensselaerswyck (5 September 1643; VRBM, 686–697) letter book Outgoing letters of Kiliaen van Rensselaer relating to Rensselaerswijck 1630–1643 (VRBM, passim)

Gemeentearchief (GAA) In 1841 the legislature of New York State sent John Romeyn Brodhead to Europe to collect copies of documents pertaining to that state. Among the depositories visited by Brodhead was the city archive of Amsterdam. He obtained copies of documents from the city records (arch. nos. 5023, 5024, 5025, 5028), which were later translated by Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan and published in volume one and two of DRCHNY.2 The documents in the archive of the classis of Amsterdam were transcribed by Edward T. Corwin in 1897 and 1898, later published in ER. Corwin and Brodhead selected only those excerpts from the documents that pertained directly to New York State, thus depriving the American readers of their translations of the context required for correct interpretation. Their translations, especially Corwin’s, are unsatisfactory. 213

Archive inv. no. inv. no. inv. no. inv. no.

343

Archive inv. no. inv. no. Archive inv. no. Archive inv. no. Archive inv. no. inv. no. inv. no. inv. no.

367 376 379

inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv.

no. no. no. no. no. no.

inv. no.

Evangelical Lutheran Congregation (AELG) (LCNY ) 19 Protocol of the consistory, 1647–1656 20 Protocol of the consistory, 1656–1665 93 Incoming and outgoing letters, 1657–1660 232 Incoming letters from New York, Albany, and Loonenburg Aalmoezeniers [Almoners] 39 Resolutions of regents, 1649–1666 437 Lists of children to be sent to New Netherland, ca. 1652 burgerweeshuis [burgher’s orphanage] 367 Document no. 930 consistory Amsterdam 7 classis Amsterdam (ACA) (ER) 4 Acta, 1631–1646 5 Acta, 1646–1656 6 Acta, 1656–1671 19 Register of copies of incoming and outgoing letters, with notes, 1589–1635 82 Acta of the Synod of North Holland, 1618–1636 83 Acta of the Synod of North Holland, 1637–1648 84 Acta of the Synod of North Holland, 1649–1659 157 Acta of the deputies for foreign churches, 1636–1663 158 Acta of the deputies for foreign churches, 1663–1721 163 Copies from the acta of the classis, pertaining to foreign churches, with some copies of outgoing letters, 1636–1648 164 Copies from the acta of the classis, pertaining to foreign churches, with some copies of outgoing letters, 1648–1655

2 Brodhead, The Final Report; Guy, Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan; Van der Linde, ‘De “Remonstrantie van Nieu-Nederlandt”’; Verney, O’Callaghan: The Making and Unmaking of a Rebel.

list of archival sources

909 5001 5023 5024 5025 5028

5075

497

inv. no. 165 Copies from the acta of the classis, pertaining to foreign churches, with some copies of outgoing letters, 1655–1706 inv. no. 224 Incoming correspondence concerning religious affairs on Curaçao, 1640–1740 inv. no. 230 Incoming correspondence concerning religious affairs in the province New York, 1700–1737 Collection of photocopies and microfilms Doop-, trouw- en begraafregisters (DTB) [vital records] inv. nos. 6, 43, 449, 478 Groot memoriaal [assorted papers of the city government] inv. no. 5 Archive correspondence burgemeesters (AB) (DRCHNY 1 and 2) inv. no. 60 letterbook 1651–1652 Archive vroedschap (AV) (DRCHNY 1 and 2) inv. nos. 19, 21, 22, 98, 99 Archive burgemeesters (AB) (DRCHNY 1 and 2) inv. no. 540 Trade 4. VOC, WIC, Levant, Moscovian, and Eastern Trade inv. no. 541 Trade 4. New Netherland, city-colony, accounts (DRCHNY 1 and 2) Notarial Archive (NA) (accessed via card file system) inv. no. 226 (not. Jacob Meerhout) inv. no. 306, 318 (not. Frederick van Banchem) inv. no. 414 (nots. Jacob and Nicolaes Jacobsz.) inv. no. 441 (nots. Palm Matthijsz.) inv. no. 524 (nots. Jacob Westfrisius) inv. no. 602 (nots. Laurens Lamberti) inv. no. 667, 694, 696 (not. Jan Warnaertsz.) inv. no. 727, 734 (not. Pieter Carelsz.) inv. no. 757, 758 (not. Nicolaes Gerritsz. Rooleeu) inv. no. 843, 844 (not. Jan Cornelisz. Hoogeboom) inv. no. 856 (not. Evert Rooleeu) inv. no. 943 (not. Arent Jansz. Engel) inv. no. 986 (not. Benedict Baddel) inv. no. 915–917 (not. Barent Jansz. Verbeeck) inv. no. 943, 944 (not. Arent Jansz. Engel) inv. no. 1029, 1031 (not. S. van der Piet) inv. no. 1054, 1055, 1060, 1062, 1064, 1073, 1081, 1093, 1096, 1100, 1104, 1108, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1119, 1125, 1133, 1135, 1140, 1141, 1145 (not. Justus van der Ven) inv. no. 1205, 1206 (not. Jan de Vos) inv. no. 1279, 1280, 1283, 1287, 1289, 1294, 1295, 1297, 1298, 1300, 1301, 1303, 1307, 1312, 1323, 1329, 1330, 1332–1334, 1341, 1343, 1346, 1349, 1352, 1359, 1360, 1363, 1364, 1373 (not. Hendrick Schaeff ) inv. no. 1497, 1501, 1534, 1555 (not. Jan Volckaertsz. Oli) inv. no. 1580 (not. Pieter Capoen) inv. no. 1592, 1595 (not. Willem Hasen) inv. no. 1621 (not. B. Coop van Groen) inv. no. 1628 (not. David de L’Hommel) inv. no. 1659, 1695, 1711, 1715, 1718 (not. Pieter de Bary) inv. no. 1788 (not. Pieter van Velsen) inv. no. 1804 (not. C. van Vliet) inv. no. 1838, 1839 (not. Nicolaes Kruys) inv. no. 2030 (not. Salomon van Nieuwland) inv. no. 2140 (not. Nic. van Loosdrecht)

list of archival sources

498 inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv.

no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no.

2186, 2192, 2214 (not. Adriaen Lock) 2278–2281, 2287, 2290, 2292 (not. Jacob de Winter) 2486, 2487 (not. Jacobus Helleras) 2576 (not. Cornelis de Grijp) 2614 (not. Nicolaes Listingh) 2753 (not. Pieter van Buijtene) 2804 (not. Hendrick Westfrisius) 2843 (not. Dirck Danckertsz.) 2860 (not. Bernhard Coornhart) 2875, 2880 (not. Willem van Veen) 2956 (not. Johannes van Hell) 2992, 2993 (not. Emanuel de Lavello) 3218 (not. Hendrick Outgers) 3492 (not. Gerrit van Breugel) 3613 (not. Jacob de Vlieger) 3658 (not. Jeremias Price) 5129 (not. J. Boots) 5760 (not. mr. G. Emaus ten Berge)

arnhem Gelders Archief Judicial archives district Veluwe inv. no. 438, 7

Documents of the court case between Brant van Slichtenhorst and Jan van Rensselaer

’s-gravenhage Nationaal Archief [National Archive] (Nat. Arch) During Brodhead’s stay in Holland, scribes of the archive selected and copied documents from the archive of the States General for him. The pencil notes (‘copied for New York, 15 April 1842’) can still be seen on the originals. The scribes missed a few references directly relevant to New Netherland, especially in the resolutions of the meetings of the Heren XIX. Also, documents relating to the general policies of the WIC, relevant to the context of New Netherland, were not copied. Archive of the States General (SG) (DRCHNY 1 and 2) 1.01.03

Resolutions inv. no. 59 1634 inv. no. 3196 1637 Resolutions Westindische zaken [West Indian Affairs] (Res. WIZ) inv. no. 4845 1638–1651 inv. no. 4846 1652–1663 inv. no. 4847 1664–1670 inv. no. 4848 1671–1681 1.01.04 Lias West Indië [file West India, consisting of reports and correspondence] (LWI) inv. no. 5751 1623–1626 inv. no. 5752 1628–1630 inv. no. 5753 1631–1634 inv. no. 5754 1635–1637 inv. no. 5755 1638–1640 inv. no. 5756 1641–1642

list of archival sources inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. inv. Lias inv. inv.

499

no. 5757 1643–1644 no. 5758 1645–1646 no. 5759 1647 no. 5760 1648 no. 5761 1649 no. 5762 1650 no. 5763 1651–1652 no. 5764 1653 no. 5765 1654–1655 no. 5766 1656–1657 no. 5767 1658–1665 no. 5768 1666–1673 no. 5769 1674–1677 Engeland [file England] no. 5892 1632 no. 5893 1633–1634

1.01.06– 1.01.08 Loketkas WIC [letter rack WIC] inv. no. 12564.4 Remonstrances of the chamber Amsterdam of the WIC to the States General and the States of Holland and West-Friesland concerning negotiations with the enemy 1633–1636 inv. no. 12564.6 Documents relating to the involvement of the States General with the negotiations between them and the directors of the WIC concerning the opening of the trade on Brazil, 1638. With supporting documents 1622–1636 inv. no. 12564.17 Documents relating to the involvement of the States General with the High Government in Brazil and the granting of support against the Portuguese, 1643–1645 inv. no. 12564.25 Documents relating to the involvement of the States General with the reports on the situation in New Netherland and the procedures against Cornelis Melijn, patroon on the Staten Island in New Netherland, 1649–1650. With supporting documents, 1642–1648 inv. no. 12564.30A Documents relating to the involvement of the States General with the situation in New Netherland, in particular the positions of the patroons and the population, 1649–1650 Documents relating to the involvement of the States General with the measures necessary for improving the situation in Brazil, with musterrolls of ships in the West Indian waters, 1649–1650. With supporting documents, 1644–1648 inv. no. 12564.36 Documents relating to the involvement of the States General with New Netherland, especially the complaints about Stuyvesant and the boundary problems with the English, 1650–1652 inv. no. 12564.42 Resolutions and affairs of the directors of the WIC, with letters and requests concerning Brazil, 1656–1659 inv. no. 12564.49 Remonstrance of the directors of the WIC to the States General on the conflict between the WIC and

500

1.01.06

1.01.06 1.01.06 1.01.06

list of archival sources the English over the boundaries in New Netherland, 1660. With supporting documents, 1614–1659 inv. no. 12564.57 Documents relating to the involvement of the States General with the accusations against and the defense of Pieter Stuyvesant, former director general of New Netherland, pertaining to his conduct during the loss of New Netherland, 1665–1667. With supporting documents, 1661–1664 inv. no. 12582.9 Documents relating to the involvement of the States General with the Dutch conquest of the Swedish colony on the South River, 1655–1656. With supporting documents, 1648–1654 Akteboeken [act books] inv. no. 12308 1648–1650 inv. no. 12309 1650–1652 inv. no. 12310 1653–1656 Commissieboeken [commission books] inv. no. 12272 1640–1650 Ingekomen brieven [incoming letters] inv. no. 11118 1650 inv. no. 11120 1652 Uitgegane brieven [outgoing letters] inv. no. 11940 1652 inv. no. 11944 1656

1.05.01.01 Archive Old WIC (OWIC) When Brodhead reported his findings, he included the remark that the archive of the West India Company had been sold as scrap paper in the 1820s. Actually, most of the documents of the first WIC may already have been destroyed in the seventeenth century. Of what little is left, most comes from the chamber Zeeland and pertains to Brazil.3 inv. no. 14 Resolutions of the chamber Amsterdam, 1635–1636 inv. no. 50 Chamber Zeeland. Letters and documents from Brazil 1633–1635 (doc. 32 in Jacobs, ‘A Troubled Man’) inv. no. 51 Chamber Zeeland. Letters and documents from Brazil 1636 (doc. 27 and 28 in Van Laer, ‘Letters of Wouter van Twiller’) 1.05.01.02 Archive Second WIC inv. no. 333 Resolutions of the chamber Amsterdam, 1678 hoorn Archiefdienst West-Friese Gemeenten Notarial archives Hoorn inv. nr. 2070

3

Van den Boogaart, ‘The Archive of the First West India Company’.

list of archival sources

501

leiden Gemeentearchief Stadsarchief [City Archive] II 1574–1816 inv. no. 6701 List of people to be summoned by the gerechtsbode, being potential participants in the WIC, a list of participants, and an index, 1622 utrecht Utrechts Archief Transporten en plechten [conveyances and bailbonds], pp. 189–192 (21 September 1615) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA albany New York State Archives (NYSA) New York Colonial Manuscripts (NYCM) The numbering system I used is based on O’Callaghan, Calendar, which also provides summaries of all documents, although it leaves out many details. Volume 1, Register of the Provincial Secretary 1638–1642, was destroyed in the Capital fire of 1911. A translation is available in NYHM 1. Of the volumes listed below, a number of documents are available in the old and unreliable translations of Fernow (DRCHNY 12–14) and O’Callaghan (LO and Voyages of the Slavers). An overview of those translations can be found in Gehring, Guide, appendix A. Call. no.

Vol. no.

A0270 2 3 A1809 4 5 6 7 8 9 10–1 10–2 10–3 A1810

A1875

11 12 13 14 15 16–1

A1876 16–2

Description Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642–1660 (Guide, no. 119) 1642–1647 (NYHM 2) 1648–1660 (NYHM 3) Dutch colonial council minutes, 1638–1665 (Guide, no. 12 1638–1649 (NYHM 4) 1652–1654 (NYHM 5) 1654–1656 (CM 1655–1656) 1655–1656 (copies of parts of vols. 6 and 8) 1656–1658 1660–1661 1662 1663 1664 Dutch colonial administrative correspondence, 1646–1664 (Guide, no. 121) 1647–1653 (Corres. 1647–1653) 1654–1658 (Corres. 1654–1658) 1659–1660 1661–1662 1663–1664 Dutch colonial ordinances, 1647–1658 (LWA, 3–100; Guide, no. 122) Fort Orange settlement administrative records, 1656–1660 1656–1657 (FOCM, 250–343; Van Laer, Minutes of the Court of Fort Orange, 1: 285–306, 2: 9–87)

list of archival sources

502 16–3 A1877 A1883

16–4 17

A1878 18 19 A1879 20 21 A1880 A1882

GG HH-2 HH-1

A1895 22 A1881

23

1660 (FOCM, 476–542; Van Laer, Minutes of the Court of Fort Orange, 2: 239–312) Writs of Appeal, 1658–1663 (LWA, 103–135) Curaçao records, 1640–1665 (Gehring and Schiltkamp, Curacao Papers; Guide, no. 123) Dutch Delaware River settlement administrative records, 1646–1664 (Guide, no. 124) 1646–1660 (DP, 1–226) 1661–1664 (DP, 229–343) British Delaware River settlement administrative records, 1664–1682 (Guide, no. 125) 1664–1678 (Gehring, Delaware Papers (English Period), 1–193) 1679–1682 (Gehring, Delaware Papers (English Period), 195–367) Dutch patents and deeds, 1630–1664 (Guide, no. 126) 1630–1651 (LP, 1–64) 1654–1664 (LP, 67–106) Dutch colonial land deeds, 1652–1653 (LP, 109–127) (Guide, no. 126) Council minutes, 1668–1783 Nicolls-Lovelace Papers, 1664–1673 (Christoph, Nicolls-Lovelace Papers) Dutch colonial administrative records, 1673–1674 (Guide, no. 128)

New York State Library (NYSL) SC7079 Rensselaerwyck Manor (NY) 1630–1899 (VRMP) Correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer (CJVR), boxes 13, 29, 48–50 B (Guide, no. 213) Correspondence of Maria van Rensselaer (Van Laer, Correspondence of Maria van Rensselaer), box 1, 6, 7 (Guide, no. 314) Court minutes Rensselaerswijck (MCR), boxes 40, 40 A (Guide, no. 205) Accounts and invoices Rensselaerswijck, box 13, 14, 24, 31, 34 (Guide, ca. nos. 177–323) mss 10643 Contracts for leasing of land in Rensselaerswijck 1666–1703 (Guide, 173) mss 12802 Ordinance for the burgher guard of Beverwijck (ca. 1653; Guide, no. 164) mss BW 10272 Letter from Governor Richards Nicolls to the Magistrates of Albany (17 August 1667 old style) SC 16676 Collection of photocopies of documents relating to New Netherland in other American depositories Albany County Hall of Records (ACHR) Notarial documents ‘A Deeds 1 1656–1678’ ‘B Deeds 2 1654–1680’ ‘C Deeds 3 1678–1704’ ‘D Deeds 4 1678–1704’ ‘Mortgages no. 1, 1652–1660’ ‘Wills, parts 1 and 2, 1691–1835’ ‘Notarial Papers 1, 1660–1676’ ‘Notarial Papers 2, 1669–1690’

(FOR (ERA (ERA (ERA (ERA (ERA (ERA (ERA

1656–1678; ERA 1; Guide, no. 83) 1: Guide, 82) 2: 15–349) 2: 351–406) 4: 7–115; Guide, 85) 4: 117–206) 3: 29–363; Guide, 86) 3: 365–609)

list of archival sources Court minutes CMFO 1652–1656 CMFO 1658–1659 ‘Court minutes. City & County of Albany

503

(FOCM, 1–271; Van Laer, Minutes of the Court of Fort Orange, 1; Guide, no. 81 (FOCM, 344–475; Van Laer, Minutes of the Court of Fort Orange, 2: 89–237; Guide, 84) 1668–1673 (CMARS 1; Guide, no. 87)

Clerk’s Office 1668. 1672’ ‘Court Minutes, 1675–1684’ 1675–1684 (CMARS 2: 9–58) ‘Proceedings of the Commissioners or Magistrates, 1676–1680 (CMARS 2: 59–493 1676–1680’ ‘Proceedings, Justices of the Peace. 1665. 1685’ 1680–1685 (CMARS 3) kingston Reformed Protestant Dutch Church Church Records Vol. 1 (Hoes, Baptismal and Marriage Registers) Vol. 2 (Hoes, Baptismal and Marriage Registers) Ulster County Hall of Records (UCHR) Notarial documents Wiltwijck, Kingston, Swaenenburgh ‘Liber A’ 1664–1665 (KP 2: 536–587; Guide, no. 421) ‘Liber B’ 1666–1681 (KP 2: 588–688; Guide, no. 422) ‘Liber C’ 1669–1674 (KP 2: 668–743; Guide, no. 423) ‘Liber D’ 1671–1673 (Guide, no. 424) Court ‘Book ‘Book ‘Book ‘Book

minutes Wiltwijck, Kingston, Swaenenburgh 1’ 1661–1664 (KP 1: 1–152; Guide, no. 417) 2’ 1664–1667 (KP 1: 152–375; Guide, no. 418) 3’ 1667–1673 (KP 1: 375–382, 2: 383–501; Guide, no. 419) 4’ 1673–1675 (KP 2: 501–535, 743–745; Guide, no. 420)

new brunswick New Brunswick Theological Seminary, Gardner A. Sage Library (NBTS, GASL) During his stay in Holland Brodhead obtained on loan the letters ministers in New Netherland had sent to Amsterdam during the seventeenth century. Many years later, the classis of Amsterdam decided to sell this correspondence to the Reformed Church in America. Amsterdam Correspondence (AC) (ER 1; Guide, nos. 36–79) new york city New York Public Library (NYPL) Bontemantel Collection – New Netherland Papers Extract from resolutions of the Heren XIX with coats of arms for New Netherland (28 December 1630; Guide, no. 544) Official list of New Netherland (1650; Guide, no. 551) Accounts of the West India Company, slave trade etc. (1651–1660; Guide, no. 553)

504

list of archival sources

Official promulgation of New Amsterdam as a municipality (2 February 1653; Phelps Stokes, Iconography 4: 133–136; Guide, no. 555) Tax list of the Dutch West India Company for taxes received on merchandise conveyed by private parties to New Netherland (1654–1655; Guide, no. 561) Letter from the directors of the WIC to the deputies of the City of Amsterdam (15 February 1656; Guide, no. 568) Extract of a letter from the director general and council to the directors in Amsterdam (16 August 1657; Phelps Stokes, Iconography 4: 181; Guide, no. 576) Extracts of the Register of the West India Company (9 March 1656; Guide, nos. 569, 598) overview of salaries in New Netherland (not dated; Guide, no. 596) – Brazil Dutch West India Papers no. 1233 letter of Johan van Raesvelt to Constantijn Huyghens (20 April 1649) James Riker Collection Vol. 10 Court minutes Haerlem 1662–1674 (Guide, no. 603) New-York Historical Society (NYHS) Stuyvesant-Rutherford Papers Correspondence of Govert Loockermans (Guide, nos. 454–489) Ships’s logs Gulden Bever, Gulden Otter, Hoop and Roseboom, 1660–1663 (Scott, ‘Voyages’) Selijns’s volume of poetry Cornelis Steenwijck Papers New York Municipal Archives (NYMA) Original Dutch Records (ODR 1–4) 1 1653–1656 (RNA 1–2: 1–158) (Guide, no. 436) 2 1656–1660 (RNA 2: 158–3: 173) (Guide, no. 437) 3 1660–1662 (RNA 3: 173–4: 127) (Guide, no. 438) 4 1662–1665 (RNA 4: 127–5: 266) (Guide, no. 439) Original Record of the Common Council (ORCC 5–6) 5 1665–1670 (RNA 5: 267–6: 262) (Guide, no. 440) 6 1670–1674 (RNA 6: 262–7: 139) (Guide, no. 441) Burgomasters and Schepens 1 1653–1658 (‘Powers of Attorney’) (Guide, no. 441) 2 1654–1660 (Guide, no. 442) 3 1658–1661 (Guide, no. 443) 4 1661–1662 (O’Callaghan, Register of Salomon Lachaire, 82–219) (Guide, no. 434) 5 1663–1665 (Guide, no. 445) 6 1661–1664 (MOM 2: 15–72) (Guide, no. 446) 7 1660–1665 (Guide, no. 447) 8 1662–1664 (O’Callaghan, Register of Salomon Lachaire, 54–82) (Guide, no. 448) Administrative Minutes of New Amsterdam 1657–1664 (AMNA 1–2) (Guide, no. 449) 1 RNA 7: 140–267 2 MOM 2: 75–197 Minutes of the Notary Public 1661 (O’Callaghan, Register of Salomon Lachaire, 1–53) (Guide, no. 450) Original Records of Burgomasters and Orphan Masters 1665–1666 (MOM 1; O’Callaghan, Minutes of the Orphanmasters) (Guide, no. 451) Records of Deeds, Bonds, etc. 1665–1674 (Guide, no. 452) New York Genealogical and Biographical Society Contract on the upkeep of Hendrick Claesz., 1654 (Guide, no. 635) Petition Midwout (18 March 1653; Guide, no. 634)

list of archival sources

505

Brooklyn Historical Society (previously Long Island Historical Society) Journal of the travels of Jaspar Danckers and Peter Sluyter, 8 June 1679–12 October 1681 (Gehring and Grumet, ‘Observations of the Indians’, 107; James and Jameson, Journal of Jasper Danckaerts; Scott, Diary of Our Second Trip) Pierpont Morgan Library MA 956, no. 9 Certificate for the small burgher-right of Lucas Dircksz. (20 December 1659; Guide, no. 611) philadelphia Historical Society of Pennsylvania Dutch West India Company Papers Extract of letter from Peter Stuyvesant to directors (22 September 1654; Oppenheim, Early History of the Jews, 4–5; Guide, no. 620) Petition of the ‘Jewish Nation’ to the directors of the WIC, chamber of Amsterdam ( January 1655; Oppenheim, Early History of the Jews, 9–13; Guide, no. 623) san marino, california Huntington Library HM 548 Regulations, instructions, and letters 1624–1626 (DRNN; Wieder, De stichting van New York; Guide, no. 1) HM 819 Journal of the travels of Harmen Meyndertsz. van den Bogaert, 1634–1635 (Gehring and Starna, A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country; Snow, Gehring and Starna, In Mohawk Country, 1–13; NNN, 137–162; Guide, no. HM 838 Contracts between Van der Capellen and Melijn (25 May and 4 June 1650; Guide, no. 5)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Bibliography includes all works mentioned in the annotation. For further immersion into the relevant works, the reader should consult the Bibliography on the New Netherland Project website at www.nnp.org. Abbott, C.M., ‘Colonial Copper Mines’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 29 (1970), 295–309. Alphen, M.A. van, ‘Zielverkopers, transportbrieven en transportkopers’. In: J. Krikke, V. Enthoven and K. Mastenbroek (eds.), Amsterdam, haven in de 17e en 18e eeuw (Amsterdam 1990), 22–27. ——, ‘The Female Side of Dutch Shipping: Financial Bonds of Seamen Ashore in the 17th and 18th Century’. In: J.R. Bruijn and W.F.J. Mörzer Bruyns (eds.), Anglo-Dutch Mercantile Marine Relations, 1700 –1850 (Amsterdam, Leiden 1991), 125–132. Ames, S.M., Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond 1940). ——, County Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia, 1640–1645 (Charlottesville 1973). Archdeacon, Th.J., New York City 1664–1710. Conquest and Change (Ithaca, London 1976). Baar, M. de, ‘“Let Your Women Keep Silence in the Churches”. How Women in the Dutch Reformed Church Evaded Paul’s Admonition’. In: Women in the Church. Papers Read at the 1989 Summer Meeting and the 1990 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society (Studies in Church History 27) (Oxford 1990), 389–401. Baart, J., ‘Ho-de-no-sau-nee en de Nederlanders. De wisselwerking tussen de materiële culturen van autochtonen en allochtonen in 17e-eeuws Nieuw-Nederland’. In: B. Bakker et al. (eds.), Nieuwnederlandse studiën. Een inventarisatie van recent onderzoek. New Netherland Studies. An Inventory of Current Research and Approaches. Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 84 (1985), 89–99. ——, ‘Dutch Material Civilization: Daily Life between 1650–1776, Evidence from Archeology’. In: R.H. Blackburn and N.A. Kelley (eds.), New World Dutch Studies. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776. Proceedings of the Symposium Organized by the Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, August 2–3, 1986, Held in Conjunction with the Exhibition Remembrance of Patria. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776 (Albany 1987), 1–11. ——, ‘Kammen’. In: A. van Dongen (ed.), One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure (Rotterdam 1995), 175–187. Bachman, V.C., Peltries or Plantations. The Economic Policies of the Dutch West India Company in New Netherland 1633–1639 (Baltimore 1969). Bailey, R.F., Prerevolutionary Dutch Houses and Families in Northern New Jersey and Southern New York (New York 1936). Bailyn, B., The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass. 1955, 3rd ed. 1982). ——, ‘The Idea of Atlantic History’. In: Itinerario. European Journal of Overseas History 20 (1996), 19–44. Balmer, R.H., A Perfect Babel of Confusion. Dutch Religion and English Culture in the Middle Colonies (New York 1989).

508

bibliography

Barnouw, A.J., ‘The Settlement of New Netherland’. In: A.C. Flick (ed.), History of the State of New York (10 vols., New York 1933), 1: 215–258. Baron, S.W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews. Vol. 15: Resettlement and Exploration (New York, London, Philadelphia 1973). Beernink, G., De geschiedschrijver en rechtsgeleerde Arend van Slichtenhorst en zijn vader Brant van Slichtenhorst, stichter van Albany, hoofdstad van den staat New York (Arnhem 1916). Bergsma, W., ‘Church, State and People’. In: K. Davids and J. Lucassen (eds.), A Miracle Mirrored. The Dutch Republic in European Perspective (Cambridge 1995), 196–228. Berkum, H. van, De Labadie en de Labadisten: eene bladzijde uit de geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde kerk (Sneek 1851). Berlin, I., ‘From Creole to African: Atlantic Creoles and the Origins of AfricanAmerican Society in Mainland North America’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 53 (1996), 251–288. ——, Many Thousands Gone. The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (Cambridge, Mass., London 1998). Biewenga, A., De Kaap de Goede Hoop. Een Nederlandse vestigingskolonie, 1680 –1730 (Amsterdam 1999). Bijlsma, R., ‘Rotterdams Amerika-vaart in de eerste helft der zeventiende eeuw’. In: Bijdragen voor Vaderlandse Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde 5th ser. 3 (1915), 97–142. Blackburn, R.H., ‘Dutch Material Culture: Furniture’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 54–1 (1979), 3–5. ——, ‘Dutch Material Culture: Silversmiths’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 55–3 (1980), 5–11. ——, ‘Dutch Domestic Architecture in the Hudson Valley’. In: B. Bakker et al. (eds.), Nieuwnederlandse studiën. Een inventarisatie van recent onderzoek. New Netherland Studies. An Inventory of Current Research and Approaches. Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 84 (1985), 151–165. —— and R. Piwonka, Remembrance of Patria: Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America 1609–1776 (Albany 1988). —— et al., Dutch Colonial Homes in America (New York 2002). Bliss, R.M., Revolution and Empire. English Politics and the American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (Manchester, New York 1990). Boer, R.C., ‘Het lied van Geeraert van Velsen’. In: De Gids 63, 2 (1899), 273–308. Boer, L.P. de, ‘Naamlijsten van bewindhebbers en van hoofdparticipanten der WestIndische Compagnie’. In: De Navorscher 63 (1914), 382–388; 64 (1915), 17–21. Boer, M.G. de (ed.), ‘Memorie over den toestand der West-Indische Compagnie in het jaar 1633’. In: Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 21 (1900), 343–362. Boer, P. den, ‘Naar een geschiedenis van de dood. Mogelijkheden tot onderzoek naar de houding ten opzichte van de dode en de dood ten tijde van de Republiek’. In: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 89 (1976), 161–201. Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam, C.W. Th. baron van, De Gereformeerde kerken in Nederland en de zending in Oost-Indië in de dagen der Oost Indische Compagnie (Utrecht 1906). Bogaers, L., ‘Geleund over de onderdeur. Doorkijkjes in het Utrechtse buurtleven van de vroege Middeleeuwen tot in de zeventiende eeuw’. In: Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997), 336–363. Boheemen, Ch. van, ‘Dutch-American Poets of the Seventeenth Century’. In: R. Kroes and H.-O. Neuschäfer (eds.), The Dutch in North-America. Their Immigration and Cultural Continuity (European Contributions to American Studies 20) (Amsterdam 1991). Boheemen, P. van, and J. van Haaren, ‘Ter bruiloft genodigd’. In: P. van Boheemen et al. (eds.), Kent, en versint. Eer datje mint. Vrijen en trouwen 1500–1800 (Apeldoorn, Zwolle 1989), 154–187. Bontemantel, H., De regeeringe van Amsterdam, soo in ’t civiel als crimineel en militaire

bibliography

509

(1653–1672) ontworpen door Hans Bontemantel (G.W. Kernkamp (ed.)) (Werken uitgegeven door het Historisch Genootschap, 3rd ser., 7) (2 vols., ’s-Gravenhage 1897). Boogaart, E. van den, ‘The Archive of the First West India Company’. In: Itinerario. European Journal of Overseas History 4 (1980), 59–61. ——, et al., Overzee. Nederlandse koloniale geschiedenis 1590–1975 (Haarlem 1982). ——, ‘De Nederlandse expansie in het Atlantische gebied 1590–1674’. In: E. van den Boogaart et al., Overzee. Nederlandse koloniale geschiedenis 1590–1975 (Haarlem 1982). ——, ‘The Netherlands and New Netherland, 1624–1664’. In: The Birth of New York. Nieuw Amsterdam 1624–1664 (Amsterdam, New York 1982, 1983), 9–16. ——, ‘The Servant Migration to New Netherland, 1624–1664’. In: P.C. Emmer (ed.), Colonialism and Migration. Indentured Labour Before and After Slavery (Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster 1986), 55–81. ——, et al., La expansión holandesa en el Atlántico, 1580–1800 (Madrid 1992). Boxer, Ch.R., The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600–1800 (London 1965, repr. 1990). ——, De Nederlanders in Brazilië 1624–1654 (Amsterdam, Antwerpen 1993, 1st ed. 1957). Bradley, J.W., Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois. Accommodating Change, 1500 –1655 (Syracuse 1987). Brandão, J.A., “Your fyre shall burn no more.” Iroquois Policy toward New France and Its Native Allies to 1701 (Lincoln, London 1997). Brandt, C.C.E., ‘Eenige opmerkingen aangaande de Luthersche kerk in Amerika’. In: Een vaste burg is onze God 14 (1896), 203–213. Bree, J. la, De rechterlijke organisatie en rechtsbedeling te Batavia in de 17e eeuw (Rotterdam 1951). Breeden-Raedt aende Vereenichde Nederlandsche Provintien: Gelreland, Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Vriesland, Over-Yssel, Groeningen, gemaeckt ende gestelt uyt diverse ware en waerachtige memorien door I.A.G.W.C. (Antwerpen 1649). Brink, A.W., ‘The Ambition of Roeloff Swartwout, Schout of Esopus’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 67 (1994), 50–61. Brodhead, J.R., The Final Report of John Romeyn Brodhead, Agent of the State of New-York, to Procure and Transcribe Documents in Europe, Relative to the Colonial History of said State. Made to the Governor, 12th February, 1845 (Albany 1845). ——, History of the State of New York (New York 1871). Broers, E.J.M.F.C., ‘Van Tafel 8 tot Boek 6. De belediging in rechtshistorisch perspectief ’. In: A. Keunen and H. Roodenburg (eds.), Schimpen en schelden. Eer en belediging in Nederland, ca. 1600–ca. 1850. Volkskundig Bulletin 18 (1992), 295–313. Bruijn, J.R., Het gelag der zeelieden (Leiden 1978). ——, and E.S. van Eyck van Heslinga, Muiterij. Oproer en berechting op schepen van de VOC (Haarlem, Bussum 1980). ——, F. Gaastra, I. Schöffer, Dutch Asiatic Shipping in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Introductory Volume (Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën, grote serie 165, ’s-Gravenhage 1987). ——, ‘De walvisvaart: de ontplooiing van een nieuwe bedrijfstak’. In: L. Hacquebord and W. Vroom (eds.), Walvisvaart in de gouden eeuw. Opgravingen op Spitsbergen (Amsterdam 1988), 16–24. Bruijn, K. de and M. Spies (eds.), Vondel vocaal. De liederen van Vondel bijeengebracht en ingeleid (Haarlem 1988). Bruin, G. de, Geheimhouding en verraad. De geheimhouding van staatszaken ten tijde van de Republiek (1600–1750) (’s-Gravenhage 1991). Burema, L., De voeding in Nederland, van de middeleeuwen tot de 20e eeuw (Assen 1953). Burgers, J.W.J., ‘Eer en schande van Floris V. Twee oude twistpunten over de geschiedenis van een Hollandse graaf ’. In: Holland, historisch tijdschrift. Tweemaandelijkse uitgave van de historische vereniging Holland 30 (1998), 1–21.

510

bibliography

Burghers of New Amsterdam and the Freemen of New York, 1675–1866 (Collections of the New-York Historical Society 18) (New York 1885). Burhans, B.C., ‘Enduring Dutch Nursery Rhyme’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 65 (1992), 61–63. Burke, P., Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (London 1978, 2nd ed. 1979). ——, History and Social Theory (Cambridge 1992). Burke, Th.E., ‘The New Netherland Fur Trade, 1657–1661. Response to Crisis’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 59–3 (1986), 1–4, 21. ——, Mohawk Frontier. The Dutch Community of Schenectady, New York, 1661–1710 (Ithaca, London 1991). Burrows, E.G. and M. Wallace, Gotham. A History of New York City to 1898 (New York, Oxford 1999). Camerata Trajectina, Muziek uit de Gouden Eeuw. Constantijn Huygens en Gerbrand Adriaensz. Brederode (compact disc, GLOBE 6013, 1992). ——, Paxcken van Minnen. Middeleeuwse muziek uit de Nederlanden (compact disc, GLOBE 6016, 1992). Cantwell, A.-M. and D. Wall, Unearthing Gotham. The Archaeology of New York City (New Haven, London 2001). Carr, L.G. and L.S. Walsh, ‘The Standard of Living in the Colonial Chesapeake’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 45 (1988), 135–159. Cau, C. et al., Groot placaet-boeck, vervattende de placaten, ordonnatien ende edicten vande [. . .] Staten Generaal [. . .] ende vande [. . .] Staten van Hollandt en West-Vrieslandt. Mitsgaders vande [. . .] Staten van Zeeland (9 vols., ’s-Gravenhage 1658–1796). Ceci, L., ‘The First Fiscal Crisis in New York’. In: Economic Development and Cultural Change 28 (1980), 839–847. Christoph, P.R. (ed.), Administrative Papers of Governors Richard Nicolls and Francis Lovelace, 1664–1673 (New York Historical Manuscripts: English, vol. 22) (Baltimore 1980). —— and F.A. Christoph (eds.), Books of General Entries of the Colony of New York, 1664–1673. Orders, Warrants, Letters, Commissions, Passes and Licenses issued by Governors Richard Nicolls and Francis Lovelace (New York Historical Manuscripts: English) (Baltimore 1982). —— and F.A. Christoph (eds.), Records of the Court of Assizes for the Colony of New York, 1665–1682 (New York Historical Manuscripts: English (Baltimore 1983). ——, ‘The Time and Place of Jan van Loon: Roman Catholic in Colonial Albany’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 60–2 (1987), 8–11; 60–3 (1987), 9–12. ——, ‘Story of the New Netherland Project’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 61–3 (1988), 5–8. —— and F.A. Christoph (eds.), The Andros Papers, 1674–1676. Files of the Provincial Secretary of New York During the Administration of Governor Sir Edmund Andros 1674–1680 (New York Historical Manuscripts Series, vols. 24–25) (Syracuse 1989). —— and F.A. Christoph (eds.), The Andros Papers, 1679–1680. Files of the Provincial Secretary of New York During the Administration of Governor Sir Edmund Andros 1674–1680 (New York Historical Manuscripts Series, vols. 28–29) (Syracuse 1991). ——, ‘The Freedmen of New Amsterdam’. In: N.A. McClure Zeller (ed.), A Beautiful and Fruitful Place. Selected Rensselaerswijck Seminar Papers (n.p. 1991), 157–170. ‘The Clarendon Papers’. In: Collections of the New-York Historical Society 2 (1869), 1–162. Cohen, D.S., ‘How Dutch were the Dutch of New Netherland?’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association 62 (1981), 43–60. ——, ‘Dutch-American Farming: Crops, Livestock, and Equipment, 1623–1900’. In: R.H. Blackburn and N.A. Kelley (eds.), New World Dutch Studies. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776. Proceedings of the Symposium Organized by the

bibliography

511

Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, August 2–3, 1986, Held in Conjunction with the Exhibition Remembrance of Patria. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776 (Albany 1987), 185–200. ——, ‘Reflections on American Ethnicity’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 72 (1991), 319–336. ——, The Dutch-American Farm (New York, London 1992). Condon, Th.J., New York Beginnings. The Commercial Origins of New Netherland (New York, London 1968). Corwin, E.T., A Manual of the Reformed Church in America ( formerly Ref. Prot. Dutch Church) 1628–1902 (4th ed., New York 1902). —— (trans. and ed.) Ecclesiastical Records. State of New York (7 vols., Albany 1901–1916). Cronon, W., Changes in the Land. Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England (New York 1983, 17th ed. 1994). Crosby, A.W., Ecological Imperialism. The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900 –1900 (Cambridge 1986, repr. 1995). Damhouder, J. de, Practycke in criminele saecken (Rotterdam 1628). ——, Practycke in civile saeken (’s-Gravenhage 1626). Dapper, O., Historische beschryving der stadt Amsterdam enz. (Amsterdam 1663, repr. Amsterdam 1975). Davids, K., ‘De zondeval van de dierenbeul. Toelaatbaar en ontoelaatbaar gedrag tegenover dieren in Nederland vanaf de late middeleeuwen tot de twintigste eeuw’. In: M. Gijswijt-Hofstra (ed.), Een schijn van verdraagzaamheid. Afwijkingen en tolerantie in Nederland van de zestiende eeuw tot heden (Hilversum 1989), 237–262. Davies, D.W., A Primer of Dutch Seventeenth Century Overseas Trade (’s-Gravenhage 1961). Dekker, J.C., H.F.J.M. van den Eerenbeemt and K.P.C. de Leeuw, Levensloop, cultuur en mentaliteit. Een geschiedenis van het alledaags bestaan (Tilburg 1990). Dennis, M., Cultivating a Landscape of Peace. Iroquois-European Encounters in SeventeenthCentury America (Ithaca, London 1993). Denton, K.A., ‘The American Kas’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 64 (1991), 13–14. Deursen, A.Th. van, Mensen van klein vermogen. Het kopergeld van de Gouden eeuw (Amsterdam 1991). ——, Een dorp in de polder. Graft in de zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam 1994). Dillen, J.G. van, ‘Vreemdelingen te Amsterdam in de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw. De Portugeesche Joden’. In: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 50 (1935), 4–35. ——, ‘De West-Indische Compagnie, het calvinisme en de politiek’. In: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 74 (1961), 145–171. ——, Van rijkdom en regenten. Handboek tot de economische en sociale geschiedenis van Nederland tijdens de Republiek (Den Haag 1970). Dilliard, M.E., Old Dutch Houses of Brooklyn (New York 1945). ——, An Album of New Netherland. Dutch Colonial Antiques and Architecture (New York 1963). Donck, A. van der, Vertoogh van Nieu Nederlandt (’s-Gravenhage 1650). ——, Beschryvinge van Nieuw-Nederlant (gelijck het tegenwoordigh in staet is) (1st ed. Amsterdam 1655, 2nd ed. Amsterdam 1656). ——, A Description of the New Netherlands ( J. Johnson (trans.), T.F. O’Donnell (ed.), Syracuse, New York 1968). Dongen, A. van, ‘The Inexhaustable Kettle. De metamorfose van een Europees gebruiksvoorwerp in de wereld van de Noord-Amerikaanse Indianen’. In: A. van Dongen (ed.), One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure (Rotterdam 1995), 115–173. Dorren, G., ‘Communities Within the Community: Aspects of Neighbourhood in Seventeenth-Century Haarlem. In: Urban History 25 (1998), 173–188. ——, Eenheid en verscheidenheid. De burgers van Haarlem in de Gouden Eeuw (Amsterdam 2001).

512

bibliography

Dunn, S.W., The Mohicans and Their Land, 1609–1730 (Fleischmanns 1994). —— and A.P. Bennett, Dutch Architecture near Albany. The Polgreen Photographs (Fleischmanns 1996). Dunshee, H.W., History of the School of the Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York from 1633 to 1883 (2nd ed. New York 1883). Ebben, M.A., Zilver, brood en kogels voor de koning. Kredietverlening door Portugese bankiers aan de Spaanse kroon, 1621–1665 (Leidse Historische Studiën 5) (Leiden 1996). Ebeling, R.A., Voor- en familienamen in Nederland. Geschiedenis, verspreiding, vorm en gebruik (’s-Gravenhage 1993). Eberlein, H.D., The Manors and Historic Homes of the Hudson Valley (Philadelphia, London 1924). Edelman, H., The Dutch Language Press in America. Two Centuries of Printing, Publishing and Bookselling (Nieuwkoop 1986). Eekhof, A., Bastiaen Jansz. Krol, krankenbezoeker, kommies en kommandeur van Nieuw Nederland (1595–1645). Nieuwe gegevens voor de kennis van ons kerkelijk en koloniaal gezag in NoordAmerika (Den Haag 1910). ——, De hervormde kerk in Noord-Amerika 1624–1664 (Den Haag 1913). ——, ‘De “memorie” van Isaack de Rasière voor Samuel Blommaert. Het oudste Hollandsche bericht betreffende Nieuw-Nederland en New Plymouth, de kolonie der ‘Pilgrim Fathers’. In: Nederlandsch archief voor kerkgeschiedenis, N.S. 15 (1919), 245–280. ——, Jonas Michaëlius. Founder of the Church in New Netherland (Leiden 1926). Elliott, J.H., The Old World and the New 1492–1650 (1st ed. 1970, repr. Cambridge 1992). Elphick, R. and R. Shell, ‘Intergroup Relations: Khoikhoi, Settlers, Slaves and Free Blacks, 1652–1795’. In: R. Elphick and H. Giliomee (eds.), The Shaping of South African Society 1652–1834 (Cape Town 1979, 2nd ed. 1989), 116–169. Embury, A., Building the Dutch Colonial House. Its Origin, Design, Modern Plan and Construction. Illustrated with Photographs of Old Examples and American Adaptations of the Style (New York 1929). Emmer, P.C., ‘De slavenhandel van en naar Nieuw-Nederland’. In: EconomischHistorisch Jaarboek 35 (1972), 94–148. ——, ‘The West India Company, 1621–1791: Dutch or Atlantic?’. In: L. Blussé and F. Gaastra (eds.), Companies and Trade. Essays on Overseas Trading Companies during the Ancien Regime (Comparative Studies in Overseas History 3) (Leiden 1981). ——, ‘Nederlandse handelaren, kolonisten en planters in de Nieuwe Wereld’. In: H.W. van den Doel, P.C. Emmer and H.Ph. Vogel, Nederland en de Nieuwe Wereld. Een intrigerende studie van de betrekkingen tussen Nederland en de Amerika’s, vanaf de ontdekking van de Nieuwe Wereld tot heden (Utrecht 1992), 9–80. ——, and W.W. Klooster, ‘The Dutch Atlantic, 1600–1800. Expansion without Empire’. In: Itinerario. European Journal of Overseas History 23 (1999), 48–69. ——, De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500–1800 (Amsterdam, Antwerpen 2000). [Enden, F. van den], Kort verhael van Nieuw-Nederlants gelegenheit, deughden, natuerlycke voorrechten en byzondere bequamheidt ter bevolkingh (n.p. 1662). Enden, F. van den, Vrye politijke stellingen. Met een inleiding van dr. W. Klever (Amsterdam 1992). Engels, J.Th., Kinderen van Amsterdam (n.p. 1989). Enthoven, V., Zeeland en de opkomst van de Republiek. Handel en strijd in de Scheldedelta c. 1550–1621 (Leiden 1996). Ernst, H., ‘Het Amsterdamse notarieel archief als bron voor de geschiedenis van Nieuw-Nederland’. In: B. Bakker et al. (eds.), Nieuwnederlandse studiën. Een inventarisatie van recent onderzoek. New Netherland Studies. An Inventory of Current Research and Approaches. Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 84 (1985), 142–150. Evans, Th.G. and T.A. Wright (eds.), Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam and New York. Baptisms from 25 December 1639 to 29 December 1800

bibliography

513

(Collections of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society 2) (2 vols., New York 1901–1903, repr. Upper Saddle River, N.J. 1968). Evjen, J.O., Scandinavian Immigrants in New York 1630–1674 (Minneapolis 1916). Fabend, F.H., Zion on the Hudson. Dutch New York and New Jersey in the Age of Revivals (New Brunswick, New Jersey London 2000). ——, ‘Church and State, Hand in Hand: Compassionate Calvinism in New Netherland’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 65 (2002), 3–8. Faber, D.E.A., and R.E. de Bruin, ‘Tegen de vrede. De Utrechtse ambassadeur Godard van Reede van Nederhorst en de onderhandelingen in Munster’. In: J. Dane (ed.), 1648. Vrede van Munster. Feit en verbeelding (Zwolle 1998), 107–131. Fabius, G.J., ‘Het leenstelsel van de West-Indische Compagnie’. In: Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indie 70 (1915), 555–593. Feister, L.M., ‘Linguistic Communication between the Dutch and the Indians in New Netherland 1609–1664’. In: Ethnohistory 20 (1973), 25–38. Fernow, B. (ed.) and E.B. O’Callaghan (trans.), The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini (7 vols., New York 1897, 2nd ed. Baltimore 1976). —— (trans. and ed.), The Minutes of the Orphanmasters of New Amsterdam, 1655–1663 (New York 1902). —— (trans. and ed.), Minutes of the Orphanmasters Court of New Amsterdam 1655–1663. Minutes of the Executive Boards of the Burgomasters of New Amsterdam and the Records of Walewyn van der Veen, Notary Public 1662–1664 (New York 1907). Fitchen, J., The New World Dutch Barn. A Study of its Characteristics, Structural System, and Probable Erectional Procedures (Syracuse 1968). Fockema Andreæ, S.J., Het Oud-Nederlandsch burgerlijk recht (Haarlem 1906). Folkerts, J., ‘Drentse emigratie naar Amerika in de zeventiende eeuw’. In: Ons Waardeel 6 (1986), 73–92. ——, ‘De Nederlandse archieven in de staat New York en hun bewerkingsgeschiedenis’. In: Nederlands Archievenblad 93 (1989), 140–153. ——, ‘Drenthe and New Netherland. Two Outer Provinces at the Time of Emigration’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 62–4 (1989), 8–11. ——, ‘Kiliaen van Rensselaer and Agricultural Productivity in His Domain: a New Look at the First Patroon and Rensselaerswijck before 1664’. In: N.A. McClure Zeller (ed.), A Beautiful and Fruitful Place. Selected Rensselaerswijck Seminar Papers (n.p. 1991), 295–308. ——, ‘The Failure of West India Company Farming on the Island of Manhattan’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 69 (1996), 47–52. Francis Jr., P., ‘De kralen waarmee het eiland Manhattan niet is betaald’. In: A. van Dongen (ed.), One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure (Rotterdam 1995), 53–69. Frederickson, G.M., White Supremacy. A Comparative Study in American and South African History (New York, Oxford 1981). Freidel, F., ‘The Dutchness of the Roosevelts’. In: J.W. Schulte Nordholt and R. Swierenga (eds.), A Bilateral Bicentennial. A History of Dutch-American Relations, 1782–1982 (Amsterdam 1982), 149–167. Frijhoff, W., Wegen van Evert Willemsz. Een Hollands weeskind op zoek naar zichzelf, 1607–1647 (Nijmegen 1995). —— and M. Spies, 1650. Bevochten eendracht (Den Haag, 1999). Frost, W.L., ‘356 Years of Formal Education in New York City: the Origins of the First Dutch School in New Amsterdam in the year 1628’. In: N.A. McClure Zeller (ed.), A Beautiful and Fruitful Place. Selected Rensselaerswijck Seminar Papers (n.p. 1991), 183–186. Also in Ch.T. Gehring and N.A. McClure Zeller (ed.), Education

514

bibliography

in New Netherland and the Middle Colonies. Papers of the 7th Rensselaerswyck Seminar of the New Netherland Project (Albany 1985), 1–4. Fruin, R., ‘Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het burgemeesterschap van Amsterdam tijdens de Republiek’. In: P.J. Blok, P.L. Muller, S. Muller Fz (eds.), Robert Fruin’s verspreide geschriften met aantekeningen, toevoegsels en verbeteringen uit des schrijvers nalatenschap (10 vols., ’s-Gravenhage, 1900–1905), 4: 305–337. Funk, E.P., ‘De literatuur van Nieuw-Nederland’. In: De Nieuwe Taalgids 85 (1992), 383–395. Gaastra, F.S., De geschiedenis van de VOC (Zuthphen 1991). Galenson, D.W., White Servitude in Colonial America (Cambridge 1981). Gastel, A. van, ‘Adriaen van der Donck, New Netherland, and America’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University 1985). ——, ‘Van der Donck’s Description of the Indians: Additions and Corrections’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 47 (1990), 411–421. ——, ‘Adriaen van der Donck als woordvoerder van de Nieuw-Nederlandse bevolking’. In: Jaarboek Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 50 (1996), 89–107. Gehlen, A.Fl., Notariële akten uit de 17e en 18e eeuw. Handleiding voor gebruikers (Zutphen 1986). Gehring, Ch.T., (ed.), Delaware Papers (English Period). A Collection of Documents Pertaining to the Regulation of Affairs on Delaware, 1664–1682 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vols. 18–19) (Baltimore 1977). —— (trans. and ed.), A Guide to Dutch Manuscripts Relating to New Netherland in United States Repositories (Albany 1978). ——, ‘Peter Minuit’s Purchase of Manhattan Island—New Evidence’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 55–1 (1980), 6–7, 17. —— (trans. and ed.), Land Papers (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vols. GG, HH & II) (Baltimore 1980). —— (trans. and ed.), Delaware Papers (Dutch Period). A Collection of Documents Pertaining to the Regulation of Affairs on the South River of New Netherland, 1648–1664 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vols. 18–19) (Baltimore 1981). —— (trans. and ed.), Council Minutes, 1652–1654 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 5) (Baltimore 1983). —— and R.S. Grumet, ‘Observations of the Indians from Jasper Danckaerts’ Journal, 1679–1680’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd series 44 (1987), 104–120. —— and J.A. Schiltkamp (trans. and ed.), Curacao Papers 1640–1665 (New Netherland Documents, vol. 17) (Interlaken, N.Y. 1987). ——, ‘Documentary Sources Relating to New Netherland’. In: E. Nooter and P.U. Bonomi (eds.), Colonial Dutch Studies. An Interdisciplinary Approach (New York 1988), 33–51. —— and W.A. Starna (trans. and ed.), A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida country, 1634–1635. The Journal of Harmen Meyndertsz van den Bogaert (Syracuse 1988, repr. 1991). —— (trans. and ed.), Fort Orange Court Minutes, 1652–1660 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 16, part 2) (Syracuse 1990). —— (trans. and ed.), Laws & Writs of Appeal 1647–1663 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 16, part 1) (Syracuse 1991). ——, ‘New Netherland Documentary Projects: New Netherland Project’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 66 (1993), 16. —— (trans. and ed.), Council Minutes 1655–1656 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 6) (Syracuse 1995). ——, ‘Petrus Stuyvesant, directeur-generaal van Nieuw-Nederland’. In: Jaarboek Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 50 (1996), 69–87.

bibliography

515

—— (trans. and ed.), Fort Orange Records 1656–1678 (New Netherland Document Series) (Syracuse 2000). ——, (trans. and ed.), Correspondence 1647–1653 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 11) (Syracuse 2000). ——, (trans. and ed.), Correspondence 1654–1658 (New Netherland Documents Series, vol. 12) (Syracuse 2003). ——, ‘A Survey of Documents Relating to New Netherland’. In: J. Goodfriend (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference New Netherland at the Millennium: The State of New World Dutch Studies, New York, 19–21 October 2001 (forthcoming). Gelder, R. van, Het Oost-Indisch avontuur. Duitsers in dienst van de VOC (1600–1800) (Nijmegen 1997). Gelderblom, O., Zuid-Nederlandse kooplieden en de opkomst van de Amsterdamse stapelmarkt (1578–1630) (Hilversum 2000). Gelfand, N., ‘Sugar and God: Sephardic Commerce and Community in Brazil’. Paper Presented to the NYU Atlantic Workshop, 4 May 2004. Gélis, J., De boom en de vrucht. Zwangerschap en bevalling voor de medicalisering (Nijmegen 1987). Giltaij, J. and J. Kelch, Lof der zeevaart. De Hollandse zeeschilders van de 17e eeuw (Rotterdam 1996). Goebel Jr., J. and T.R. Naughton, Law Enforcement in Colonial New York. A Study in Criminal Procedure, 1664–1776 (New York 1944). Gonsalves de Mello, J.A., Nederlanders in Brazilië (1624–1654). De invloed van de Hollandse bezetting op het leven en de cultuur in Noord-Brazilië (Zutphen 2001). Goodfriend, J.D., ‘Burghers and Blacks: the Evolution of a Slave Society at New Amsterdam’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 59 (1978), 125–144. ——, ‘The Historiography of the Dutch in Colonial America’. In: E. Nooter and P.U. Bonomi, Colonial Dutch Studies. An Interdisciplinary Approach (New York, London 1988), 6–32. ——, ‘The Social Dimensions of Congregational Life in Colonial New York City’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 46 (1989), 252–278. ——, ‘Recovering the Religious History of Dutch Reformed Women in Colonial New York’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 64 (1991), 53–59. ——, Before the Melting Pot: Society and Culture in Colonial New York City, 1664–1730 (Princeton 1991). ——, ‘Black Families in New Netherland’. In: N.A. McClure Zeller (ed.), A Beautiful and Fruitful Place. Selected Rensselaerswijck Seminar Papers (n.p. 1991), 147–155. ——, ‘Amerikaans onderzoek naar Nederlandse kolonisatie: de kinderschoenen ontgroeid’. In: Jaarboek Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 50 (1996), 17–29. ——, ‘Writing/Righting Dutch Colonial History’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association 80 (1999), 5–28. Goodman, A.V., American Overture. Jewish Rights in Colonial Times (Philadelphia 1947). Goor, J. van, De Nederlandse koloniën. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse expansie 1600–1975 (’s-Gravenhage 1994). Gouw, J. ter, De volksvermaken (1st ed., Haarlem 1871, undated repr.). Graaf, M. van de, ‘Het stadsbestuur van Nieuw-Amsterdam 1653–1664’ (MA Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1996). Graft, C.C. van de, Middelnederlandse historieliederen, toegelicht en verklaard (Epe 1904). ——, ‘De duivekater’. In: Elsevier’s geïllustreerd Maandschrift 34 (1924), 377–384. ——, and Tj.W.R. de Haan, Nederlandse volksgebruiken bij hoogtijdagen (Utrecht 1978). Grijp, L.P., Het Nederlandse lied in de Gouden Eeuw. Het mechanisme van de contrafactuur (Publikaties van het P.J. Meertens-Instituut voor Dialectologie, Volkskunde en

516

bibliography

Naamkunde van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen 15) (Amsterdam 1991). Groenendijk, L.F. and F.A. van Lieburg, Voor edeler staat geschapen. Levens- en sterfbedbeschrijvingen van gereformeerde kinderen en jeugdigen uit de 17e en 18e eeuw (Leiden 1991). Groenhuis, G., De predikanten. De sociale positie van de gereformeerde predikanten in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden voor ± 1700 (Historische Studies uitgegeven vanwege het instituut voor geschiedenis der Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht 33) (Groningen 1977). Groenveld, S., ‘Natie en nationaal gevoel in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden’. In: Scrinium en scriptura. Opstellen betreffende de Nederlandse geschiedenis aangeboden aan prof. dr. J.L. van der Gouw (Groningen 1980), 372–387. —— ‘“Den huijsman wordt er heel verermt”. Gevolgen van de oorlogvoering voor de bevolking van Geertruidenberg en omgeving, ca. 1593’. In: A. van Loon, M. Robben and J. Thijssen (eds.), Het beleg en de inneming van Geertruidenberg door Prins Maurits in 1593 en de gevolgen van de oorlogvoering voor de bevolking van Geertuidenberg en omgeving (Geertruidenberg 1993), 54–85. ——, Was de Nederlandse Republiek verzuild? Over segmentering van de samenleving binnen de Verenigde Nederlanden (Leiden 1995). ——, J.J.H. Dekker, Th.R.M. Willemse, Wezen en boefjes. Zes eeuwen zorg in wees- en kinderhuizen (Hilversum 1997). Grol, G.J. van, De grondpolitiek in het West-Indisch domein der Generaliteit (1st ed., Den Haag 1934–1947, repr. Amsterdam 1980). Grothe, J.A., Archief voor de geschiedenis der oude Hollandsche zending (6 vols., Utrecht 1884–1891). Gutmann, M.P., War and Rural Life in the Early Modern Low Countries (Assen 1980). Guy, F.S., Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan: a Study in American Historiography (1797–1880) (Studies in American Church History 18) (Washington 1934). Hacquebord, L., F.N. Stokman and F.W. Wasseur, ‘The Directors of the Chambers of the “Noordse Compagnie”, 1614–1642, and their Networks in the Company’. In: C. Lesger and L. Noordegraaf (eds.), Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship in Early Modern Times. Merchants and Industrialists within the Orbit of the Dutch Staple Market (Den Haag 1995), 245–251. Haks, D., Huwelijk en gezin in Holland in de 17e en 18e eeuw. Processtukken en moralisten over aspecten van het laat 17de- en 18de-eeuwse gezinsleven (Assen 1982). Hallam, J.S., ‘The Portrait of Cornelis Steenwyck and Dutch Colonial Experience’. In: J.C. Prins, B. Brandt, T. Stevens, T.F. Shannon (eds.), The Low Countries and the New World(s) : Travel, Discovery, Early Relations (New York, Oxford 2000), 77–85. Hallema, A., ‘Emigratie en tewerkstelling van wezen op de schepen en in het gebied der V.O.C. en W.I.C. gedurende de 17e en 18e eeuw’. In: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 70 (1957), 204–217. Hallowell, Ch.L., ‘Disappearance of the Historic Ship Tijger. Part of New York’s Heritage vanished when Bulldozers dug the Foundation for the World Trade Center’. In: Natural History 83 (1974), 12–26. Hamell, G.R., ‘Wampum. Light, White and Bright Things are Good to Think.’ In: A. van Dongen (ed.), One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure (Rotterdam 1995), 41–52. Hammond, J.W., ‘An Historical Analysis of the Bronck House Coxsackie, New York’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 55–2 (1980), 5–8, 17–18. Harder, L. and M. Harder, Plockhoy from Zurick-zee. The Study of a Dutch Reformer in Puritan England and Colonial America (Newton, Kansas 1952). Hart, S., ‘De stadskolonie Nieuwer-Amstel aan de Delaware-rivier in Noord-Amerika’. In: Maandblad Amstelodamum 38 (1951), 89–94.

bibliography

517

—— and H.J. Kreider (ed.) Protocol of the Lutheran Church in New York City, 1702–1750 (New York 1958). ——, The Prehistory of the New Netherland Company. Amsterdam Notarial Records of the First Dutch Voyages to the Hudson (Amsterdam 1959). ——, Geschrift en getal. Een keuze uit de demografisch-, economisch- en sociaal-historische studiën op grond van Amsterdamse en Zaanse archivalia, 1600–1800 (Dordrecht 1976). ——, ‘The City-Colony of New Amstel on the Delaware: II’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 40–1 (1965), 7–8, 13. Hatfield, A., ‘Dutch Merchants and Colonists in the English Chesapeake: Trade, Migration and Nationality in 17th-Century Maryland and Virginia’. In: R. Vigne and Ch. Littleton (eds.), From Strangers to Citizens: the Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (London, Brighton 2001), 296–305. Hattum, M. van, and H. Rooseboom, Glossarium van oude Nederlandse rechtstermen (Amsterdam 1977). Hauptmann, L.M. and R.G. Knapp, ‘Dutch-Aboriginal Interaction in New Netherland and Formosa: a Historical Geography of Empire’. In: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 121 (1977), 166–182. Hazard, S., et al. (ed.), Pennsylvania Archives (138 vols., Philadelphia, Harrisburg 1849–1852). Heerma van Voss, U.J., Defloratie en onderzoek naar het vaderschap in het oud-vaderlandsch recht (Amsterdam 1889). Heijden, M. van der, Huwelijk in Holland. Stedelijke rechtspraak en kerkelijke tucht 1550–1700 (Amsterdam, 1998). Heijer, H.J. den, De geschiedenis van de WIC (Zutphen 1994). ——, ‘Plannen voor samenvoeging van VOC en WIC’. In: Tijdschrift voor Zeegeschiedenis 13 (1994), 115–130. Heringa, J., et al. (eds.). Geschiedenis van Drenthe (Meppel 1985). Herks, J.J., De geschiedenis van de Amersfoortse tabak (’s-Gravenhage 1967). Herschkowitz, L., ‘The Troublesome Turk: an Illustration of Judicial Process in New Amsterdam’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 46 (1965), 299–310. Higginbotham Jr., A.L., In the Matter of Color. Race and the American Legal Process: the Colonial Period (New York 1978). Hine, C.G., The Old Mine Road (1st ed. 1909, repr. New Brunswick 1963). Hoboken, W.J. van, ‘The Dutch West India Company. The Political Background of Its Rise and Decline’. In: J.S. Bromley and E.H. Kossmann (eds.) Britain and the Netherlands 1. Papers Delivered to the Oxford-Netherlands Historical Conference 1959 (London 1960), 41–62. ——, ‘Een wederwoord inzake de West-Indische Compagnie’. In: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 75 (1962), 49–56. Hodges, G.R., Root & Branch: African Americans in New York & East Jersey, 1613–1863 (Chapell Hill 1999). Hoes, R.R. (ed.), Baptismal and Marriage Registers of the Old Dutch Church of Kingston, Ulster County, New York (Formerly Named Wiltwyck, and Often Familiarly Called Esopus or ‘Sopus) for One Hundred and Fifty Years from their Commencement in 1660 (2 vols., New York 1891, repr. Baltimore 1980). Hoffman, W.J., ‘An Armory of American Families of Dutch Descent. Van Wijckersloot—Van Hamel—Vosch’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 65 (1934), 213–224. ——, ‘An Armory of American Families of Dutch Descent. Van der Donck— Van Bergen’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 67 (1936), 229–239. ——, ‘An Armory of American Families of Dutch Descent. De Hulter—De Laet—

518

bibliography

Ebbingh’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 69 (1938), 339–346; 70 (1939), 55–60. ‘Hollands fort gevonden in VS’. In NRC Handelsblad, 9 July 1998. Hollandtsche Mercurius: behelzende het ghedenckweerdighste in Christenrijck voor-ghevallen, binnen ’t gantsche jaer (41 vols., Haarlem 1651–1691). Holthuis, P., Frontierstad bij het scheiden der markt. Deventer: militair, demografisch, economisch; 1578–1648 (Houten, Deventer 1993). Howe, D.W., American History in an Atlantic Context. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on 3 June 1993 (Oxford 1993). Hsia, R. Po-Chia and H.F.K. van Nierop (eds.), Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age (Cambridge 2002). Huey, P., ‘Glass Beads from Fort Orange (1624–1676), Albany, New York’. In: Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference (Rochester 1983), 83–110. ——, ‘Archeological Excavations in the Site of Fort Orange, a Dutch West India Company Trading Fort Built in 1624’. In: B. Bakker et al. (eds.), Nieuwnederlandse studiën. Een inventarisatie van recent onderzoek. New Netherland Studies. An Inventory of Current Research and Approaches. Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 84 (1985), 68–79. Israel, J.I., Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585–1740 (Oxford 1989). ——, ‘De Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden tot omstreeks 1750—Demografie en economische activiteit’. In: J.C.H. Blom, et al. (eds.), Geschiedenis van de Joden in Nederland (Amsterdam 1995), 97–126. ——, ‘The Jews of Dutch America’. In: P. Bernardini and N. Fiering (eds.), The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West (2 vols. New York, Oxford 2001), 2: 335–349. Jacobs, J.A., ‘De scheepvaart en handel van de Nederlandse Republiek op NieuwNederland 1609–1675’ (MA thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1989). —— ‘The Dutch Protestant Churches in North America during the 17th and 18th Centuries. Some Comments on Historiography and Sources’. In: Documentatieblad voor de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse zending en overzeese kerken 1 (1994), 62–79. ——, ‘The Hartford Treaty: a European Perspective on a New World Conflict’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 68 (1995), 74–79. —— and M.D. Shattuck, ‘Bevers voor drank, land voor wapens. Enkele aspecten van de Nederlands-Indiaanse handel in Nieuw-Nederland’. In: A. van Dongen (ed.), One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure (Rotterdam 1995), 95–113. ——, ‘Johannes de Laet en de Nieuwe Wereld’. In: Jaarboek Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 50 (1996), 109–130. ——, ‘Enkele aspecten van de Nederlandse scheepvaart op Nieuw-Nederland’ (Paper for the Symposium on Dutch Atlantic Shipping, Institute of the History of European Expansion, Leiden University, 5 June 1996). ——, ‘Between Repression and Approval. Connivance and Tolerance in the Dutch Republic and in New Netherland’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 71 (1998), 51–58. ——, ‘A Hitherto Unknown Letter of Adriaen van der Donck’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 71 (1998), 1–6. ——, Een zegenrijk gewest. Nieuw-Nederland in de zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam, 1999). ——, ‘The Dutch in the Atlantic, in New Netherland, and in Virginia’. Guest lecture for the archeologists of Anne Arundel County, Londontown, Maryland, 28 September 1999. ——, ‘Fortuin in de Nieuwe Wereld. Jan Jansz. Damen in Amerika’. In: H. Mulder, E. Kloek and J. Jacobs, Nederland aan de de Hudson. Utrechters in New York in de 17e eeuw (Utrecht 2000), 22–36. ——, ‘Van Angola naar Manhattan. Slavernij in Nieuw-Nederland in de zeven-

bibliography

519

tiende eeuw’. In: R. Daalder, A. Kieskamp and D.J. Tang (eds.), Slaven en schepen. Enkele reis, bestemming onbekend (Leiden, Amsterdam 2001), 69–75. ——, ‘“Te fourneeren nae de loffelijcke costumen der Stadt Amsterdam”; Nederlandse regelgeving in Nieuw-Nederland’. In: Pro Memorie. Bijdragen tot de rechtsgeschiedenis der Nederlanden 5 (2003), 364–377. ——, ‘“To Favor This New and Growing City of New Amsterdam with a Court of Justice”. Relations between Rulers and Ruled in New Amsterdam’. In: de Halve Maen. Journal of The Holland Society of New York 76 (2003), 65–72. Also in: H. Krabbendam and G. Harinck (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference Parallel Cities: AmsterdamNew York 1653–2003, Gemeentearchief Amsterdam, 31 January and 1 February 2003 (forthcoming). ——, ‘Dutch Sources on Native American History’. In: S.W. Dunn (ed.), Mohican Seminar 1. The Continuance—An Algonquian Peoples Seminar. Selected Research Papers— 2000. New York State Museum Bulletin 501 (2004), 29–37. ——, ‘A Troubled Man: Director Wouter van Twiller and the Affairs of New Netherland in 1635’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association 85 (2004) 213–232. ——, (ed.), ‘Een pant van ware vrintschap’. Trantveersjes en enkele andere gedichten van Johan Farrett en Petrus Stuyvesant (Leiden 2004). ——, ‘Like Father, like Son? The Early Years of Petrus Stuyvesant’. In: J. Goodfriend (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference New Netherland at the Millennium: The State of New World Dutch Studies, New York, 19–21 October 2001 (forthcoming). ——, ‘Soldiers of the Company’. In: H. Wellenreuther (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Jacob Leisler Workshop, Centre for the Study of Human Settlement & Historical Change, National University of Ireland, Galway, 25–26 September 2002 (forthcoming). ——, ‘Dutch Proprietary Manors in America: the Patroonships in New Netherland’. In: L. Roper and B. Van Ruymbeke (eds.), Proprietary Manors in Colonial America (forthcoming). James, B.B. and J.F. Jameson (eds.), Journal of Jasper Danckaerts 1679–1680 (New York 1913, repr. 1959). Jameson, J.F., Willem Usselinx, Founder of the Dutch and Swedish West-India Companies (New York 1887). —— (ed.), Narratives of New Netherland 1609–1664 (New York 1909, 2nd ed. 1967). Jansen, C.H., ‘Geschiedenis van de familie de Wolff : sociale en economische facetten van de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden in de 17e eeuw’. In: Jaarboek van het genootschap Amstelodamum 56 (1964), 131–155. Jansen, G.M.C. (ed.), Jan Steen. Schilder en verteller (Amsterdam, Washington 1996). Jennings, F., The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire (New York, London 1984). ——, ‘Jacob Young: Indian Trader and Interpreter’. In: D.G. Sweet and G.B. Nash (eds.). Struggle and Survival in Colonial America (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1981), 347–361. Jensma, G., ‘Over de jeugd van Pieter Stuyvesant’. In: De Vrije Fries, jaarboek uitgegeven door het Fries genootschap van Geschied-, Oudheid- en Taalkunde en de Fryske Akademy 74 (1994), 21–41. Jessurun, J.S.C., Kiliaen van Rensselaer, van 1623 tot 1636 (Den Haag 1917). Jobse-van Putten, J., Eenvoudig maar voedzaam. Cultuurgeschiedenis van de dagelijkse maaltijd in Nederland (Nijmegen 1995). Johnson, D., Charting the Sea of Darkness. The Four Voyages of Henry Hudson (New York, Tokyo, London 1995). Johnson, R.C., ‘The Transportation of Vagrant Children from London to Virginia, 1618–1622’. In: H.S. Reinmuth Jr. (ed.) Early Stuart Studies (Minneapolis 1970). Jong, G.F. de, ‘The Dutch Reformed Church and Negro Slavery in Colonial America’. In: Church History 40 (1971), 423–436.

520

bibliography

——, The Dutch Reformed Church in the American Colonies (Grand Rapids 1978). Joosse, L.J., ‘Scoone dingen sijn swaere dingen’: een onderzoek naar de motieven en activiteiten in de Nederlanden tot verbreiding van de gereformeerde religie gedurende de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw (Leiden 1992). Juet, R., Henry Hudson’s reize onder Nederlandsche vlag van Amsterdam naar Nova Zembla, Amerika en terug naar Dartmouth in Engeland, 1609 (S.P. L’Honore Naber ed.) (Werken Linschoten-Vereeniging 19) (’s-Gravenhage 1921). Kammen, M., Colonial New York. A History (New York 1975, repr. Oxford 1996). Kappelhof, A.C.M., De belastingheffing in de Meijerij van Den Bosch gedurende de Generaliteitsperiode (1648–1730) (Tilburg 1986). Kemperink, J.H.P., ‘Pieter Stuyvesant. Waar en wanneer werd hij geboren?’ In: De Navorscher. Nederlands Archief voor Genealogie en Heraldiek 98–3 (1959), 49–59. Kenney, A.P., Stubborn for Liberty. The Dutch in New York (Syracuse 1975). ——, F.G. Safford and G.T. Vincent, American Kasten. The Dutch-Style Cupboards of New York and New Jersey, 1650–1800 (New York 1991). Kernkamp, G.W., ‘Brieven van Samuel Blommaert aan den Zweedschen rijkskanselier Axel Oxenstierna, 1635–1641’. In: Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 29 (1908), 1–196. Kessler, H.M. and E. Rachlis, Peter Stuyvesant and His New York. A Biography of a Man and a City (New York 1959). Kilpatrick, W.H., The Dutch Schools of New Netherland and Colonial New York (Philadelphia 1912). Kist, N.C., Neêrlands bededagen en biddagbrieven. Eene bijdrage ter opbouwing der geschiedenis van staat en kerk in Nederland (2 vols., Leiden 1848–1849). Klever, W., ‘A New Source of Spinozism: Franciscus van den Enden’. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy 29 (1991), 613–631. Kloek, E., Wie hij zij, man of wijf. Vrouwengeschiedenis en de vroegmoderne tijd (Hilversum 1990). Klooster, W., The Dutch in the Americas, 1600–1800. A Narrative History with the Catalogue of an Exhibition of Rare Prints, Maps, and Illustrated Books from the John Carter Brown Library (Providence 1997). ——, ‘Winds of Change: Colonization, Commerce, and Consolidation in the Seventeenth-Century Atlantic World’. In: de Halve Maen: Quarterly Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 70 (1997), 53–58. ——, ‘Failing to Square the Circle: The West India Company’s Volte-Face in 1638–1639’. In: de Halve Maen: Quarterly Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 73 (2000), 3–9. Knappert, L., ‘De eerste honderd jaren der Protestantsche gemeente op Curaçao’. In: Gedenkboek Nederland-Curaçao (Amsterdam 1934), 34–56. Knevel, P., Burgers in het geweer. De schutterijen in Holland, 1550 –1700 (Hollandse Studiën 32) (Hilversum 1994). Koenigsberger, H.G., Monarchies, States Generals and Parliaments. The Netherlands in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Cambridge 2001). Kooijmans, L., ‘De koopman’. In: H.M. Beliën, A.Th. van Deursen and G.J. van Setten (eds.), Gestalten van de gouden eeuw. Een Hollands groepsportet (Amsterdam 1995), 65–92. ——, ‘Risk and Reputation. On the Mentality of Merchants in the Early Modern Period’. In: C. Lesger and L. Noordegraaf (eds.), Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship in Early Modern Times. Merchants and Industrialists within the Orbit of the Dutch Staple Market (Hollandse Historische Reeks 24) (Den Haag 1995), 25–34. ——, Vriendschap en de kunst van het overleven in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw (Amsterdam 1997). Kooiman, W.J., De Nederlandsche Luthersche gemeenten in Noord-Amerika, 1649 –1772 (Amsterdam 1946).

bibliography

521

Koolbergen, H. van, ‘De materiële cultuur van Weesp en Weesperkarspel in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw’. In: Volkskundig Bulletin 9 (1983), 3–52. Koorn, F., ‘Illegitimiteit en eergevoel. Ongehuwde moeders in Twente in de achttiende eeuw’. In: Vrouwenlevens 1500–1850. Jaarboek voor vrouwengeschiedenis 8 (1987), 74–98. Korthals Altes, W.L., Van £ Hollands tot Nederlandse ƒ. De geschiedenis van de Nederlandse geldeenheid (Amsterdam 1996). Kreider, H.J., The Beginnings of Lutheranism in New York (New York 1949). Kross, J., The Evolution of an American Town: Newtown, New York, 1642–1775 (Philadelphia 1983). Kunst, A.J.M., Recht, commercie en kolonialisme in West-Indië vanaf de zestiende tot in de negentiende eeuw (Zutphen 1981). Kupp, J., ‘Dutch Notarial Acts Relating to the Tobacco Trade of Virginia 1608–1653’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 30 (1973), 653–655. ——, ‘Records Depict Fur Smuggling Episode in 1658’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 60–1 (1975), 7–8, 14. —— and S. Hart, ‘The Early Cornelis Melyn and the Illegal Fur Trade’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 60–3 (1975), 7–8, 15. Kupperman, K.O., ‘Early American History with the Dutch Put in’. In: Reviews in American History 21 (1993), 195–201. Laer, A.J.F. van (trans. and ed.), Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, Being the Letters of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, 1630 –1643, and Other Documents Relating to the Colony of Rensselaerswyck (Albany 1908). —— (trans. and ed.), Minutes of the Court of Fort Orange and Beverwijck 1652–1660 (2 vols., Albany 1920–1923). —— (trans. and ed.), Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck 1648–1652 (Albany 1922). —— (trans. and ed.), Documents Relating to New Netherland, 1624–1626, in the Henry E. Huntington Library (San Marino, Calif. 1924). —— (trans. and ed.), Minutes of the Court of Albany, Rensselaerswijck and Schenectady 1668–1685 (3 vols., Albany 1926–1932). —— (trans. and ed.), ‘Documents Relating to Arent van Curlers Death’. In: Dutch Settlers Society of Albany Yearbook 3 (1927–1928), 30–34. —— (trans. and ed.), Correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer 1651–1674 (Albany 1932). —— (trans. and ed.), Correspondence of Maria van Rensselaer 1669–1689 (Albany 1935). —— (trans. and ed.), The Lutheran Church in New York 1649 –1772. Records in the Lutheran Church Archives at Amsterdam, Holland (New York 1946). —— (trans. and ed.), ‘Letters of Wouter van Twiller and the Director General and Council of New Netherland to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company, August 14, 1636’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 50 (1969), supplement. —— (trans. and ed.), Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1638–1642 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 1) (Baltimore 1974). —— (trans. and ed.), Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642–1647 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 2) (Baltimore 1974). —— (trans. and ed.), Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1648–1660 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 3) (Baltimore 1974). —— (trans. and ed.), Council Minutes, 1638–1649 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, vol. 4) (Baltimore 1974). Laet, J. de, Nieuwe wereldt ofte Beschrijvinghe van West-Indien (Leiden 1625). ——, Historie ofte iaerlijck verhael van de verrichtinghen der geoctroyeerde West-Indische Compagnie (Leiden 1644). ——, Iaerlyck Verhael van de verrichtingen der Geoctroyeerde West-Indische Compagnie (1644)

522

bibliography

(Werken Linschoten-Vereeniging 34, 35, 37 and 40) (S.P. L’Honore Naber and J.C.M. Warnsinck eds.) (4 vols., ’s-Gravenhage 1931–1937). “’t Ledematen boeck oft register der ledematen alhier ’t sedert de jare 1649” [The Book of Members or Register of the Members Here Since the Year 1649]’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 9 (1878), 38–45 [1649–1659]; 72–79 [1660–1666]; 140–147 [1666–1676]. Leuker, M.-T. and H. Roodenburg, ‘“Die dan hare wyven laten afweyen”. Overspel, eer en schande in de zeventiende eeuw’. In: G. Hekma and H. Roodenburg (eds.), Soete minne en helsche boosheit. Seksuele voorstellingen in Nederland, 1300 –1850 (Nijmegen 1988), 61–84. Ligtenberg, C., Willem Usselinx (Utrechtsche bijdragen voor letterkunde en geschiedenis 9) (Utrecht 1914). Linde, A.P.G.J. van der (trans. and ed.), Old First Dutch Reformed Church of Brooklyn, New York: First Book of Records, 1660 –1752 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch) (Baltimore 1983). ——, ‘Henricus Selijns (1636–1701), dominee, dichter en historicus in Nieuw Nederland en de Republiek’. In: J.F. Heijbroek, A. Lammers, A.P.G.J. van der Linde (eds.), Geen Schepsel wordt vergeten. Liber amicorum voor Jan Willem Schulte Nordholt ter gelegenheid van zijn vijfenzestigste verjaardag (Amsterdam, Zutphen 1985), 37–60. ——, ‘De “Remonstrantie van Nieu-Nederlandt” (1649) en haar bijzondere betekenis voor Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan’. In: E.F. van de Bilt and H.W. van den Doel (eds.), Klassiek Amerikaans: opstellen voor A. Lammers [Leidse Historische Studien 7] (Leiden 2002), 92–102. Lucassen, J., ‘Labour and Early Modern Economic Development’. In: K. Davids and J. Lucassen (eds.), A Miracle Mirrored. The Dutch Republic in European Perspective (Cambridge 1995), 367–409. Lurix, K.A., ‘The Lutheran Struggle for Toleration in New Amsterdam’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 62–1 (1989), 1–7; 62–2 (1989), 1–5. Lustig, M.L., The Imperial Executive in America. Sir Edmund Andros (1637–1714) (Madison, Teaneck 2003). Lyon, E.K., ‘Joost Goderis, New Amsterdam Burgher, Weighmaster, and Dutch Master Painter’s Son’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 123 (1992), 193–202. ——, ‘The New Amsterdam Weighhouse’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 69 (1996), 1–10. ——, ‘The Transfer of Technology from the Dutch Republic to New Netherlands: Forts, Factories and Cities as a Beginning. In: J. Everaert and J. Parmentier (eds.), International Conference on Shipping, Factories and Colonization (Brussels, 24–26 November 1994) (Brussel 1996), 333–342. Maglione, M., ‘The Evidence for the Establishment of Collegiate School in 1628’. In: N.A. McClure Zeller (ed.), A Beautiful and Fruitful Place. Selected Rensselaerswijck Seminar Papers (n.p. 1991), 187–190. Also in Ch.T. Gehring and N.A. McClure Zeller (ed.), Education in New Netherland and the Middle Colonies. Papers of the 7th Rensselaerswyck Seminar of the New Netherland Project (Albany 1985), 5–8. Maika, D.J., ‘The Credit System of the Manhattan Merchants in the Seventeenth Century’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 63–2 (1990), 1–3; 63–3 (1990), 5–7; 64 (1991), 9–12. ——, ‘Commerce and Community: Manhattan Merchants in the Seventeenth Century’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University 1995). ——, ‘Slavery, Race and Culture in Early New York’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 73 (2000), 27–33. Marcus, J.R., The Colonial American Jew 1492–1776 (3 vols., Detroit 1970). ——, The American Jew, 1585–1990 (Brooklyn 1995).

bibliography

523

Martin, C., Keepers of the Game. Indian-Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade (Berkeley 1978, repr. 1982). Martinez, J., ‘New Netherland Documentary Projects: City’s Municipal Archives Conservation Work on Brooklyn’s Early Records (1645–1821)’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 66 (1993), 15–16. Matson, C., ‘“Damned Scoundrels” and “Libertisme of Trade”: Freedom and Regulation in Colonial New York’s Fur and Grain Trades’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 51 (1994), 389–418. ——, Merchants & Empire: Trading in Colonial New York (Baltimore 1998). McCusker, J.J., Money and Exchange in Europe and America, 1600–1775: a Handbook (Chapel Hill 1978). McKew Parr, Ch., The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York 1969). McKinley, A.E., ‘English and Dutch Towns of New Netherland’. In: American Historical Review 6 (1900), 1–18. ——, ‘The Transition from Dutch to English Rule in New York. A Study in Political Imitation’. In: American Historical Review 6 (1901), 693–724. McManus, E.J., A History of Negro Slavery in New York (Syracuse 1966). Meeske, H.F., The Hudson Valley Dutch and Their Houses (Fleischmanns 1998). Megapolensis, J. Een kort ontwerp van de Mahakuase Indianen, haer landt, tale, statuere, dracht, godes-dienst ende magistrature. Aldus beschreven ende nu kortelijck den 26. Augusti 1644 opgesonden uyt nieuwe Nederlant (Alkmaar ca. 1644). Megapolensis, J., ‘Een kort ontwerp van de Mahakuase Indianen, in Nieuw-Nederlandt, haer landt, statuere, dracht, manieren en magistraten, beschreven in ’t jaer 1644’. In: J. Hartgers, Beschrijvinghe van Virginia, Nieuw Nederlandt, Nieuw Engelandt en d’Eylanden Bermudes, Berbados en S. Christtoffel (Amsterdam 1651). Menkman, W.R., De West-Indische Compagnie (Patria. Vaderlandse cultuurgeschiedenis in monografieën 42) (Amsterdam 1947). Merwick, D., Possessing Albany, 1630–1710. The Dutch and English Experience (Cambridge 1990). ——, Death of a Notary: Conquest and Change in Colonial New York (Ithaca, London 1999). Middleton, S., ‘“How it Came that the Bakers Bake no Bread”: a Struggle for Trade Priviliges in Seventeenth-Century New Amsterdam. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 58 (2001), 347–372. Molen-Willebrands, M.E. van der, ‘De verstandige kock of sorghvuldige huyshoudster: een burgerlijk of elitair 17e-eeuws kookboek?’. In: Holland, regionaal-historisch tijdschrift 28 (1996), 197–213. Monté ver Loren, J.Ph. de, and J.E. Spruit, Hoofdlijnen uit de ontwikkeling der rechterlijke organisatie in de Noordelijke Nederlanden tot de Bataafse omwenteling (6th ed., Deventer 1982). Moorman van Kappen, O., Tot behoef der arme wesen. Hoofdstukken uit de geschiedenis van het burgerweeshuis te Harderwijk (Zutphen 1981). ——, ‘Iets over ons oud-vaderlandse stadsburgerschap’. In: Gens Nostra 41 (1986), 180–192. Muller, S.Fz., Geschiedenis der Noordsche Compagnie (Utrecht 1874). Murphy, H.C., Anthology of New Netherland or Translations from the Early Dutch Poets of New York with Memoirs of their Lives (New York 1865, repr. Amsterdam 1966). Nannings, J.H., Brood- en gebakvormen en hunne betekenis in de folklore (Scheveningen 1932). Narrett, D.E., Inheritance and Family Life in Colonial New York City (Ithaca, London 1992). Nettels, C., The Money Supply of the American Colonies before 1720 (Madison 1934).

524

bibliography

Nicum, J. ‘The Beginnings of the Lutheran Church on Manhattan Island’. In: Papers of the American Society of Church History, 2nd series 2 (1910), 85–101. Niemeijer, H.E., Calvinisme en koloniale stadscultuur, Batavia 1619–1725 (Amsterdam 1996). Nissenson, S.G., The Patroon’s Domain (New York 1937). Noordam, D.J., Leven in Maasland: een hoogontwikkelde plattelandssamenleving in de achttiende en het begin van de negentiende eeuw (Hollandse Studiën 18) (Hilversum 1986). ——, Riskante relaties. Vijf eeuwen homoseksualiteit in Nederland, 1233–1733 (Hilversum 1995). ——, ‘Demografische ontwikkelingen’. In: S. Groenveld (ed.), Leiden. De geschiedenis van een Hollandse stad. Deel 2 1574–1795 (Leiden 2003), 42–53. Nooter, E., ‘Between Heaven and Earth: Church and Society in Pre-Revolutionary Flatbush, Long Island’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 1994). Norton, Th.E., The Fur Trade in Colonial New York, 1686–1776 (Madison 1974). O’Callaghan, E.B. (ed.), Documentary History of the State of New York (4 vols., Albany 1849–1851). ——, History of New Netherland, or New York under the Dutch (2 vols., New York 1846–1848, 2nd ed. 1855). —— and B. Fernow (ed.), Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York (15 vols., Albany 1856–1883). ——, The Register of New Netherland 1624–1674 (Albany 1865). —— (ed.), Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State, Albany, N.Y. Part I. Dutch Manuscripts, 1630–1664 (Albany 1865, repr. Ridgewood 1968). ——, Voyages of the Slavers St. John and Arms of Amsterdam, 1659, 1663 (Albany 1867). —— (trans.), Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1636–1674 (Albany 1868). —— (trans.), K. Scott, K. Stryker-Rodda (eds.), The Register of Salomon Lachaire, Notary Public of New Amsterdam, 1661–1662. Translated from the Original Dutch Manuscript in the Office of the Clerk of the Common Council of New York (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch) (Baltimore 1978). —— (trans.), K. Scott, K. Stryker-Rodda (eds.), Minutes of the Orphanmasters of New Amsterdam, 1663–1668 (Baltimore 1976). O’Connor, J.E., ‘The Rattle Watch of New Amsterdam’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 43–1 (1968), 11–12, 14; 43–2 (1968), 9–12; 43–3 (1968) 13–14. Olthuis, H.J., De doopspraktijk der gereformeerde kerken in Nederland, 1568–1816 (Utrecht 1908). Oppenheim, S. The Early History of the Jews in New York, 1654–1664. Some New Matter on the Subject (New York 1909). Otto, P., ‘The Origins of New Netherland. Interpreting Native American Responses to Henry Hudson’s Visit’. In: Itinerario. European Journal of Overseas History 18 (1994), 22–39. ——, ‘Common Practices and Mutual Misunderstandings: Henry Hudson, Native Americans, and the Birth of New Netherland’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 72 (1999), 75–83. ——, The Dutch-Munsee Encounter in America: The Struggle for Sovereignty in the Hudson Valley (forthcoming 2005). Pagan, J.R., ‘Dutch Maritime and Commercial Activity in Mid-Seventeenth Century Virginia’. In: The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 90 (1982), 485–501. Pagden, A., European Encounters with the New World. From Renaissance to Romanticism (New Haven and London 1993, 2nd ed. 1994). Paltsits, V.H. (ed.), Minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York. Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668–1673 (2 vols., Albany 1910). Pearson, J. and A.J.F. van Laer (trans. and ed.), Early Records of the City and County of Albany and Colony of Rensselaerswijck (4 vols., Albany 1869–1919). Peters, J., ‘Volunteers for the Wilderness: the Walloon Petitioners of 1621 and the

bibliography

525

Voyage of the Nieuw Nederlandt to the Hudson River in 1624’. In: Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London 24 (1987), 421–433. Phelps Stokes, I.N., The Iconography of Manhattan Island 1498–1909 (6 vols., New York 1915–1928). Piwonka, R., ‘The Lutheran Presence in New Netherland’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 60–1 (1987), 1–5. ——, ‘New York Colonial Inventories: Dutch Interiors as a Measure of Cultural Change’. In: R.H. Blackburn and N.A. Kelley (eds.), New World Dutch Studies. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776. Proceedings of the Symposium Organized by the Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, August 2–3, 1986, Held in Conjunction with the Exhibition Remembrance of Patria. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776 (Albany 1987), 63–81. Plockhoy, P.C., Kort en klaer ontwerp, dienende tot een onderling accoort, om den arbeyd, onrust en moeyelyckheyt van alderley handwerckluyden te verlichten door een onderlinge Compagnie ofte Volckplanting aan de Zuyt-revier in Nieuw-Nederland op te rechten (Amsterdam 1662). Plomp, N., ‘Nieuw-Nederlanders en hun Europese achtergrond. De stand van zaken in het genealogisch onderzoek’. In: Jaarboek Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 50 (1996), 131–160. Pol, L. van de, Het Amsterdams hoerdom. Prostitutie in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw (Amsterdam 1996). Pole, J.R., The Gift of Government. Political Responsibility from the English Restoration to American Independence (The Richard B. Russell Lectures 1) (Athens 1983). Postma, J. and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping, 1585–1817 (Leiden, Boston 2003). Potter, J., ‘Demographic Development and Family Structure’. In: J.P. Greene and J.R. Pole (eds.), Colonial British America. Essays in the New History of the Early Modern Era (Baltimore, London 1984), 123–156. ‘Powers of Attorney, Acknowledgments, Indentures of Apprentices, Inventories, etc.’. In: Yearbook of the Holland Society of New York (1900), 169–182. Prud’homme van Reine, R., Rechterhand van Nederland. Biografie van Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter (Open Domein 32) (Amsterdam 1996). Puype, J.P., Dutch and Other Flintlocks from Seventeenth Century Iroqois Sites. Proceedings of the 1984 Trade Gun Conference (Rochester 1985). Quack, H.P.G., ‘Plockhoy’s sociale plannen’. In: Verslagen en mededelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afdeeling letterkunde 3rd reeks, 9 (1893), 81–127. Rau, H., ‘Govert Loockermans, een Turnhoutenaar in Amsterdam, Nieuw-Amsterdam en New York (1617–1671)’. In: Taxandria, NR 62 (1990), 5–12. ‘Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York. Marriages’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 6 (1875) 32–39 [1639–1652]; 81–88 [1652–1659]; 141–148 [1659–1667]; 184–191 [1668–1675]; 7 (1876), 27–34 [1675–1681]; 77–84 [1681–1685]; 8 (1877), 33–40 [1685–1688]; 10 (1879), 119–126 [1688–1692]; 11 (1880), 75–82 [1692–1695]; 125–132 [1695–1698]; 172–179 [1698–1702]. Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal. Nieuwe reeks, 1610–1670 (Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën, grote serie) (7 vols., ’s-Gravenhage 1971–1994). Reynolds, H.W., Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley Before 1776 (New York 1929, repr. 1965). Rhoads, W.B., ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dutch Colonial Architecture’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 59 (1978), 430–464. Rich, E.E., ‘Russia and the Colonial Fur Trade’. In: The Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 7 (1955), 307–328. Richter, D.K., The Ordeal of the Longhouse. The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (Williamsburg 1992).

526

bibliography

Rieu, G. du, Album studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae MDLXXV–MDCCCLXXV: accedunt nomina curatorum et professorum per eadem secula (’s-Gravenhage 1875). Rijpperda Wierdsma, J.V., Politie en justitie. Een studie over Hollandschen staatsbouw tijdens de Republiek (Zwolle 1937). Riker, J., Revised History of Harlem (City of New York). Its Origin and Early Annals (New York 1904). Rink, O.A., ‘Company Management and Private Trade. The Two Patroonship Plans for New Netherland’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association 59 (1978), 5–26. ——, ‘The People of New Netherland : Notes on Non English Immigration to New York in the Seventeenth Century’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 62 (1981), 5–42. ——, Holland on the Hudson. An Economic and Social History of Dutch New York (Ithaca, London, Cooperstown 1986). ——, ‘Private Interest and Godly Gain: the West India Company and the Dutch Reformed Church in New Netherland, 1624–1664’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 75 (1994), 245–264. ——, ‘Before the English (1609–1664)’. In: M.M. Klein (ed.), The Empire State. A History of New York (Ithaca, London, Cooperstown 2001), 1–109. Ritchie, R.C., The Duke’s Province. A Study of New York Politics and Society, 1664–1691 (Chapel Hill 1977). Roeber, A.G., ‘“The Origin of Whatever is not English Among Us”: the DutchSpeaking and German-Speaking Peoples of Colonial British America’. In: B. Bailyn and Ph.D. Morgan (eds.), Strangers Within the Realm: Cultural Margins of the First British Empire (Chapel Hill, London 1991). Roessingh, H.K., Inlandse tabak. Expansie en contractie van een handelsgewas in de 17e en 18e eeuw in Nederland (Wageningen 1976). Roever, M. de, ‘The Fort Orange “EB” Pipe Bowls: an Investigation of the Origin of American Objects in Dutch Seventeenth-Century Documents’. In: R.H. Blackburn and N.A. Kelley (eds.), New World Dutch Studies. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776. Proceedings of the Symposium Organized by the Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, August 2–3, 1986, Held in Conjunction with the Exhibition Remembrance of Patria. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776 (Albany 1987), 51–61. ——, ‘Koopmanschappen voor Nieuw-Nederland. Een blik op de Nederlandse handelsartikelen voor de inheemse bevolking van Amerika’. In: A. van Dongen (ed.), One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure (Rotterdam 1995), 71–93. Rooden, P. van, ‘Dissenters en bededagen. Civil religion ten tijde van de Republiek’. In: Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 107 (1992), 703–712. Roodenburg, H., Onder censuur. De kerkelijke tucht in de gereformeerde gemeente van Amsterdam, 1578–1700 (Hilversum 1990). ——, ‘De notaris en de erehandel. Beledigingen voor het Amsterdamse notariaat, 1700–1710’. In: A. Keunen and H. Roodenburg (eds.), Schimpen en schelden. Eer en belediging in Nederland, ca. 1600–ca. 1850. Volkskundig Bulletin 18 (1992), 367–388. ——, ‘Naar een etnografie van de vroegmoderne stad: de ‘gebuyrten’ in Leiden en Den Haag’. In: P. te Boekhorst, P. Burke and W. Frijhoff (eds.), Cultuur en maatschappij in Nederland 1500 –1850. Een historisch-antropologisch perspectief (Heerlen 1992), 219–244. ——, ‘Eer en oneer ten tijde van de Republiek: een tussenbalans’. In: Volkskundig Bulletin 22 (1996), 129–147. Rooijakkers, G., Rituele repertoires. Volkscultuur in oostelijk Noord-Brabant 1559 –1853 (Nijmegen 1994). Rooseboom, G., Recueil van verscheyde keuren, en costumen: midtsgaders maniere van procederen binnen de stadt Amsterdam (2nd ed., Amsterdam 1656).

bibliography

527

Rose, P.G., The Sensible Cook: Dutch Foodways in the Old and New World (Syracuse 1989). ——, ‘Proeve van verandering. Nederlandse voedingsgewoonten in de Nieuwe Wereld’. In: A. van Dongen (ed.), One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure (Rotterdam 1995), 203–213. Rosenwaike, I., Population History of New York City (Syracuse 1972). Rothschild, N.A. ‘De sociale afstand tussen Nederlandse kolonisten en inheemse Amerikanen’. In: A. van Dongen (ed.), One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure (Rotterdam 1995), 189–201. ——, Colonial Encounters in a Native American Landscape (Washington 2003). Royen, P.C. van, Zeevarenden op de koopvaardijvloot. Omstreeks 1700 (Hollandse Historische Reeks 8) (Amsterdam, ’s-Gravenhage 1987). Sainsbury, W.N. (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office (London 1860). Sanders, E., ‘Neuken’. In: NRC Handelsblad 24 June, 1 and 8 July 2002. Saxby, T.J., The Quest for the New Jerusalem. Jean de Labadie and the Labadists, 1610–1744 (Dordrecht 1987). Schalkwijk, F.L., The Reformed Church in Dutch Brazil (1630–1654) (Zoetermeer 1998). Schama, S., The Embarrassment of Riches. An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (London 1987). ‘Schepens’ Register’. In: Yearbook of the Holland Society of New York (1900), 158–169. Schepper, H. de, and M. Vrolijk, ‘Vrede en orde door gratie. In Holland en Zeeland onder Habsburgers en de Republiek, 1500–1650’. In: M. Bruggeman et al. (eds.), Mensen van de Nieuwe Tijd. Een liber amicorum voor A.Th. van Deursen (Amsterdam 1996), 98–117. Schiltkamp, J.A., De geschiedenis van het notariaat in het octrooigebied van de West-Indische Compagnie (voor Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen tot het jaar 1964) (’s-Gravenhage 1964). ——, ‘On Common Ground. Legislation, Government, Jurisprudence, and Law in the Dutch West Indian Colonies: the Order of Government of 1629’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 70 (1997), 73–80. Schimmel, J.A., Burgerrecht te Nijmegen 1592–1810 (Tilburg 1966). Schmidt, A., Overleven na de dood. Weduwen in Leiden in de Gouden Eeuw (Amsterdam 2001). Schmidt, B., Innocence Abroad: The Dutch Imagination and the New World, 1570–1670 (Cambridge 2001). Schnurmann, C., Atlantische Welten. Engländer und Niederländer im amerikanisch-atlantischen Raum 1648–1713 (Köln 1998). Schöffer, I., ‘La stratification sociale de la Républicque des Provinces Unies au XVIIe siècle’. In: R. Mousnier (ed.), Problèmes de stratification sociale. Actes du Colloque International (1966) (Paris, 1968) 121–135. Scholten, C., The Coins of the Dutch Overseas Territories 1601–1948 (Amsterdam 1953). Schoonmaker, M., The History of Kingston, New York (New York 1888). Schulte Nordholt, J.W., ‘Nederlanders in Nieuw-Nederland. De oorlog van Kieft met als bijlage het Journael van Nieu-Nederland’. In: Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 80 (1966), 38–94. Schutte, G.J., ‘Bij het schemerlicht van hun tijd. Zeventiende-eeuwse gereformeerden en de slavenhandel’. In: M. Bruggeman et al. (eds.), Mensen van de Nieuwe Tijd. Een liber amicorum voor A.Th. van Deursen (Amsterdam 1996), 193–217. Scott, K. (trans. and ed.), ‘Voyages between New Amsterdam and Holland’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 42–4 (1968), 7–8, 10, 15. ——. (trans. and ed.), Diary of Our Second Trip from Holland to New Netherland, 1683. Dagh teijkeningh van onse tweede reijse uijt Hollant na Nieuw Nederlant, 1683. By Jasper Danckaerts of Wiewerd in Friesland (Upper Saddle River 1969).

528

bibliography

——, ‘Orphan Children sent to New Netherland’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 49–1 (1974), 5–6. Seguy, J., Utopie coopérative et oecuménisme. Pieter Cornelisz Plockhoy van Zurik-Zee, 1620–1700 (Paris 1968). Shattuck, M.D., ‘A Civil Society: Court and Community in Beverwijck, New Netherland 1652–1664’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, Boston University 1993). ——, ‘Women and the Economy in Beverwijck, New Netherland’. In: The Dutch Settlers Society of Albany Yearbook 51 (1989–1993), 21–27. ——, ‘Heemstede: an English Town under Dutch Rule’. In: N.A. Naylor (ed.), The Roots and Heritage of Hempstead Town (Interlaken, N.Y. 1994), 28–44. ——, ‘Women and Trade in New Netherland’. In: Itinerario. European Journal of Overseas History 18 (1994), 2: 40–49. Shomette, D.G. and R.D. Haslach, Raid on America. The Dutch Naval Campaign of 1672–1674 (Columbia 1988). Sicking, L. and R. Fagel, ‘In het kielzog van Columbus. De heer van Veere en de Nieuwe Wereld, 1517–1527’. In: Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 114 (1999), 313–327. Simmons, R.C., The American Colonies. From Settlement to Independence (London 1976). Singleton, E., Dutch New York (New York 1909). Smith, A.E., Colonists in Bondage. White Servitude and Convict Labor in America, 1607–1776 (Chapel Hill 1947). Smith, G.L., ‘Guilders and Godliness: the Dutch Colonial Contribution to American Religious Pluralism’. In: Journal of Presbyterian History 47 (1969), 1–30. ——, Religion and Trade in New Netherland. Dutch Origins and American Development (Ithaca, London 1973). Snow, D.R., The Iroquois (Cambridge, Mass. Oxford 1994, repr. 1996). Snow, D.R., Ch.T. Gehring and W.A. Starna (eds.), In Mohawk Country. Early Narratives about a Native People (Syracuse 1996). Solecki, R.S., ‘The “Tiger”, an Early Dutch 17th Century Ship, and an Abortive Salvage Attempt’. In: Journal of Field Archeology 1 (1974), 109–116. Spaans, J.W., Haarlem na de Reformatie. Stedelijke cultuur en kerkelijk leven, 1577–1620 (Hollandse historische reeks 11) (’s-Gravenhage 1989). Spierenburg, P.C., The Spectacle of Suffering: Executions and Evolution of Repression: from a Preindustrial Metropolis to the European Experience (Cambridge 1984). ——, ‘Homoseksualiteit in preïndustrieel Nederland. Twintig jaar onderzoek’. In: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 109 (1996), 485–493. Spijkerman, H., ‘The Amsterdam Municipal Archives as a Source for the History of the United States of America’. In: American Archivist 52 (1989), 88–93. Starna, W.A., ‘Assessing American Indian-Dutch Studies: Missed and Missing Opportunities’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association 84 (2003), 5–31. —— and J.A. Brandão, ‘From the Mohawk-Mahican War to the Beaver War: Questioning the Pattern’. In: Ethnohistory 51, 4 (2004), 725–750. Stayton, K.L. Dutch by Design: Tradition and Change in Two Historic Brooklyn Houses: the Schenck Houses at the Brooklyn Museum (New York 1990). Steendam, J., Den distelvinck enz. (3 vols., Amsterdam 1649–1650). ——, Zeede-sangen voor de Batavische jonkheyt: behelsende verscheyden bedenkelijke, en stichtelijke stoffen: op bekende, en vermakelijke sang-toonen gepast door Jacob Steendam (Batavia 1671). Sterk, J.F.M. et al. (eds.), De werken van Vondel: volledige en geillustreerde tekstuitgave in tien deelen / levensbeschrijving, geschied- en boekkundige toelichting, literatuuropgave (11 vols., Amsterdam 1927–1940). Streng, J.C., ‘Stemme in staat’. De bestuurlijke elite in de stadsrepubliek Zwolle, 1579–1795 (Hilversum 1997).

bibliography

529

Stronks, G.J., ‘Het kerkvolk op de zondagen. De gereformeerde kerk en de sabbatsontheiliging, ca. 1580–1800’. In: Munire ecclesiam. Opstellen over de ‘gewone gelovigen’ aangeboden aan Prof. dr. W.A.J. Munier ss.cc. bij zijn zeventigste verjaardag (Maastricht 1990), 139–152. Strubbe, E.I. and L. Voet, De chronologie van de middeleeuwen en de moderne tijden in de Nederlanden (Brussel 1960). Stryker-Rodda, K., ‘New Netherland Naming Systems and Customs’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 126 (1995), 35–45. Stuiveling, G. et al. (eds.), De werken van Gerbrand Adriaensz. Brederode. G.A. Bredero’s Boertigh, amoreus, en aendachtigh groot lied-boeck (3 vols., Leiden 1983). Sullivan, D., The Punishment of Crime in Colonial New York. The Dutch Experience in Albany During the Seventeenth Century (New York 1997). Swetschinski, D.M., ‘The Portuguese Jewish Merchants of Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: a Social Profile’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, Brandeis University 1979). Swierenga, R.P., The Forerunners. Dutch Jewry in the North American Diaspora (Detroit 1994). Talman, W.B., ‘Death Customs Among the Colonial Dutch’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 42–4 (1968), 9–10; 43–1 (1968), 13–14. Taylor, A., American Colonies. The Settling of North America (New York, London 2001, repr. 2002). Tebbenhoff, E.H., ‘Tacit Rules and Hidden Family Structures: Naming Practices and Godparentage in Schenectady, New York 1680–1800’. In: Journal of Social History 18 (1985), 567–585. Teensma, B.N. ‘Resentment in Recife. Jews and Public Opinion in 17th century Brazil’. In: J. Lechner (ed.), Essays on Cultural Identity in Colonial Latin-America (Leiden 1988), 63–78. Thomas, K., Man and the Natural World. Changing Attitudes in England, 1500 –1800 (London 1983, repr. Oxford 1996). Thuys, J., Ars notariatus, dat is: konste en stijl van notarischap (Amsterdam 1628). Thwaites, R.G. (ed.) Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610–1791. The Original French, Latin and Italian texts, with English Translation and Notes (73 vols., Cleveland 1896–1901). Trap, H.J., ‘Een reis die niet doorging’. In: Leids Jaarboekje 90 (1998), 54–57. Trelease, A.W., Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: the Seventeenth Century (Ithaca 1960). Trigger, B.G., ‘The Mohawk-Mahican War (1624–28). The Establishment of a Pattern’. In: The Canadian Historical Review 52 (1971), 276–286. ——, Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15 (Northeast) (Washington 1978). Trompetter, C., ‘De migratie van Twente naar Amsterdam in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw. Ontwikkeling en lokale verschillen’. In: Tijdschrift voor Sociale geschiedenis 21 (1995), 145–165. Troostenburg de Bruyn, C.A.L. van, De hervormde kerk in Nederlandsch Oost-Indië onder de Oost-Indische Compagnie (1602–1795) (Arnhem 1884). Valck Lucassen, Th.R., ‘Familieaantekeningen Ebbinck en Gerbade’. In: De Nederlandsche Leeuw 36 (1918), 221–225. Venema, J., Kinderen van weelde en armoede. Armoede en liefdadigheid in Beverwijck/Albany (Zeven Provinciën Reeks 6) (Hilversum 1993). —— (trans. and ed.), Deacons’ Accounts, 1652–1674. Dutch Reformed Church, Beverwijck/ Albany, New York (The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America 28) (Rockport 1998). ——, Beverwijck. A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652–1664 (Hilversum 2003). Verbeeck, L., ‘Van partner tot horige: de relatie tussen Indianen en Nederlanders in Nieuw Nederland, 1609–1673’. In: P. Mason (ed.), Indianen en Nederlanders, 1492–1992 (Leiden 1992), 103–128.

530

bibliography

Verhoog, P. and L. Koelmans (eds.), De reis van Michiel Adriaanszoon de Ruyter in 1664–1665 (Werken Linschoten-Vereeniging 62) (’s-Gravenhage 1961). Verney, J., O’Callaghan: The Making and Unmaking of a Rebel (Ottowa 1994). Versteeg, D. (trans.), P.R. Christoph, K. Scott, K. Stryker-Rodda (eds.), Kingston Papers 1661–1675 (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch) (2 vols., Baltimore 1976). Visser, H.B., Geschiedenis van den sabbatstrijd onder de gereformeerden in de zeventiende eeuw (Utrecht 1939). Volk, J.G., ‘The Dutch Kast and the American Kas: a Structural/Historical Analysis’. In: R.H. Blackburn and N.A. Kelley (eds.), New World Dutch Studies. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776. Proceedings of the Symposium Organized by the Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, August 2–3, 1986, Held in Conjunction with the Exhibition Remembrance of Patria. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776 (Albany 1987), 107–117. Voorhees, D.W., The Holland Society: a Centennial History 1885–1985 (New York 1985). ——, ‘Leisler’s Pre-1689 Biography & Family Background’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 62–4 (1989), 1–7. ——, ‘The ‘Fervent Zeale’ of Jacob Leisler’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3d ser. 51 (1994), 447–472. Vries, D.P. de, Korte Historiael ende Journaels Aenteykeninge van verscheyden voyagiens in de vier delen des werelts-ronde, als Europa, Africa, Asia ende America gedaen (H.T. Colenbrander ed.) (Werken Linschoten-Vereeniging 3) (’s-Gravenhage 1911). Vries, J. de, and A. van der Woude, Nederland 1500–1815. De eerste ronde van moderne economische groei (Amsterdam 1995). Vries, K. de, ‘Het middeleeuwse burgerschap: condities en consequenties’. In: Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 74 (1961), 220–225. Vries, W. de, ‘De Van Rensselaer’s in Nederland’. In: De Nederlandsche Leeuw 66 (1949), 150–172, 194–211. Waard, C. de (ed.), De Zeeuwsche expeditie naar de West onder Cornelis Evertsen den Jonge 1672–1674. Nieuw Nederland een jaar onder Nederlandsch bestuur (Werken LinschotenVereeniging 30) (’s-Gravenhage 1928). Wabeke, B.H., Dutch Emigration to North America 1624–1860 (New York 1944). Wagenaar, F.P., ‘“Dat de regeringe niet en bestaet bij het corpus van de magistraet van Den Hage alleen”. De Societeit van ’s-Gravenhage (1587–1802). Een onderzoek naar bureaucratisering’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1997). Wagenaar, L.J., Galle. VOC-vestiging in Ceylon. Beschrijving van een koloniale samenleving aan de vooravond van de Singalese opstand tegen het Nederlandse gezag, 1760 (Amsterdam, 1994). Wagman, M., ‘The Rise of Pieter Claessen Wyckoff: Social Mobility on the Colonial Frontier’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 52 (1972), 5–24. ——, ‘Corporate Slavery in New Netherland’. In: Journal of Negro History 65 (1980), 34–42. ——, ‘Liberty in New Amsterdam: a Sailor’s Life in Early New York’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 64 (1983), 101–119. Wall, E.G.E. van der, ‘Prophecy and Profit: Nicolaes van Rensselaer, Charles II and the Conversion of the Jews’. In: C. Augustijn et al. (eds.), Kerkhistorische opstellen aangeboden aan (Essays on Church History Presented to) Prof. dr. J. van den Berg (Kampen 1987), 75–87. Wassenaer, N. van, Historisch verhael alder gedenck-weerdigste geschiedenissen die van den beginne des jaeres 1621 [. . .] tot 1632 voorgevallen sijn (21 vols., Amsterdam 1622–1635). Weslager, C.A., Dutch Explorers, Traders and Settlers in the Delaware Valley 1609–1664 (Philadelphia 1961).

bibliography

531

——, ‘Who Survived the Indian massacre at Swanendael?’ In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 40–3 (1965), 9–10, 15–16. ——, ‘Did Minuit buy Manhattan Island from the Indians?’ In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 43–3 (1968), 5–6. ——, A Man and His Ship. Pieter Minuit and the Kalmar Nyckel (Wilmington, Del. 1990). Westra, F., ‘Lost and Found: Crijn Fredericx—A New York Founder’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 71 (1998), 7–16. White, Ph.L., ‘Municipal Government comes to Manhattan’. In: New-York Historical Society Quarterly 37 (1953), 146–157. Wieder, F.C., De stichting van New York in juli 1625. Reconstructies en nieuwe gegevens ontleend aan de Van Rappard-documenten (Werken Linschoten-Vereeniging 26) (’s-Gravenhage 1925). Wijmer, D.J., J. Folkerts and P.R. Christoph, Through a Dutch Door. 17th Century Origins of the Van Voorhees Family (Baltimore 1992). Wijnman, H.F., ‘Lieven van Coppenol, schoolmeester-calligraaf ’. In: Jaarboek van het Genootschap Amstelodamum 30 (1933), 93–188. Wijsenbeek-Olthuis, Th., Achter de gevels van Delft. Bezit en bestaan van rijk en arm in een periode van achteruitgang (1700–1800) (Hilversum 1987). Wilcoxen, Ch., Seventeenth Century Albany: a Dutch Profile (Albany 1981). ——, ‘Household Artifacts of New Netherland, from its Archaeological and Documentary Records’. In: B. Bakker et al. (eds.), Nieuwnederlandse studiën. Een inventarisatie van recent onderzoek. New Netherland Studies. An Inventory of Current Research and Approaches. Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 84 (1985), 120–129. ——, Dutch Trade and Ceramics in America in the Seventeenth Century (Albany 1987). ——, ‘Arent van Curler’s Children’. In: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 110 (1979), 82–84. ——, ‘New Netherland Ceramics: Evidence from Excavations of Fort Orange, 1624–1676’. In: R.H. Blackburn and N.A. Kelley (eds.), New World Dutch Studies. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776. Proceedings of the Symposium Organized by the Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, August 2–3, 1986, Held in Conjunction with the Exhibition Remembrance of Patria. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776 (Albany 1987), 37–42. ——, ‘Dutch Trade with New England’. In: N.A. McClure Zeller (ed.), A Beautiful and Fruitful Place. Selected Rensselaerswijck Seminar Papers (n.p. 1991), 235–241. Williams, J.H., ‘Great Doggs and Mischievous Cattle: Domesticated Animals and Indian-European Relations in New Netherland and New York’. In: New York History. Quarterly Journal of New York State Historical Association. 76 (1995), 244–264. ——, ‘An Atlantic Perspective on the Jewish Struggle for Rights and Opportunities in Brazil, New Netherland and New York’. In: P. Bernardini and N. Fiering (eds.), The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West (2 vols, New York, Oxford 2001), 2: 369–393. Winter, P.J. van, De Westindische Compagnie ter kamer en Stad en Lande (Werken uitgegeven door de Vereeniging Het Nederlandsch Economisch-Historisch Archief 15) (’s-Gravenhage 1978). Wiznitzer, A., Jews in Colonial Brazil (New York 1960). Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal (43 vols., ’s-Gravenhage 1882–1998). Wouters, A.Ph.F. and P.H.A.M. Abels, Nieuw en ongezien. Kerk en samenleving in de classis Delft en Delfland 1572–1621 (Werken van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis 1 and 2) (2 vols., Delft 1994). Wright, L.G., ‘Local Government and Central Authority in New Netherland’. In: New-York Historical Society Quarterly 42 (1973), 7–29. ——, ‘Local Government in Colonial New York, 1640–1710’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University 1974). Yntema, R., ‘A Capital Industry. Brewing in Holland, 1500–1800’. In: R.E. Kistemaker

532

bibliography

and V.T. van Vilsteren (eds.), Beer! The Story of Holland’s Favourite Drink (n.p. 1994), 72–81. ——, R., ‘Beer in Abundance. Distribution and Consumption in Early Modern Holland’. In: R.E. Kistemaker and V.T. van Vilsteren (eds.), Beer! The Story of Holland’s Favourite Drink (n.p. 1994), 82–95. ——, ‘The Welfare of the Brewers. Guilds and Confraternities in the Brewing Industry’. In: R.E. Kistemaker and V.T. van Vilsteren (eds.), Beer! The Story of Holland’s Favourite Drink (n.p. 1994), 118–131. Zabriskie, G.O. and A.P. Kenney, ‘The Founding of New Amsterdam: Fact and Fiction’. In: de Halve Maen. Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 50–4 (1976), 5–6, 15–16; 51–1 (1976), 5–6, 13–14; 51–2 (1976), 5–6, 13–14; 51–3 (1976), 11–14; 51–4 (1977), 11–12, 15–16. Zandt, C. Van, ‘The Dutch Connection. Isaac Allerton and the Dynamics of English Cultural Anxiety in the Gouden Eeuw’. In: R. Hoefte and J.C. Kardux (eds.), Connecting Cultures. The Netherlands in Five Centuries of Transatlantic Exchange (Amsterdam 1994), 51–76. Zandvliet, C.J., ‘Een ouderwetse kaart van Nieuw Nederland door Cornelis Doetsz. en Willem Jansz. Blaeu’. In: Caert-Thresoor 1 (1982), 57–60. ——, Mapping for Money: Maps, Plans and Topographic Paintings and their Role in Dutch Overseas Expansion during the 16th and 17th Centuries (Amsterdam 1998). Zantkuyl, H.J., ‘Reconstructie van enkele Nederlandse huizen in Nieuw-Nederland uit de zeventiende eeuw’. In: B. Bakker et al. (eds.), Nieuwnederlandse studiën. Een inventarisatie van recent onderzoek. New Netherland Studies. An Inventory of Current Research and Approaches. Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 84 (1985), 166–179. ——, ‘Hollandse huizen, gebouwd in de 17de eeuw in Amerika’. In: Amsterdamse Monumenten (1987), 47–76. ——, ‘The Netherlands Town House: How and Why it Works’. In: R.H. Blackburn and N.A. Kelley (eds.), New World Dutch Studies. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776. Proceedings of the Symposium Organized by the Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, August 2–3, 1986, Held in Conjunction with the Exhibition Remembrance of Patria. Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609–1776 (Albany 1987), 143–160. Zwierlein, F.J., Religion in New Netherland. A History of the Development of the Religious Conditions in the Province of New Netherland, 1623–1664 (Rochester 1910). ——, ‘New Netherland intolerance’. In: The Catholic Historical Review 4 (1918), 186–216. Zwieten, A.E. van, ‘The Orphan Chamber of New Amsterdam’. In: The William and Mary Quarterly. A Magazine of Early American History and Culture 3rd ser. 53 (1996), 319–340. ——, ‘“[O]n Her Woman’s Troth”: Tolerance, Custom, and the Women of New Netherland’. In: de Halve Maen: Quarterly Magazine of the Dutch Colonial Period in America 72 (1999), 3–14. ——, ‘“A Little Land . . . To Sow Some Seeds”: Real Property, Custom, and Law in the Community of New Amsterdam’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 2001).

Fig. 1. Map of New Netherland, late seventeenth century. Private collection.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

60

chapter two

Fig. 2. Map of New Netherland, 1656, from Adriaen van der Donck, Beschryvinge van Nieuw-Nederlant. Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

Fig. 3. Map of New Netherland, ca. 1615-1618. Nationaal Archief, The Hague.

60

chapter two

Fig. 4. Portrait of Johannes de Laet by I. van Bronchorst, ca. 1644. Nederlands Scheepvaartmuseum Amsterdam.

Fig. 5. Een Mahakuaes Indiaen, met hun Steden en woningen, ca. 1644. Gemeentearchief Amsterdam.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

60

chapter two

Fig. 6. Contract between captain Adriaen Blommaert and passenger Jacob Steendam, 25 January 1652. Gemeentearchief Amsterdam.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

Fig. 6a. De Paerel een Oostindies Vaerder, De Dubbelen Arent een Westindis Vaerder, by Reinier Nooms, ca. 1650. Nederlands Scheepvaartmuseum Amsterdam.

31

60

chapter two

Fig. 7. David Pietersz. de Vries, by Cornelis Visscher, 1653. Gemeentearchief Amsterdam.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

Fig. 8. Petrus Stuyvesant, attributed to Hendrick Couturier, ca. 1661-1662. New-York Historical Society, New York.

60

chapter two

Fig. 9. Frontispiece of the printed version of the charter of the West India Company, 1621. Gemeentearchief Leiden.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

Fig. 10. Frontispiece of the printed version of the Freedoms and Exemptions, 1630. New-York Historical Society, New York.

Fig. 11. Hartgers View of Fort New Amsterdam. Gemeentearchief Amsterdam.

60 chapter two

Fig. 12. The West India House in Amsterdam, 1655. Gemeentearchief Amsterdam.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

60

chapter two

Fig. 13. Letter of Pieter Jansz. Schagen to the States General, 5 November 1626, referring to the purchase of Manhattan. Nationaal Archief, The Hague.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

Fig. 14. Marks of bakers, as entered into the resolution book of burgemeesters and schepenen of New Amsterdam, 25 March 1661. New York Municipal Archives, New York.

Fig. 15. Three designs of coats of arms for New Netherland, 28 December 1630. New York Public Library, New York.

60 chapter two

Fig. 16. ‘Manatus-Map’, an eighteenth-century copy of an original of 1639. Library of Congress, Washington.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

60

chapter two

Fig. 17. View of the Late Protestant Dutch Church in the City of Albany, by Henry W. Snyder after a drawing Philip Hooker, 1806. Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

Fig. 18. Castello Plan, copy of an original of 1660 in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence. This is a twentieth-century redrawing. Gemeentearchief Amsterdam.

60

chapter two

Fig. 19. Certificate of small burgher right of Lucas Dircksz., 20 December 1659. Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

Fig. 20. List of loans, New Amsterdam, 1653. New York Municipal Archives, New York.

60

chapter two

Fig. 21. Unus American ex Virginia, by Wenceslaus Hollar, 1645. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Fig. 22. Memorial spoon, by Juriaen Blanck, 1687. Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany.

terminal histories and arthurian solutions

31

60

chapter two

Fig. 23. Stained-glass window from the First Reformed Dutch Church of Albany, by Evert Duyckingh, 1656. Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany.

INDEX

Aachen, 418 aalmoezeniers, 84–85, 87 aansprekers, 442, 444 Abendana, Mordechai, 376n Acadia, 481 Achter Kol, 10, 123, 132 Ackerman, Laurens, 52–53 adelborsten, 51, 53, 54, 55, 343, 367 admiral, 1, 66, 184 Admiralty, 51, 52, 58, 264; of Amsterdam, 34, 185–186, 425 Adolf of Burgundy, 1 Adriaensz. van Veere, Marijn, 192, 227, 279, 488 Adriaensz., Pieter (b. 1651), 438 Adriaensz., Pieter (innkeeper), 241 Adriaensz., Willem, 242 advisory bodies, 135–136, 143, 165, 348, 477, 488–489. See also Eight Men; Nine Men; Twelve Men; landdag. adultery, 103, 105, 159, 427, 437–438, 450; with Indian women 395–396 advocaat-fiscael, 149 Aecken, Jan Kostersz. van, 493 Æmilius, Pieter Jansz., 61 Aertsz., Frederick, 412 Aertsz., Govert, 68 Aertsz., Huych, 155, 452 Africa, 3, 380 Agges, Hendrick, 258 agriculture, 113, 120, 214–233, 251, 261, 262, 341, 471, 477, 479; crops, products, 18, 191, 384; colonies, 38, 43, 60; land, 73–74. See also under specific crops. Albany, 7, 10, 31, 32, 44, 152, 180, 293, 391, 393, 399, 442; court of, 183–184, 394, 446; recapture, 186, wolf hunt 225; tappers, 240. See also Beverwijck. Albany Institute of History and Art, 353n, 411 Alberts, Eva, 156 Alberts, Femmetje, 438 Albertsz. van Gouda, Cornelis, 344 Albertsz., Hendrick, 79

alcohol, 240–242, 244, 251, 277, 321, 416, 445; and Indians, 208–209, 211, 389, 390, 392–393, 399; import of, 251, 254, 258, 262. See also beer; wine. aldermen, 182, 339, 352, 491 Algonquians, 23, 25, 209 All Saints Day, 226 Allerton, Isaack, 138, 332, 488 Alrichs, Jacob, 87, 130, 281, 293, 294, 390, 416 Amazon River, 9 ambassador, 41, 111. See also embassy. America, 3, 9, 16, 22, 185, 256, 258, 263, 355. See also North America Amersfoort; on Long Island, 48, 76, 152, 162, 165, 369; in Neth., 223, 225, 228, 229 Amiens, 449 Amsterdam, 70, 78, 83, 92, 117, 150, 161, 191, 239, 250, 310, 345, 359, 362, 406, 435, 450, 453, 471; fur trade via, 20–21, 68, 195, 202; early voyages, 31–36; shipping, 43, 45, 52, 60, 129, 206, 229, 254, 256–257; contracts made in, 53, 56, 58, 67–68, 77, 79–81, 87–88, 92, 342; immigration to, 53, 92; city government, 83–89, 97, 129, 168, 267, 359, 467; and New Amstel, 87, 126–131, 177, 267, 307, 342; as model, 132, 151, 168–170, 177, 188, 240, 243, 348, 359, 364, 371, 401, 420, 477; and tobacco, 229–231; Lutherans in, 297–298, 300–305; Jews in, 372, 374, 376, 378–379, 401; mentioned, 48–49, 55, 59, 63, 74, 80, 192, 236, 239, 252, 264, 289, 380, 396, 409, 429–430, 436, 439, 455, 456. See also Admiralty; burgemeesters; classis; consistory; Gemeentearchief; merchants; notarial archives; orphans; schout; secretary; vroedschap. Amsterdam chamber, Amsterdam directors, 9, 37, 39–40, 53, 48–49, 60, 62–63, 77, 78, 79, 111–112,

534

index

133, 164, 191, 222, 254, 255–256, 265, 298, 319, 325, 377, 385, 410, 420, 435, 453, 456, 475, 478–480; factions, 43–44, 112–113, 115, 119, 475; and director (general) and council, 42–43, 49–50, 53, 55–57, 62, 71, 81, 83–84, 95, 100, 107–108, 150–151, 153–155, 158, 160, 168, 176, 195–196, 221–222, 231–232, 235–237, 253, 258, 280, 299, 301, 304, 310–311, 352, 359, 365, 369, 373–379, 382–383, 397, 401, 424–425, 455; and immigration, 47, 74–76, 91, 310; sending orphans, 83–88; supervising New Netherland, 96, 100, 109, 141, 150, 323, 452; and patroonships, 113, 116, 119, 121, 124, 126–129; and States General, 83, 138, 140, 148–151, 210; and Eight Men, 139–140, 142, 398, 348; and Nine Men, 147–150, 348, and New Amsterdam, 151, 164, 168, 170, 175–176; and Wiltwijck, 156–158, 160–161; and ministers, 264, 266–273, 276, 278, 283–284, 299, 304–305, 319, 323. See also West India Company. Anabaptists, Mennonites, 89, 308, 311 Andrado, Salvador d’, 378 Andries, 380 Andries, Geertruit, 435 Andros, Edmund, 483 Anglican Church, 292 Anglo-Dutch War. First (1652–1654), 67, 85–86, 151, 166, 282, 328, 368, 463; Anglo-Dutch War, Second (1665–1667), 185, 257; Anglo-Dutch War, Third (1672–1674), 185, 481 Angola, 388 Angola, Domingo, 385 Anthonisz. van Utrecht, Michiel, 437 Anthony, Allard, 171, 183, 331, 349, 361, 451, 489, 490, 492 Anthony, Lijsbet, 387 Antonissen, Lijsbet, 387 Antwerp, 38, 204 appeal, 104, 114, 128, 131, 145, 148, 154, 158, 159, 169, 181, 182, 186, 272, 278, 364. See also justice. Appel van Graft, Jan Laurensz., 68–69 Aragon, 1 arbitration, 119, 169, 238

archaeology, excavations, 211, 250, 252–253, 258, 409, 414–415 architecture, 407–408, 472, 478 Aris van Nieuw Amsterdam, Annetje, 50n arms trade, 68, 208–211, 389–390, 399 Arnhem, Gerrit van, 121 Arnhem (Long Island), 48, 153 Arnhem (Rep.), 498 artikelbrief, 102, 105 articles of capitulation. See takeover. artisans, 51, 61, 72–75, 78, 248, 332–333, 336, 345. See also under specific trades. Aruba, 223 Ascension Day, 464, 470 Ash Wednesday, 467 Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic World, 1–4, 37–39, 96, 113, 206, 216, 222, 251, 261, 372, 465 Asia, 1, 31, 83 auction, 381, 412 Augsburgh Confession, Unaltered, 297, 301. See also Lutherans. Augustinus, Jan, 317 autumn, 14, 21, 25, 224, 228, 364 Bachman, Van Claef, 215 Backer(us), Johannes Cornelisz., 268–271, 274, 280–281, 292, 324, 494 Backer, Jacob, 329–330, 354, 490 Bael, Jan Hendricksz. van, 493 Baerle, David van, 96 bail, 50, 400 bakers, 76, 78–79, 170, 237–239, 245–249, 336, 354, 357, 362, 379, 399, 477. See also bread. Baker, Richard, 418 Bakkerbene, Hendrick Jansz., 68 baljuw, 106, 139, 161 ballast, 236, 405 Baltic Sea, 113, 127, 215 Bancker, Gerrit, 70 banishment, 142–143, 145, 208–209, 234, 307–311, 354, 372, 435, 439 bankruptcy, 63 Banneth, Ananias, 35 banns, publishing of, 426, 428–429, 433 baptism, 48n, 272, 290, 410n, 421, 423–426, 428, 430, 436, 439n, 472–473, 478; formula, 300–301,

index 304–305; adult, 311; of blacks, 314–318, 325, 385; register, 315–317, 320, 353, 424, 426; of Indians, 323; witnesses, 423–424; gifts, 425, 430, 473 Baptist van Antwerpen, Jan, 203–204 barber, 61, 412 Barbosse, Lourviso, 386 Barents, Hendrickje, 156 Barentsz., Willem, 31 barley, 16, 415–416 Barsimson, Jacob, 378 Batavia, 60, 272, 275, 292, 313 Baxter, Thomas, 165 Bayard, Judith, 316 Bayard, Nicolaes, 186, 487 beads, 25, 194–195, 253 beans, 16–17, 26, 220, 341, 415 bears, 18, 24–25, 28 beaver, beaver pelts, 2, 8, 21, 25, 48, 133, 191, 211, 397, 414; hunting season, 20; as gifts, 27; value of, 32, 34, 195–197, 202–203, 207–209, 246, 340; as currency, 192–195, 259–260, 262, 284, 340, 353, 364, 410, 427, 443, 479; ‘Beaver Wars’, 202. See also fur trade. Beck, Matthias, 316 Becker, Jochem Wesselsz., 212, 245–246, 453–454 Bedloo, Isaac, 433n, 451, 491 Beeck, Isaack van, 96 Beeck, Johannes van, 367 Beeck, Paulus van der, 243–244, 447–448 Beeckman, Jochem, 457 Beeckman, Willem, 171, 184, 243, 330, 349, 489–491 beer, 209, 221, 240–245, 251, 254, 262, 415–416, 434, 461, 471; duty on, 172, 241, 339, 423. See also brewers. Beesd, 76, 281 Beest, Jan Reyersz. van der, 61 bell, 240–241, 371, 442, 444–445, 459–461, 474 Benckes, Jacob, 185–186, 483 Bentyn, Jacques, 484, 486, 488 Bergen (New Netherland), 48, 152, 443 Bergen (Norway), 185 Bergen, Jan, 61 Bergh, Frederick Gijsbertsz. van den, 364

535

Bermuda, 398 Beschryvinge van Nieuw-Nederlant, 7–8, 11, 13, 19, 89. See also Donck, Adriaen van der. Besems, Maria, 50 Bestevaer, Jan Jansz., 61 Bethlehem, 444 Beverwijck, 152, 165, 210, 226, 236–237, 242, 245, 287, 293, 295, 297, 345, 347, 349, 357, 390, 395, 406–407, 410, 424, 459, 494; population size, 48, 294; fur trade in, 72, 201, 211–214, 247, 358, 364–365; court of, 126, 162, 183, 208–209, 212–214, 287, 295, 344, 351, 354, 356, 368, 370, 435, 438, 460, 470, 493; list of loans, 339–341; burgher guard in, 370–371, 470; mentioned, 67, 153, 156, 159, 163, 241, 243, 282, 286, 353, 367, 369, 389, 410, 423, 425, 441–442, 444, 452, 454, 469. See also Albany. Bible, 143, 321, 403, 417, 440, 461; Exodus 21:4, 384–385; Exodus 21:19, 457; Genesis 14:20, 220; 1 Corinthians 5, 469 Bicker, Aeltje, 334 Bierkaecker, Marten Hendricksz. de, 209 Biewenga, Ad, 55n, 313n, 317n bigamy, 437. See also marriage. Bijlevelt, Pieter van, 484 Bilt, De, 78n biography, 419 birds, 16, 18, 21, 30 birth, 29, 48n, 50, 421–423, 425–428, 472–473, 478; pregnancy, 50, 80, 287, 422, 427–428, 431–432 blacks, slaves, 22, 61, 66, 306, 315, 328, 338, 358, 372, 388, 395, 397, 399, 401, 452; conversion of, 312–320, 325; number of, 313, 381, 480; free, 313–314, 380, 385–386, 388, 401, 480; status, 380–388. See also manumission. Blanck, Jeuriaen, 410n Blanck, Jeuriaen, Jr., 410n blankets, 250, 254, 345, 413 blasphemy, 105, 159, 354 Block, Adriaen, 32–34 Blockemaker, Harmen Pietersz., 49 Blockx, Harmtje, 49

536

index

Blockx, Jannetje, 49, 51 Bloem, Jan, 258 Bloemendaal, 67 Bloemmaert, Adriaen, 45, 60–61, 79, 258, 332, 350, 490 Blom, Hermannus, 271, 289, 293, 419, 428, 494 Blommaert, Samuel, 115, 118, 204 board, 52, 78, 80, 86, 239, 284, 342–345 Bogaert, Harmen Meyndertsz. van den, 28, 207–209, 397, 465 Bogaert, Joost van den, 99, 484 Bogardus, Everardus, 145, 269, 271, 274–275, 277–280, 284, 292, 313, 315, 320, 324, 347, 494 Bol, Jan Claesz., 485 Bontemantel, Hans, 96, 127 Bontenos, Jacob, 32 Boogaart, Ernst van den, 48n, 77n bookkeeper, 53, 63, 104, 107, 196, books, 9, 74n, 117–118, 272, 297, 409, 417–420, 443, 472 Boon, François, 336, 491, 493 Boon, Piet, 60n Borculo, 75 Bordingh, Claes, 67–68, 163, 333, 335–336 Borstius, Jacobus, 418 Borsum, Egbert van, 329, 335, 447 Bosboom, Pieter Jacobsz., 367–368 bosschieter, 313 Boston, 216, 258, 398 Boswijck, 48, 152, 290, 355 bottomry bonds, 67–69 boundary conflicts, 126, 146, 148, 156, 159, 161, 164 Bout, Jan Evertsz., 75, 137, 146, 149, 154, 351, 391, 488 Bowery. See Commandeursbowerij; Director’s Bowery. boweries. See farming. Bowne, John, 310 Boxer, Charles, 58 Bradford, William, 417 Bradt de Noorman, Albert Andriesz., 156 Brandão, José António, 24, 202 brandy. See alcohol. Branford, 32 Brazil, 1–3, 24n, 39n, 63, 90, 97, 113, 130, 148, 188, 196, 205, 216, 281, 382; sugar from, 37, 48; soldiers to, 52, 55–56; ministers in, 76, 285,

319, 324, 477; Jews in, 372–374, 376–377 bread, 170, 245–249, 253, 357, 399, 415–416, 465. See also bakers. Breda, 79; Treaty of, 185 brede raad, 102 Bredenbent, Willem, 287, 449 Breeden-Raedt, 292 Bressani, Guiseppe, 312 Breuckelen, 76, 221, 441, 461, 464, 466; court of, 48, 152–155, 165, 287–288, 351–352, 368, 441; schout of, 161–162, 176, minister of, 270, 283–285, 287–290, 293–294, 419, 494; ferry, 329; taxation list, 339, 341–342 Breukelen, 60 brewers; brewing, 78, 82, 204, 221, 237–239, 241–245, 262, 338, 346, 477. See also beer. brick, brickyards, 13, 235–238, 382, 404–408 Bridges, Charles. See Bruggen, Carel van. Broad Street, 170 Brodhead, John Romeyn, 307, 496, 498, 500, 503 Bronck House, 404 Bronck, Jems, 443 Bronck, Jonas, 73–74, 80, 297, 409–411, 414, 417 Bronx, 74 Brooklyn. See Breuckelen. Brouwer, Jan Jansz., 58, 484 Brouwer, Philip Hendricksz., 456 Brouwerstraet, 170 Bruggen, Carel van, 99, 124, 163, 332, 487 Brugh, Johannes Pietersz. van, 70, 286, 330, 344, 346, 420, 490–491 Brussels, 312, 439 Bruyn, Jan Hendricksz., buckwheat, 16, 220 building contracts, 405–406, 408, 413. See also houses. Bunschoten, 78n burgemeesters; in Dutch Republic, 168, 273, 350; of Amsterdam, 83–89, 97, 115, 129, 149, 267, 307, 359; of New Amsterdam, 59, 65, 128, 168, 171, 173, 178, 182, 215–216, 227, 233, 239, 243, 270, 286, 331, 334–336, 338, 339, 344, 350, 360–362, 367, 379, 386–387, 407,

index 420, 425, 429, 442, 460, 490–491; of New Amstel, 129; of Elburg, 278. See also burgemeesters and schepenen. burgemeesters and schepenen; city government of New Amsterdam, 59, 71, 170, 172, 175, 177, 182–183, 193, 216, 225, 227, 232, 237, 243, 247–249, 255, 286, 290, 291, 302, 329–330, 332, 334–335, 344, 346–351, 353, 358, 360–364, 367, 387, 400, 424, 434, 436–437, 441–442, 450–451, 460, 462, 478–479, 490–491; and director general and council, 72, 170–172, 175–176, 195, 238, 244–245, 302, 328, 331, 333, 336–337, 354, 358–360, 365, 367, 377, 462, 468–469; installation, 152, 173, 189, 290, 339, 347–348, 367; and chamber Amsterdam, 166, 175; powers, 168–172; appointment, 173–175, 186, 338, 348–350, 467, 477. See also burgemeesters; schepenen. burgerweeshuis, 84, 87. See also orphans. Burgh, Albert Coenraetsz., 96, 115, 118 burgher guard, 347, 349, 355, 358, 366–371, 378–379, 388, 400–401, 403, 459, 470, 478; officers, 209, 348–349, 360, 366, 368; muster roll, 367; guard duty, 360, 365, 367–371, 378, 459; ordinance on, 369–370; guardhouse, 367–369, 378, 459; parrot shooting, 371, 470. See also rattle guard. burgher right, 72, 248, 347, 355–366, 371, 400, 403; small, 68, 72, 359–362, 379, 401; great, 359–363, 401 Burke, Peter, 5 Bushwick. See Boswijck. butchers, 237–239, 362, 379 buurtmeesters, 448 Buys, Jacob, 451 Buys, Pieter Jacobsz., 332 cabinet-makers, 411 calico, 254 calligrapher, 49 Canada, 8, 11, 207, 257, 312, 318 Canarsee, 23, Canary Islands, 37 canoe, 211, 450

537

Candlemass. See Lady’s Day. Cant, Sivert, 391 Capellen tot Rijssel, Hendrick van der, 122–123, 140, 278 Capellen, Alexander van der, 150 Capito, Matthijs, 184 capitulation. See takeover. captain, 29, 57–61, 79, 85, 95, 98–100, 102, 186, 331–332, 336, 338, 343, 345; burgher guard, 348, 367–368; rattle guard, 436 captain-lieutenant, 343 Cardell, Ralph, 229 Caribbean islands, 37, 66, 97, 113, 232, 234, 236, 251, 312 Caribbean Sea, 3, 46, 380 Carleton, Sir Dudley, 41, carpenters, 57–59, 61–62, 78, 237–238, 329, 333, 341, 343, 362, 382, 411, 441; ships’, 33 Carpesy, Gabriel, 226 Carolina, 179 Carstensz., Roelof, 58 Castilia, 1 Castle Island, 32, 56 catechismal book, 272 catechism, 316, 323, 417–418; Heidelberg, 317 Catholics, Catholicism, 46, 263, 285, 311–312, 323, 418, 464, 475 Cats, Jacob, 419 Catskill, 48 cattle, 9, 74, 100, 116, 132, 137, 155, 217–219, 222–224, 226–227, 289, 470–471. See also cows, pigs, etc. Cayuga, 22 Ceci, Lynn, 197 census of 1703, 381 Chamber of Accounts, 140–141, 148 Chambers, Thomas, 184, 389–390 charivari, 433 Charles I (King of England), 283 Charles II (King of England), 178 Charles V (King of Aragon and Castilia), 1 Chesapeake Bay, 23, 31 children, 50, 66, 69, 75, 125, 209, 287, 294, 300–301, 308, 373, 403, 409, 416, 418, 422–428, 432, 436–437, 439–441, 449, 462, 473; of soldiers, 53, 56; orphans, 83–88; Indian, 138, 319–320, 323, 395–397, 399; clothing, 250, 253;

538

index

black, 313, 315–317, 323, 325, 383–387 china, 414 China, 31 Christiaensz., Hendrick, 32–33, 35–36 Christina (daughter of Warnaer Wessels), 423 Christina (manumitted slave), 316, 385 Christmas, 14, 428, 432, 460, 464–466, 471 Christoffelsz., Joris, 391 church, 11, 122, 143, 146, 159, 164, 220, 279–280, 282, 342, 352–353, 370–371, 410, 433, 441–442, 481; services, 61, 86, 208, 240, 279, 283, 287, 290, 292–293, 295, 297, 300, 316, 321, 324, 369, 419, 461–463, 474, 478; churchyard, 441. See also classis; consistory; Lord’s Supper; ministers. church members, 278, 285–295, 317, 322–324, 372, 401, 426, 437, 463, 466, 477–478; liefhebbers, 281, 290, 293, 324 churchwardens, 441–442 Cicilje, 383 city-colony. See New Amstel. city government. See burgemeesters and schepenen; burgemeesters. city hall, 244, 331, 349, 352, 361, 420 Claerbout, Pieter, 424 Claerhout, Walraven, 336, 339 Claesz., Bartel, 341 Claesz., Hans, 32–33 Claesz. van Rotterdam, Hendrick, 235 Claesz., Hendrick, 86–87 Claesz. van Graft, Sijmon, 259 Claesz., Tjerck, 297, 300 Claesz., Willem, 234 Clarendon, Earl of, 181, 198 classis, 265, 272, 274, 286, 324; of Amsterdam, 264–273, 277–278, 280–282, 284–286, 293, 299–302, 304–305, 307, 315, 318–319, 321, 323, 372–373, 440n, 477, 481; in Brazil, 285, 477; in New Netherland, 272, 285–286, 324, 426, 477 clay, 12, 219, 234, 236 clerks, 59, 61–66, 69, 110, 158, 309, 336 Cleves, 108 climate, 7–8, 13, 15, 88, 479

cloth, 25, 207–208, 233–234, 250, 254, 321n, 413 clothing, 12, 78, 86, 129, 253, 345, 352, 408–409, 413–414, 425–426, 467; of Indians, 24–25, 211, 250, 396 Cobus, Ludovicus, 446–447 Cock, Pieter, 367, 398 Cod, Cape, 31 Coen, Jan Pietersz., 275 Coenraetsz. van Kampen, Cornelis, 259 Coerten, Geurt, 434 Coesant, Abraham Jansz. van, 70 coetus correspondentium, 266 cohabitation, unmarried, 314, 429. See also marriage. Cohen, David, 75, 91–92, 408 Cohen, Jacob, 378–379 Cohoes Falls, 10–11, 20, 211 Colendonck, 79, 123 collector, 226, 342 ‘collector of the customs’, 65 Collegiate School, 314n Cologne, 185 colonization, colonial expansion, 1–4, 9, 38–39, 41, 47, 60–61, 76–77, 112–113, 127, 132, 153, 188, 191, 203–204, 217, 227, 254, 296, 475–476; promotion of, 7, 10, 30, 38, 45, 56, 75, 83, 113, 198; faction, 43–44, 112–113, 115, 132, 475–476 Columbus, Christopher, 12 Colve, Anthony, 186, 336–337, 483 comforter of the sick; ziekentrooster, 264–264, 267, 274, 277 Commandeursbouwerij, 82 commander, 54, 64, 95, 97, 104, 110, 114, 207, 342–343, 353, 445; vice-commander, 108 Commelin, Isaac, 418–419 commies, 61–66, 67n, 99, 117, 119, 157, 298, 332, 344; of Rensselaerswijck, 20, 63, 420; of Fort Orange, 28, 63, 99, 124–125, 200, 245–246, 282, 340, 451, 455; of the merchandise, 61, 107, 342; of the store, 61, 65, 107, 342; of the victuals, 58, 61, 64, 106–107, 343 commissioners; of New Amstel, 87, 129, 131, 177, 216, 233, 256, 307; of the United Colonies, 210; political, 273, 281, 324

index committee for New Netherland, 43, 96. See also Amsterdam chamber. committee for West Indian Affairs, 39n, 121, 148, 150 common wagon road, 385 Company. See West India Company; merchants. Coney Island, 237 confession of faith, 290, 299, 317, 323 confiscation, 50, 105, 111, 199, 256, 380, 392, 439 Congo, Manuel, 387 Connecticut (colony), 32, 181, 236, 311 Connecticut Rivier. See Fresh River. consistory, 270, 273, 275, 281, 286, 324, 448; of Wiltwijck, 164, 469; of Amsterdam, 264–267, 278, 323; of New Amsterdam, 275–276, 278–279, 281, 300; of Beverwijck, 287, 438; of Breuckelen, 287–290, 441; Lutheran, 297–298, 300–305; members, 281, 286, 324 constable, 182 contract laborers; servants, 51, 73–75, 77–82, 87–88, 90–92, 102, 114, 116, 131, 133, 156, 197, 218–219, 227, 239, 283–284, 290, 333, 336, 344–346, 388, 400, 408, 427, 447, 465–466, 468 contribution, 133–134, 216, 279, 476 conventicles, 296–297, 300–302, 306–308, 310–312, 325 conversion. See proselytization. cooks, 58–59, 69 cookies, 245 Coomstaij, 74n coopers, 57, 237–238, 333, 336, 362 Coorn, Nicolaes, 117, 388 Coppen, Jacob Claesz., 443 Coppenol, Lieven van, 49 corn, 134, 216, 234 Cornelis, Engeltje, 452 Cornelisz., Cornelis, 58 Cornelisz. van Weesp, Gijsbert, 55 Cornelisz., Jan, 192 Cornelisz., Laurens, 102, 279 Cornelisz., Pieter (schepen Breuckelen), 165 Cornelisz. van Monnickendam, Pieter, 117 corporal, 54, 343, 366–367 corporal punishment, 103, 154, 169, 208, 307–308, 387, 439, 462

539

Corteljou, Jacques, 123, 176, 383 Cortlandt, Joannes van, 421 Cortlandt, Maria van, 390, 399, 416, 421–422, 429, 444 Cortlandt, Oloff Stevensz. van, 65, 86, 173n, 182, 197, 243–244, 286, 330–331, 334–335, 338–339, 346, 421, 429, 443, 489–491 Cortlandt, Stephanus van, 423, 430, 491 Cortlandt, Van (family), 417, 430 Corwin, Edward T., 496 Costa, Joseph da, 70, 376n Coster, Mary, 69 Coster, Willem Cornelisz., 68 county, 181 coureurs de bois, 208, 318 couriers, 389–390 court martial, 186, 367–368 Court of Assizes, 181 Court of Sessions, 182, 184 courts, 48, 104, 114, 118, 141, 144, 151–153, 163–165, 163–174, 182–183, 186, 188, 192–193, 238, 285, 354, 360, 391, 399–400, 446, 459–460, 474; of Rensselaerswijck, 81, 114, 116–118, 183, 351, 411; of Amsterdam, 117, 168; of Fort Orange and Beverwijck, 126, 156, 183–184, 212–214, 245, 287; of New Amsterdam, 50, 80, 151–152, 168–169, 172, 175, 221, 224, 468; of Breuckelen, 153–154; of Haerlem, 155; of Midwout, 155–156; of Wiltwijck, 155–161, 164, 169, 184. See also burgemeesters and schepenen; justice. court messenger; usher, 61, 158, 172, 243, 331–332, 336, 397, 449 Cousseau, Jacques, 334, 490–491 Couturier, Hendrick, 362 Couwenhoven, Gerrit Wolphertsz. van, 488 Couwenhoven, Jacob Wolphertsz. van, 75, 146, 149, 366, 392, 488 Couwenhoven, Pieter Wolphertsz. van, 171, 243, 349, 490 cows, 13, 42, 218, 222–224, 226–227, 284 Coxsackie, 48, 404 Cozumel, 1 Crailo, 380 Cray, Janneke, 433 Cray, Teunis, 433

540

index

Creoly, Jan, 387, 439 crew. See sailors. cricket, 461n Crijnssen, Abraham, 185 Croaet, Abraham Stevensz. de, 453, 465, 467 crockery, 414 Croesen van Winschoten, Gerrit Dircksz., 287–288 Cromwell, Oliver, 89 Croon, Dirck Jansz., 493 crystallization, 480 culture, 4–5, 7, 403, 472, 478, 480–481 Cupid, 432 Curaçao, 52, 55, 63, 90, 96–97, 106, 113, 142, 216, 223, 268–269, 280, 316, 380–381, 398, 424 curfew, 445, 459, 474 Curler, Arent van, 63, 117, 395–396, 420, 425 Curler, Jacob van, 445, 484, 489 cutlery, 410, 414 Cuyper, Gerrit Jansz., 340 Damen, Jan Jansz., 137, 345, 383, 395, 409, 412–414, 417, 488 Damen, Maritje, 452 Danckaerts, Jaspar, 90 Danish language, 74n, 417–418 Dartmouth, 31 Davilar, David Cardoso, 376n Davits, Metge, 87 day of fasting and prayer, 124, 287, 463–464, 474 deaconry; deacons, 75, 286, 334, 341–342, 349, 374, 466; deacons’ bowery, 86 death penalty, 209–211, 394, 439, 457 Deckere, Abraham de, 62 Deckere, Johan de, 62, 66, 246, 454, 485 defense, 43, 54, 82, 112, 151, 165, 167, 170–171, 177–179, 184–185, 188, 197, 224, 328, 330, 333–334, 336, 338–340, 358–359, 361, 366, 368–369, 378, 407 Delaware River. See South River. Delawares, 23 Delft, 83, 252 Delftware, 235 deputies, of Nine Men 144; of New York, 180; of classis, 265–270, 272,

300–301, 323; of schout, 354, 449; of mayor, 491 Deursen, A.Th. van, 458 Deventer van Groll, Harmen van, 239 Deventer, 40, dicing, 160 Dijck, Hendrick van, 95, 105, 225, 485–486 Dijckman, Johannes, 62–63, 125–126, 245, 282, 340, 451 Dincklagen, Lubbert van, 99, 106, 109–110, 140–142, 145, 149, 272, 277–278, 280, 484–486 Dircks, Magdalena, 435 Dircksz. van Bil, Adriaen, 81 Dircksz. van Bremen, Jan, 453 Dircksz., Barent, 220, 488 Dircksz., Gerrit, 488 Dircksz., Joris, 165, 341 Dircksz., Lucas, 361n Dircksz., Olphert, 68 Dircx, Marritie, 69 Dirx, Geertgen, 80 Director’s Bowery, 66, 79, 217, 283, 316 director, 12, 42, 59, 61, 64, 82, 97, 99, 101, 109–112, 133, 135–136, 139, 142–143, 151, 154, 219, 222, 264, 269, 276–277, 279–281, 319, 347–348, 353, 366, 476, 483; of Curaçao, 63; appointment of, 64, 95, 107, 109, 140; of New Amstel, 87, 130, 281, 343, 390, 416; and States General, 95; of Rensselaerswijck, 116–118, 124, 218–219, 225, 228, 282, 289–290, 449, 466; of Pavonia, 455. See also commander and under individual names. director and council, 99–105, 109, 111, 133, 135–138, 140–141, 229, 356, 384–385, 447, 460 director general, 53, 97, 99, 129, 131, 142, 145, 162–163, 236, 274, 280–282, 291, 295, 310, 362–363, 367–368, 382, 425, 483; and Amsterdam chamber, 49–50, 53–56, 62, 83, 100, 151; appointment of, 63, 95, 145; and States General, 95, 146, 151; salary, 342–343. See also Stuyvesant, Petrus; director general and council. director general and council, 59, 71, 92, 97, 105–106, 128–129, 142–144,

index 146, 148–149, 153–156, 158–161, 164–167, 201, 212–213, 221, 223, 226, 231–232, 235, 237–238, 240, 246–247, 254, 256, 259, 269, 271, 274, 281, 285, 297–298, 303, 308–310, 314, 324, 351, 354–355, 364–365, 368, 381–382, 390, 392, 428–429, 434, 437–438, 458, 460, 462, 465, 467, 470, 477, 479; appointment of, 62, 95; and New Amsterdam, 72, 168–177, 195, 238, 244–245, 302, 328, 333, 348, 350, 354–355, 358–360, 363, 365, 367, 377–379, 468–469, 474; and Amsterdam chamber, 75–76, 81, 83, 85, 96, 100, 155, 157–158, 168, 176, 195–196, 210, 221, 237–238, 253, 258, 299, 301, 304, 311, 359, 365, 373–374, 377, 382, 397, 401, 407; and Rensselaerswijck, 124–126 directors. See West India Company; Amsterdam chamber. discipline, ecclesiastical, 272, 278, 286–288, 290, 322, 324, 477. See also consistory. disease, 2, 24. See also epidemic. divorce, 396, 436–437, 450. See also marriage. Doesburg, Hendrick Andriesz. van, 452 dogs, 172, 224, 369, 396, 448–449 Dokkum, 313 Donck, Adriaen van der, 7–30, 47, 64, 74–75, 79, 89, 117, 123, 144–148, 150, 197–198, 219, 222–223, 225, 235, 253, 353, 384–385, 395–396, 488 Dordrecht, Synod of, 288, 295, 461 Douw, Volckert Jansz., 493 Dover, 257 Drenthe, 75–76, 92, 404–405, 477 Drisius, Samuel, 271–272, 274–275, 282–283, 285, 291, 299–300, 302–304, 307, 321–322, 325, 329, 332, 361, 387, 436, 494 drowning, 271, 396–397, 439 drunkenness, 110, 208, 239, 241, 279, 287, 293, 321, 348, 370, 389, 392–393, 432, 436, 446, 452, 461, 465, 469 Dubbeltrijck, Jacob Anthonysz., 275 duffels, 25, 211, 250, 390 Duke’s Laws, 181–182 Durgerdam, 68, 206

541

Dutch language, 98, 481 Dutch Reformed Church in America, 266, 503 Dutch Revolt, 1 Duyckingh, Evert, 353 drummer, 54, 279, 343, 371, 459, 465 dyewood, 1 earthenware, pottery, 13, 235, 252, 256, 258, 414 East Flanders, 333 East India Company, VOC, 2, 31, 38, 40, 46, 52, 54, 58, 60, 83, 92, 95, 102, 107, 111, 138, 188, 203, 263–266, 299, 376 East Indies, 3, 46, 48, 64, 88, 92, 100, 107, 111, 132, 264–265, 272, 322 East River, 170, 205, 283, 305, 369 Ebbingh, Albertus, 441 Ebbingh, Francyna, 440 Ebbingh, Jeronimus, 334, 338–339, 349, 363, 439–440, 490–491 Ebbingh, Maria, 439–441 Ebel, Pieter, 398 Edam, 206 education, 84, 170–171, 274, 313, 388. See also school; schoolmasters. Eekhof, Albert, 275 Eelkens’s Company, 37 Eelkens, Hendrick, 36 Eelkens, Jacob Jacobsz., 36–37, 110–111 Eenhoorn. See Truy, Marie de. Eight Men, 136–140, 142, 165, 330, 348, 398, 488. See also advisory bodies. Eighty Years’ War, 96, 122, 373, 475 Eijck, Coenraet ten, 79, 239, 333–334, 336, 338 Elberfeld, 239 Elburg, 278 elders, 86, 267, 275, 281, 286–287, 289–291, 324, 341. See also deaconry; consistory. Ellis Island, 450 Elslandt, Claes van, 64, 106, 231, 442, 484 embassy, 106, 283 emigration, 5, 38, 46–49, 51, 53, 72–77, 82, 88–93, 113, 198, 205, 290, 295, 327, 342, 400, 476–478, 480 Emmer, Pieter, 3 Enden, Franciscus van den, 89

542

index

Engel, Adriaen Jansz., 36 England and the English, 3–4, 10–11, 31, 41, 46, 49, 53–54, 66, 71, 75, 81, 85, 88, 90, 110–112, 117, 151, 167, 177–186, 199, 201, 211, 215, 228, 230, 233, 240, 282–283, 292, 303, 311, 328, 332, 335, 350, 352, 356, 359, 369, 372, 386, 408, 420, 431, 460, 472, 481; colonies, 2, 17, 35, 81–82, 144, 179, 195, 210, 256–257, 312, 337, 387, 393, 398, 459, 471, 476, 481; language, 28, 166, 184, 227, 282, 285, 296; towns, 106, 145, 153–154, 159, 161–163, 165–166, 180–182, 187, 189, 223, 227, 237, 256, 306, 308, 311, 325, 429; Civil War, 228, 283, 305. See also boundary conflicts; takeover; and under specific colonies and towns. Enkhuizen, 40, 68 ensign, 54, 343, 367, 360 epidemic, 130, 294. See also disease. equipagemeester, 59–61, 65 Esopus Creek, 156 Esopus, 156–157, 159, 216, 270, 368–369, 389. See also Wiltwijck. Esopus Indians, 23, 389, 398 Esopus War. First, 56, 368, 389, 398; Second, 208, 293, 368–369, 432–433 Evertsen de Jongste, Cornelis, 185–186, 425, 483 excavations. See archaeology. export, 107, 113–114, 206, 223, 227, 235–236, 249, 256, 381, 477; of grain, 191, 216–217, 220–221, 233; of tobacco, 191, 228, 230, 232–233, 253, 256, 261; of peltries, 191, 198–204, 233, 253, 255, 261 factions, 43, 113, 178; colonization, 43–44, 112–113, 115, 132, 475; trade, 43–44, 112, 116, 118, 475 factors, 35, 67n, 69–71, 77n, 255, 330, 376n, 344. See also merchants. Faeroe Islands, 74n, 250 fair, 371, 398, 453, 471. See also market. family, 51, 62–66, 69–72, 74, 76, 78–79, 88, 92, 118, 128, 135, 155, 165, 177, 220, 242, 255, 295, 298, 329, 395, 399, 403, 405, 419,

422–424, 430, 443, 455–458; Indian, 26–27; Walloon, 42, 88, 98, 475 farmers, farming, 16, 51, 56–57, 72–77, 82, 90, 92, 98, 122, 129, 144, 153, 155, 185, 191, 214–223, 229, 252, 284, 298, 304, 341–342,388, 407, 415, 477–478; Indian, 16, 25, 219, 224, 479. See also agriculture; contract laborers. Feake, Tobias, 309 Feith, Hendrick, 278 Fernando de Noronha, 63 Fernow, Berthold, 374–375, 501 ferries, 155, 329 Ferry, The, 341 fighting, 105, 159, 240, 287, 354, 367, 371, 386, 393, 403, 434–435, 445–447, 449, 451–455, 457–458, 467 fines, 81, 105, 114, 143, 158–160, 172, 208–209, 212, 224–225, 241, 245–246, 249, 296–297, 306, 308–311, 354, 370, 395, 400, 407, 448, 451–454, 461–462, 465, 467–468 fire, 33, 125, 137–138, 163, 218, 239, 242, 306, 370, 387, 397, 406–407, 449, 459, 501; wardens, 171, 407, 449 firearms, 209–211, 252, 366, 434, 436, 465 firewood, 124, 367, 369, 450, 454 fiscael, 61, 95, 104–106, 109, 140, 143, 161, 175–176, 221, 225, 272, 277–278, 306, 342, 392–393, 435, 439, 452, 455, 469, 486 fishery, 7, 19, 25, 38, 114, 154, 217, 454, 481; fish, 11, 18–20, 220, 415 Flatbush. See Midwout. Flatlands. See Amersfoort (Long Island). Flekkerøy, 58 Flushing. See Vlissingen (Long Island). Flushing Remonstrance, 308–309 food, 17, 45, 51, 53, 58, 61, 64, 86, 98, 106–107, 109, 113, 130, 191, 209, 216–217, 220, 224, 232, 239, 240, 245, 249–252, 256, 258, 335, 343, 397, 406, 415–416, 431, 466, 471, 481 Folkerts, Jan, 76, 219 Fongersz., Gerrit, 99, 104, 108, 203, 484 forced labor, 306, 452

index Foreest, Isaac de, 336, 338, 362–363, 489–490 forts, fortifications, 32, 64, 112, 116, 122, 133–134, 154, 216; Fort Amsterdam, 43, 54, 110, 134–135, 143, 146, 178, 186, 205, 224, 328, 353, 366, 383, 389, 444 Fort Casimir, 54, 129 Fort Elmina, 60, 433 Fort James, 186 Fort Nassau, 32, 34 Fort Orange, 10, 22–23, 28, 42, 44, 55, 63, 65, 88, 99, 106, 110, 115, 124–126, 156, 200–201, 206–208, 210, 213, 235–236, 245, 270, 275, 282, 312, 363–364, 389, 426, 451, 455. See also Beverwijck. Fort Wilhelmus, 42 Fort Willem Hendrick, 186 Fort Zeelandia, 407n foxes, 20, 225 France and the French, 3, 8, 17, 21, 28, 41, 53–54, 60, 64, 185, 201, 207–210, 251, 257, 260, 312, 318, 373, 443, 449–450, 481; language, 28, 455. See also Canada. Frankfurt, 55 Fransman, Nicolaes de, 285 Fransz., Pieter, 34 Fredericksz., Jonas, 454 Fredericksz., Krijn, 43, 99, 389, 484 freedom, 29, 72, 83, 86, 88, 91, 312, 315–316, 235, 351, 380, 383, 385–386, 388, 401, 462 (see also blacks); of religion, 298, 479; of conscience, 90, 263, 296, 308, 310, 479; of worship, 154, 301–305, 311, 325, 379, 479; half freedom, 383–385, 401 Freedoms and Exemptions, 113–114, 116–122, 124, 132, 140, 149, 153–154, 204, 234, 256, 358, 366 Freeman, Bernardus, 323 freemen, 45, 49, 55, 64, 73, 90–91, 125, 133, 137, 182, 355, 357, 366 Fresh River, 4, 11, 42, 115 Fresh Water, 169 Friesland, 63, 90, 427n Frijhoff, Willem, 274–275, 277, 317–318 fruit trees, 17, 220, 287 funeral, burial, 35, 211, 414, 421, 441–444, 449, 472–473; cemetery, 377–378, 441–442, 444, 473;

543

gravedigger, 442, 444. See also aansprekers. furniture, 253, 409, 411–412 Further Reformation, 274 fur trade, peltries, 8, 11, 18, 20–21, 23, 27–28, 30, 67–68, 98, 112, 117, 120, 191, 195, 197–214, 233, 245, 250, 256–257, 261, 340, 357–358, 364–365, 389, 392, 475–477; early trade, 2–3, 31–37, 41, 44, 96; monopoly, 41, 48, 66, 73, 107, 110, 112–114, 119–121, 132–133, 187–188, 200, 203–205, 208, 217, 255, 400, 476; taxation on, 119, 121, 201, 203–204, 253–254, 349; volume of, 197–203, 261; trading season, 211; brokers, 212–214. See also beaver. Gabry, Charles, 258 Gabry, Jan, 258 Gabry, Timotheus, 490–491 ganstrekken, 467–469, 479, 474 Garderbroek, 78n, 82 Geel, Maximilianus van, 291, 349, 490 Geens, Abraham, 411 Gehring, Charles, 495, 501 Gelder, Daniël van, 48–49, 51 Gelderland, 75–76, 79, 122, 219, 225, 265, 282, 477 Gemeentearchief Amsterdam, 77n, 87n, 495–496 Generality Lands, 96, 373 Gerardy, Philip, 367 Germany and the Germans, 12, 17, 20, 46, 52–54, 92, 108, 297–298, 372, 417–418 Gerritsz. van Bergen, Marten, 484 Gerritsz., Adriaen, 493 Gerritsz., Isaac, 85 Gerritsz., Jeronimus, 207 Gerritsz., Wijnant, 446–447, 452 Gijsbertsz. van Rotterdam, Jan, 457 Gildersleeve, Richard, 306 glassware, 253, 415 Glen, Jacob Sandersz., 457 Glen, Sander Leendertsz., 340, 493 Glorious Revolution, 55 goats, 19, 222, 224, 227 Goderis, Hans, 333 Goderis, Joost, 333, 450–451 Godijn, Samuel, 36–37, 43, 96, 115, 118, 204

544

index

gold, 12, 38, 85, 191, 193, 409–410, 414, 419 golf, 466 Gomez, Estevan, 30 Good Hope, Cape of, 3, 55, 76, 102, 316, 475 Goodfriend, Joyce, 292, 295, 314, 381 Gordon, Robert, 85 Gouda, 344 Gouverneur, Nicolaes, 70, Gouwanes, 341 governor, 65, 95, 97, 106, 134, 153, 178, 180–183, 186, 335, 352–353, 393, 398, 403, 466, 471, 483; governor-general, 92, 95, 97, 275, 336–337 Governor’s Island. See Nooten Eylandt. Graft, 61, 68–69, 259, 458–459 grain, 16, 113, 127, 170, 191, 214–216, 218, 22–221, 223, 232–233, 242, 246, 249, 340, 384, 415, 477 Grasmeer, Wilhelmus, 271 ’s-Gravenhage. See Hague, The ’s-Gravesande, 48, 152–153, 162, 165–166, 225, 237, 309 Greek, 28 Grevenraet, Abraham, 80 Grevenraet, Elisabeth, 291 Grevenraet, Isaac, 336, 490 Grift, Paulus Leendertsz. van der, 59, 86, 330, 332, 335–336, 349, 361, 367, 485, 489–490 Grijp, Louis, 445 Groll, 239 guilds, 237–238, 248, 262 Guinea, 277, 382 gunner, 54, 58, 87, 444; gunner’s mate, 203 Gutsenhoven, Jan Bastiaensz. van, 70 Gutwasser, Johannes Ernestus, 302–305 Guyana, 41, 60, 214 Haarlem, 40, 64, 70, 92, 294, 329, 333, 346 Habsburgs, 1 Hackensack River, 123 Hackensack Indians, 392 Haerlem, 48, 152, 155, 162, 226, 368, 433–434, 449–450 Hague, The, 39, 41, 44, 140, 148, 239, 372, 498 Hall, Thomas, 138, 230, 488 Hallett, William, 163, 308, 311

Hamburg, 20, 52 Hamel, Dirck van, 63, 422 Hamel, Maria van, 63 Hamel, Van (family), 63 Hamelshoofden, 10 Hans Claesz. Company, 32–33 Hans, Zwarte, 341 Harck, William, 162 Hardenberg, Anthony van, 329 Hardenberg, Arnoldus van, 69, 488 Hardenberg, Jan van, 69 Hardenbroeck van Elberfeld, Abel, 239, 334, 336, 346 Harderwijk, 359 Harlem River, 155 Harlem. See Haerlem. Harmensz., Reijnier, 484 Harmsz., Hendrick, 439 Hart, Edward, 309 Hart, Simon, 77, 87 Hartgers, Pieter, 493 Harvard, 403 harvest, 26, 134, 158, 217, 221, 389, 460, 470 hats, 20, 250, 305–306, 310, 352, 414 Hattem, Arent van, 291, 348, 350, 367, 489–490 haystack, 217–218 Heemskerck, Jacob, 31 Heemstede, 48, 152–153, 159, 161–162, 180, 182, 306 Heerestraet, 441 Heermans, Augustijn, 18, 358, 367, 488 Hegeman, Adriaen, 221 Heidelberg, 17; catechism, 317 Helderberghs, 211 Hellegat, 163 Hempstead. See Heemstede. Hendricks, Adriana, 75 Hendricks, Anna, 88 Hendricksz. van Hilversum, Dirck, 453 Hendricksz. van Monnickendam, Cornelis, 35 Hendricksz. van Soest, Rutger, 116–117 Hendricksz., Gerrit, 227 Hendricksz., Harmen, 435 Hendricksz., Roelof, 454–455 herbs, 17–18 Heren XIX, 39–42, 95–96, 99, 113, 119, 129, 138, 140–141, 151, 153, 191, 214, 268, 300, 455–456, 498

index Herpertsz., Andries, 353n, 457–458, 493 Herxker, Trijn, 452 Hesse, Jacob Jansz., 484 Heymans, Paulus, 383, 434 Hickes, John, 437 Hillebrant, Nicolaes Gregorius, 438 Hilversum, 78, 453, 467 Hinse, Jacob de, 88 Historic Hudson Valley, 417 Hodgson, Robert, 306–308 Hoesem, Jan Fransz. van, 79 Holland revival, 471 Holland Society of New York, 403 Hollantse Mercurius, 184 Hollar, Wenceslaus, 398 Holscher, Jan, 32 Hondecoutre, Daniël de, 336 honor, 109, 288, 348, 352–353, 355, 369, 388, 392, 395, 400, 447, 450, 458, 473; amende honorable, 433, 450, 474. See also slander Hontom, Hans Jorisz., 32–33, 200, 455–456, 474 Hontom, Willem, 69 Hontom, Willem Jorisz., 37 Hoogenboom, Meuwis, 453 Hooges, Anthony de, 20,63, 156, 222, 286 Hooges, Johan de, 63 Hooglant, Christoffel, 248, 490–491 Hooglant, François van, 70 Hoorn, 34, 40, 60, 500 Hoornbeeck, Gillis van, 70 Hoornbeeck, Van (family), 255 horses, 16, 42, 100, 155, 214, 222–224, 228, 234, 284, 380, 466–467 Horst, 78n houses, 15, 74, 102, 124, 218–219, 360, 365, 404–409, 472, 478; Indian, 26, 397; rent, 67, 86, 192, 218–219, 230, 413, 470. See also building contracts. Houten, 78n Hoykens, Cornelis van der, 484–486 Hudde, Andries, 445, 484, 487 Hudson, Henry, 4, 9, 30–32 Hudson River. See North River Huizen, 78n Hulft, Pieter Evertsz., 222 Hulter, Johan de, 236 Hulter, Paulus de, 440 Hunger, Hans, 32

545

hunting, 12, 14, 18, 20–21, 25, 154, 201–202, 225, 250, 252 Hurley, 48, 153, 184 Huttenus, Albertus, 418 Huygen, Jan, 275 Huygens, Constantijn, 372 Huystimmerman, Outie, 341 Hyde Park, 403n Ides, Vrouwtje, 409, 414 IJsselstein van Leiden, Jan Willemsz., 355 Ilpendam, Adriaen Jansz. van, 391 Imbroch, Gijsbert van, 409, 412, 414, 417–418 immigration, immigrants. See emigration. import, 17–18, 107, 114, 127, 191, 195, 205, 215, 222–223, 227, 231, 234, 234, 236, 239, 249–254, 256, 258, 261–262, 380, 405, 414, 416–417, 420, 472, 479 indenture, 82 ‘Indian trail’, 211 Indians, 2, 7, 11–12, 43, 54, 112, 132, 164, 201–202, 210, 410, 416, 456, 480; descriptions, 20, 22–30; exchange of gifts, 27, 194, 207, 395; sachems, 27; status, 372, 388–399, 401. See also under specific keywords and under group and individual names. inheritance, heirs, 114, 118, 123, 148, 284, 409, 455; law, 103, 128, 179 instructions, 102, 112, 161, 318–319, 389, 415–416, 477; for Verhulst, 12, 43, 98, 101–104, 106–107, 222, 217, 318, 461; for Hudson, 31; for Van Dijck, 105; for Wiltwijck, 128, 157–161, 177; for Stuyvesant, 141, 143, 153, 298; for Nine Men, 144; for Amsterdam, 161, 177; for New Amsterdam, 168–170, 176–177; for Nicolls, 180 insults, 80, 105, 159, 192, 213, 354, 369, 433, 445–452, 458, 474 interpreters, 28, 312, 391, 396, 398 inventory, 74n, 234, 297, 399, 408–415, 417–418, 421, 472 ironware, 250, 252, 256 Iroquois, 11, 22–24, 26, 202, 321 Isendoorn, Judith, 432

546 Italy, 14, 121; language, 455 ivory, 38 Jacob mijn vrient, 397 Jacobs, Geertje, 434–435 Jacobs, Grietje, 438 Jacobsz., Gerrit, 76 Jacobsz., Pieter, 428 Jacobsz., Rutger, 286, 340, 410, 438, 493 Jamaica (Long Island). See Rustdorp. Jan Mayen Island, 34 Jans, Adriaentje, 70 Jans, Aechtje, 59 Jans, Aeltje (died 1646), 412 Jans, Aeltje (orphan), 85 Jans, Maritje, 49 Jans, Susanna, 208–209, 211 Jansz., Abraham, Jansz., Aucke, 239, 441 Jansz., Evert, 239 Jansz., Gerrit (chartered St. Jacob), 68 Jansz., Gerrit (died 1638), 457 Jansz., Harmen, 75 Jansz., Haye, 68 Jansz., Hendrick (baker New Amsterdam), 247 Jansz., Jan, 226 Jansz., Klaas, 68 Jansz., Lieven, 234 Jansz., Michiel, 99, 211, 488 Jansz., Stoffel, 493 Jansz., Theunis, Jansz., Willem, 75 Jaques, 398 Jeuriaens, Teuntje, 73, 417 Jeuriaensz., Jacob, 457 jewelry, 253, 410–411 Jews, 282, 328, 331–332, 372–379, 399, 401, 448, 479 Jochems, Marritge, 88 Jochemsz., Hendrick, 368, 423 Joele, Rose, 428 Jogues, Isaac, 312 Jongh, Lodewijck, 86 Jorisz., Borger, 367 Juet, Robert, 31 Jülich, 129 jurisdiction, 104–106, 114, 122, 125–128, 131, 155–156, 159, 161–162, 169, 176, 181, 183, 187, 391–392, 394, 455, 468; high, 103–104, 122 jury, 154, 159, 183, 393–394, 460

index justice, 81, 95, 97–98, 102–104, 127, 158, 168, 170, 187–188, 352, 354, 457, 460; civil, 101, 103, 114, 117–118, 131, 144, 149, 151–152, 154, 158, 160, 165, 168, 179, 184, 350, 387, 420, 477; criminal, 101, 103, 105–106, 117–118, 128, 131, 135–136, 140–141, 154, 158–161, 169, 184, 387, 420, 477; English, 179–182, 393. See also appeal; courts; jurisdiction. Justices of the Peace, 181–182, 184 Kaelkompte, 394 Kampen, 250, 259 Kanigeragae, 208–209 Katskill Indians, 391 Keeren, Meyndert Meyndertsz. van, 123 Keketamae, 394 Key, Willem de, 200 Keye, Otto, 214 Keyser, Adriaen, 485, 487 Kieft, Willem, 63–64, 111, 140, 142–143, 147, 153–154, 269, 275, 278–281, 292, 347, 353, 366, 383–385, 483, 485; appointment, 95; recall, 140, 280. See also Kieft’s War. Kieft’s War, 54, 123, 133–139, 150, 188, 200, 210, 216, 221, 279, 320, 394, 397, 463, 467, 476 Kierstede, Hans, 333, 336, 338, 440, 457, 461 Kinderhoek, 48, 153 ‘Kings Highway’, 211 Kingston. See Wiltwijck. Kip, Hendrick Hendricksz., 488, 490 Kip, Jacob, 243, 487, 490–491 Kleijn, Huijch Barentsz. de, 76 Knijff, Willem, 486 Knoop, Jan, 252 Kock, Jan Gillisz., 442 kolven, 466 Kool, Pieter Jansz., 68 Koolbergen, H. van, 412n Koorn, Florence, 426 Kosta, 74n krakelingen, 245 Kregier, Marten, 171, 270, 330, 332, 336, 338, 348, 361, 366–367, 387, 489–490 Krieckenbeeck, Daniël van, 99, 410, 484

index Krol, Bastiaen Jansz., 264, 275, 483 Kuijter, Jochem Pietersz., 142–143, 146, 155, 176, 291, 330, 390, 488, 490 kwanselbier, 434 Labadie, Jean de, 51, 89 Labadists, 90 Labatie, Jan, 162, 493 Lady’s Day, 168, 174, 182, 467 Laet, Jeremias de, 63 Laet, Johanna de, 236, 439 Laet, Johannes de, 9, 11, 13, 29–30, 40, 43, 63, 96, 118, 120–121, 198–199, 375 Lake Champlain, 396 Lampo, Jan, 99, 161, 484, 486 land; ownership, 22, 65, 72, 77, 101, 114, 123, 156, 217, 337, 341, 385, 388, 404; grants, 56, 74, 82–83, 85, 91, 98, 101–102, 154–155, 217, 284; availability, 73, 82, 415; purchase, 74, 101, 114, 116, 123, 211, 237, 378, 389, 396 landdag, 141, 145–146, 165–167, 177, 189, 365. See also advisory bodies. Langevelt, Cornelis van, 333 language, Indian, 23, 27–28, 320, 325. See also under specific languages. Lantsman, Arent Juriaensz., 435–437 Lard, John, 163 last will, 183, 439 Laurens, Christoffel. See Lawrence, Christopher. Laval, Thomas de, 491 Lawrence, Christopher, 229 Lawrence, John, 491 leather, 239, 261–262, 414 Leendertsz., David, 58 Leeuwen, Jacob van, 396 Lefeber, David, 58 Leiden, 40, 48n, 88, 117, 250, 270, 277, 355, 440n Leisler, Jacob, 55, 337–338 Lenape, 23 Levy, Assur, 378–379 Liebergen, Arnout van, 32 lieutenant, 209, 332, 349, 366–368 Livy, 418 Lijsbeth, 55 linen, 12, 211, 234, 250, 254, 413 Linde, Jos van der, 432n Linden, Jan Quisthout van der, 438 lions, 18, 191

547

liquor. See alcohol Lith, Nicolaes van, 258 Litscho, Daniël, 126, 329, 332, 362, 372 Loange, Swan van, 385 Lodewijcks, Belitje, 436–437 Loen, Hendrick Hendricksz., 55 London, 111, 228–229, 257, 476 Long Island, 65, 76, 92, 123, 130, 137, 153, 163–164, 169, 180–181, 194, 225, 227, 270, 284, 303, 306, 309, 339, 341, 369, 479, 494; Dutch towns, 153; English towns, 4, 106, 153–154, 159, 163, 227, 237, 256, 308, 311, 325, 429 Long Island Sound, 181 Longh, Hardwood, 437 Loockermans, Govert, 59, 68–72, 200, 255, 260, 330, 339, 344, 346, 385, 441, 488, 490 Loockermans, Jacob, 422, 453 Loockermans, Maria Pieters, 421 Looten, Charles, 62 Looten, Dirck, 62 Loper, Jacob, 485 Lord’s Supper, 287–290, 294, 299, 324, 410, 426, 464, 471, 477 Lovelace, Francis, 183–184, 352, 483 Lovelace, Thomas, 491 Lubbertsz., Frederick, 341, 391–392, 488 Lucassen, Jan, 81 Lucasz., Willem, 58 Lucena, Abraham de, 378 Lucena, Moses, 379 Lupolt, Ulrich, 484, 486 Lutherans, 32, 272, 282, 292, 295–305, 308, 311, 325, 329, 362, 372–373, 379, 401, 417, 442, 478–479 Luyck, Ægidius, 334, 338, 425, 432, 491, 494 Luyck, Cornelis Jacob, 425 lynx, 18 Maartensdijk, 78n Maasland, 427 Maassluis, 60 Maastricht, 373 Madeira, 37 magistrates, 157–158, 162, 183–184, 286, 296, 314, 324, 332, 337, 341, 360, 368, 393, 448, 457, 474, 479; oath of, 96, 164, 180, 295; district,

548

index

106; appointment, 116, 153–156, 160, 162–164, 179, 181–183, 186–187, 348, 351, 468, 470; in Dutch Republic, 129; salary, 344, status, 347–355. See also burgemeesters; burgemeesters and schepenen; schepenen. Mahicans, 23, 206, 393, 396 maidservants, 77–78, 80, 88, 427, 447, 466 Maika, Dennis, 255 maize, 16, 18, 26, 74, 133, 216, 220, 224, 341, 384, 389, 415–416, 479 Mamanichtack, 391 Man, Eduard de, 96 Manatus map, 229 Manhattan, 4, 23, 33n, 42–43, 66, 72, 74, 82, 113, 122, 135, 137, 152, 165, 169, 180, 184, 217–218, 220, 225, 228–230, 234, 242, 256, 268, 283, 291–292, 313, 314n, 329, 356, 358, 385, 409, 416, 449, 457, 470, 494; purchase, 43. See also New Amsterdam; Haerlem. Manhatans, 23 Manning, John, 492 manorial rights, 114–115, 118, 127 manslaughter, 105, 393–394, 411, 445, 454–458, 474 manumission, 316, 382–385 ‘Maquas path’, 211 Marbletown, 184 Marechkawick, 390 Marius, Pieter Jacobsz., 335, 336, 338, 433n market, 155, 227, 453, 460–461, 470–471 marriage, 22, 49–50, 69, 78, 103, 157, 272, 274, 287, 290, 314–315, 385–386, 396, 421, 426–438, 472–473, 478. See also divorce. Martinique, 252 Maryland, 90, 127, 131, 258, 312, 358 masons, 61–62, 333, 343 Mattano, 392 Matthijs, Clara, 80 Maurits, stadholder, 10 Maverick, Samuel, 198 May, Cornelis Jacobsz., 9, 33, 42, 98, 483 May pole, 433–434, 465, 470 mayors, 182–183, 339, 352, 491 meals, 10, 238, 371, 416, 425, 440, 443, 454, 473

Medemblik, 204–206 Mediterranean Sea, 30, 60 Megapolensis, Johannes, 10–12, 15–16, 19, 21–22, 24, 27–29, 86, 269–272, 274, 280, 282, 285, 288, 291, 293, 299–300, 302–307, 311–312, 319–322, 325, 329, 332, 361, 373, 394, 396, 418, 436, 440, 443–444, 462, 494 Megapolensis, Samuel, 269, 271, 440, 494 Meijer, Harmanus, 398 Meijer, Nicolaes de, 197, 332, 338, 490–491 Meijndertsz., Jan, 484 Melchers, Trijntje, 446, 452 Melijn, Cornelis, 81, 122, 138, 142–143, 145–146, 148, 488 Memechtiemach, 391 Mennonites. See Anabaptists. Meppel, 76 Merchant Adventurers, 227 merchant company, merchants, 1, 2, 34, 36–38, 40, 51, 60, 64, 69, 90–91, 102, 107–108, 110, 144, 156, 179, 197, 200, 206, 228, 244, 256, 263, 312, 329–330, 365, 373, 377, 396, 475; private, 2, 37, 41, 44, 121, 258; Lutheran, 32, 298; Amsterdam, 39, 60, 68–71, 80, 92, 96, 183, 191, 235–236, 255, 257, 260, 274–275, 298, 329, 340, 344, 430; New Amsterdam, 50, 55–56, 59–60, 65, 71–72, 231–232, 249, 254–258, 260, 275, 286, 332, 334–338, 342, 344–346, 349, 358–359, 365, 400–401, 427, 478; small, itinerant, 67–69, 72–73, 91–92, 332–335, 338, 358–360, 363–365, 401, 413; English, 183, 229, 332; families, 255, 274, 329, 430; Jewish, 331, 374, 378 mercury, 12 Meteren, Emanuel van, 418 Metfoort, Anna, 413 Metselaar, Marten de, 367 Metselaer, Pieter Jansz., 434–435 Michaëlius, Jonas, 28, 251, 268, 271, 274–277, 284, 292, 320, 324, 388, 405, 415, 494 Michelson, Gunther, 321n Michielsz., Gerlach, 192 Michielsz., Jan, 238

index Middelburg (Rep.), 191, 227–228 Middelburgh (Long Island), 48, 152, 165 midwives, 61, 421–422, 446 Midwout, 48, 76, 152, 155, 156n, 160n, 162, 165, 285–286, 290, 369, 406 ministers, predikanten, 10, 28, 61, 74n, 76, 86, 89, 153, 162, 220, 241, 251, 264–293, 297–305, 308, 312–314, 316–322, 324–325, 329, 332, 334, 338, 341–342, 360–361, 373, 379, 387, 394, 406, 409, 415, 418–419, 425–426, 428, 432, 436–437, 440–441, 443, 463–464, 479–480, 494, 503; right of approbation, 267, 270, 303. See also under individual ministers. mills, millers, 11, 13, 15, 109, 115, 234–235, 247, 336, 428, 462 minority, guardians, 49–50, 116, 157, 334, 386, 408, 427 Milt, Anthony de, 248–249, 492 Minuit, Pieter, 43, 99, 107–109, 268, 275–277, 281, 286, 483–484 Minvielle, Gabriël, 338 Mohawk language, 28, 321n Mohawk River, 10, 211 Mohawks, 22–24, 202, 206–210, 213, 312, 395–396, 465 Molenaer, Abraham Pietersz., 488 Molenaer, Pieter Cornelisz., 489 Momma (merchant family), 70 Momma, Guilliaem, 202 Momma, Maria, 192 money, silver, 193–196, 246, 409 Monnickendam, 35, 117 Montagne, Jan La, 434 Montagne, Johannes La, 65, 87, 106, 171, 201, 208–209, 213, 329n, 330, 343, 426, 484–485 Montfoort, Pieter, 341 Moris, Rutger, 228 Morisse, Nolle, 226 Morris Street, 441 Morocco, 449 Mossel, Thijs Volckertsz., 32–33 Moyne, Simon Le, 312 Muiden, Michiel, 364 Munsee language, 23 Münster, 122, 185, 463 murder, 81, 135–138, 279, 312, 321, 387, 393–394, 454 Muscovy, 20, 202–203

549

Museum of the City of New York, 411 Naarden, 78n Nachtegaal, Lijsbet, 449–450 naming patterns, 8, 423, 473 Narrows, The. See Hamelshoofden. Nassau-Siegen, Count Johan Maurits van, 97 Navigation Acts, 178–179, 256–257 Nederhorst, 122 Neger, Franciscus, 315 Negrin, Susanna, 317 Negrinne, Catharina, 315 Nelisz., Hans, 413, 415 Nes, Cornelis Hendricksz. van, 218 Nevesinck, 123, 392 Nevius, Johannes, 332, 336, 350, 490 New Amstel, 48, 87, 127–132, 177, 201, 214, 216, 230, 233, 237, 251, 256, 267, 281, 294, 307, 343, 365, 390, 393, 416, 420, 494 New Amsterdam, passim; founding of, 42; population of, 48, 145, 149–152, 165, 193, 283, 293–294, 308, 313, 324, 328–339; court of, 50, 80, 151–152, 168–169, 172, 175, 221, 224, 248, 468, 347, 358, 362, 364, 373, 399; shipping to, 60–61, 206, 256–257, 259, 261, 340. See also burgemeesters and schepenen; merchants; schout, and specific keywords. New England, 25, 71, 88, 90–91, 154, 178, 182, 187, 195, 223, 258, 260, 305, 311, 405 New France, 8 New Haven, 106 New Jersey, 408 New Netherland Company, 34–37, 44, 110, 199 New Netherland Project, 495 New Orange, 186, 336–337, 462, 491 New Sweden, 4, 8, 17, 126, 171, 302, 330, 368, 463. See also Sweden. Newtown. See Middelburgh. New Utrecht, 48, 123, 152, 369 New Year, 125, 459, 465–466, 470, 474 New York City, 79, 180, 182–186, 314n, 381, 481, 491 New York State, 403–404, 496 Newfoundland, 60, 185 Newman, William, 399

550

index

Newton, Brian, 163, 329n, 343, 485–486 Nicolls, Matthias, 491 Nicolls, Richard, 65, 178–185, 335, 466, 471, 483 Nieuwdorp. See Hurley. Nieuw Nederlandt, Susanna van. See Negrin, Susanna. Nieuwenhuysen, Wilhelmus van, 293, 494 Nieuwer-Amstel. See New Amstel. Nieuwlandt, Boudewijn van, 49–51 Nijkerk, 78, 117–118, 228–229 Nijmegen, 359 Nine Men, 136, 143–151, 165, 168, 281, 330, 348, 350, 352, 465, 467, 477, 488. See also advisory bodies Nooms, Simon Willemsz., 34 Noordam, Dirk-Jaap, 427 Noord-Brabant, 453 Noorderkwartier, 39–40, 58, 68, 92 Nooten Eylandt, 36, 42 Norden, 59 North America, 2, 3, 31, 33, 36, 38, 41, 81, 90, 111, 114, 118, 178–179, 182, 189, 194, 223, 225, 227, 230, 266, 398, 401, 404, 409–410, 431, 459, 471, 472, 479, 482. See also America. North Cape, 31 North River, 4, 7, 9–11, 14, 23, 30–37, 41–42, 48, 110–111, 115, 123, 156, 169, 185, 219, 230, 397, 408, 481 Northern Company, 34, 205 Northern War, 127 Norway, 156, 185 notarial archives of Amsterdam, 54, 73, 87n, 342 notary, 49–50, 53, 56, 62, 67, 77, 80, 104, 117, 333–334, 336, 345, 390–391, 398, 400, 411, 420 Notelman, Coenraet, 455, 486 Nova Scotia, 179, 481 Nürnberg, 298 oath, 154, 392, 403, 428, 451; Indian, 28, 392; for local magistrates, 96, 116–117, 160–161, 163–164, 177, 180, 295; for butchers, 238; for Stuyvesant, 298–299; burgher, 356–357, 361, 481; at English takeover, 357; for Jews, 379 oats, 220, 222

O’Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, 73, 307, 496, 501 Oestereiland, 450 Old World, 8 Oldenburg, Gerrit Jansz. van, 80 Oldenzaal, 436 Olinda, Hilletie van, 396 Olinda, Pieter Daniëlsz. van, 396 ondercommies, 58, 99, 104, 108, 203. See also commies Oneida, 22, 207, 465 Onondaga, 22 Oostdorp, 48, 152, 163 Ootmarsum, 426 Opdijck, Gijsbert, 237, 386 oranges, 416 Oratam, 392 orchard, 220, 224 ordinances, 96, 99, 103, 105, 124–125, 159–160, 169, 181, 224–225, 254, 309, 388, 390–392, 395, 407, 420, 429, 435, 451, 459, 464–465, 468, 470; of States General, 34, 36, 244, 452; on itinerant traders, 71; on servants, 81; on trade, 119; establishing courts, 154–155, 156n, 160n, 162; of Amsterdam, 169; on weights and measures, 170, 358; on tapping, 170, 240; on bakers, 170, 245–247, 354; on currency, 194–195; on smuggling, 205; on Indian trade, 208–214, 399; on tobacco, 231–232; on beer, 243–244; on conventicles, 296–297, 301, 308; on burgher right, 358–360, 362; on burgher guard, 369–370; on sabbath, 461–462, 474, 479 orphans, orphanage, 51, 69, 83–88, 90–92, 277, 416, 439; orphan chamber, 171; orphan masters, 171, 350, 490 otters, 20, 25, 31, 198, 204. See also fur trade. Ouderkerk aan de Amstel, 378 Overijssel, 75, 265–266, 426, 477 oxen, 226–227, 239 Oxfordshire, 311 Oyapoc River, 60 oysters, 19, 163, 416, 450 Padbrué, Cornelis Tymensz., 432n Paerlestraet, 68, 461 paintings, 12, 253, 362, 371, 433n palissades, 26, 171, 328, 330, 334

index pamphlets, 38, 89, 292, 318 paper, 234, 419 Paré, Ambrosius, 418 Pastoor, Frans Barentsz., 493 patroons, patroonships, 48, 60, 63, 97, 104, 112–132, 140–141, 149, 188, 204–205, 214, 217–218, 256–257, 267, 475–476. See also Colendonck; New Amstel; Pavonia; Rensselaerswijck; Staten Island; Swanendael. Paulushoek, 230 Paulusz., Thomas, 354, 545 Pauw, Adriaen, 115 Pauw, Michiel, 115–116, 137, 191 Pauw, Reinier, 115 Pavonia, 115–116, 120, 137, 353, 455 Paz, Duarte Diaz de, 376n peace, 122; with Indians, 28, 270, 389, 394, 432, 463; with England, 185, 481 Peace of Augsburg, 273 Peace of Münster, 47 Peace of Westminster, 4, 186 Peach War, 122, 153, 155, 163, 176, 193, 330, 390, 407 Pearl Street. See Paerlestraet. Peeck, Jan, 241, 333, 434 Peijster, Johannes de, 70, 72, 255, 330, 332, 338, 346, 441, 490–491 Pelgrom, Franchoys, 32 Pelgrom, Leonard, 32 Pelgrom, Paulus, 35 Pelgrom, Steffen, 32 Pels, Evert, 204, 242 peltries. See fur trade Pentecost, 464, 470 Peperga, 63 pepper, 38, 251 Pergens, Jacob, 96 Pfeiffer, John, 32n Philipse, Frederick, 337–338 pier, 143 Pieter (master), 235 Pieters, Janneken, 290 Pieters, Maria, 433n Pieters, Trijntje, 434 Pietersz., Cors, 391–392 Pietersz., Erasmus, 35 Pietersz., Evert, 335, 461 Pietersz., Wijbrant, 231, 237 Pietism, 90, 274, 313, 317 pigs, 19, 24, 134, 156, 222–225, 227, 287, 379, 384, 386, 441, 448, 471

551

piracy, 33, 165 Planck, Abraham, 488 Planck, Jacob Albertsz., 117 plantations, 74, 227–230, 387. See also tobacco Platneus, Jan, 395 Plockhoy, Pieter Cornelisz., 51, 89, 132 Plymouth Plantation, 88 Plymouth, 199 poetry, poems, 7, 215, 432–433, 443 Poland, 215 Pole, J.R., 461 Polhemius, Johannes, 76, 271, 284–286, 290, 319, 341, 406, 494 Poncet, Joseph, 312 Ponkes, 390–391 poor; poor relief, 84, 143, 164, 246, 329, 333, 340, 351, 413, 415, 442, 478. See also deaconry. population size, 1, 47–48, 55, 93, 292–295, 313, 474, 476; growth, 2–4, 18, 48, 83, 121, 128, 146, 187, 216, 285, 339, 346–347, 365, 400–401, 476, 478, 480; Indian, 24; New Amsterdam, 97; Beverwijck, 48, 294 Pountegouet, River, 481 Portsmouth, 179 Portugal and the Portuguese, 39, 372; colonies, 1–3, 373, 377. See also Brazil. Portugees, Anthony de, 386 Pos, Lodewijck, 436 Pos, Sijmen Dircksz., 109 Post, Adriaen, 122 potash, 235 Potter, Cornelis de, 315 Potter, Elisabeth de, 433n pottery. See earthenware. Prague, 438 precentor, 342, 442 predikanten. See ministers. pregnancy. See birth. Premero, Jan, 387 prijscouranten, 419 printer, 417, 472 prison, prisoners, house arrest, 81, 135, 160, 175, 282, 306, 393, 398, 415–416, 423 privateering, 2, 38–39, 475 proselytization, conversion; of Indians, 263, 318–323, 325, 389, 480; of blacks, 312–318, 480

552

index

prostitution, whores, 160, 395–396, 434–435, 447–449, 473 provincial convention. See landdag. Provisional Regulations, 98, 102, 217, 233, 263, 318 provost-marshall, 54 Provoost, David, 489 psalms, 417, 419, 466 Punta de Araya, 40 Puritanism, 274, 311 Purmerend, 68 Putten, 78n Quakers, 164, 282, 305–311, 325, 372, 478–479 quartering, billeting, 155, 309–310, 335 Quick, Willem, 399, 413–414, 417 Raesvelt, Johan van, 372 ransom, 211 Rapalje, George, 488 rape, 438 Raritans, 23, 134 rattle guard, 171, 370–371, 436, 459. See also burgher guard rattlesnake, 19, 30 Rasière, Isaac de, 18n, 24n, 29, 43, 104, 107–108, 199, 203, 250, 396, 410, 484, 487 Recife, 373, 377 Reede, Godard van, 122–123 Reijersz., Jan, 415 Remunde, Jan van, 109, 268, 276, 487 Rensselaer, Anna van (daughter of Jeremias), 423 Rensselaer, Anna van, 259–260, 289–290,414, 429–430, 435, 439 Rensselaer, Hendrick van (son of Jeremias), 423 Rensselaer, Jan Baptist van, 21, 70, 79, 118, 167, 235, 289, 345, 380, 414, 424, 429, 431, 439, 466 Rensselaer, Jeremias van, 70, 79, 118, 167, 192, 201–202, 216, 218, 239, 251–253, 259–260, 289–290, 380, 386, 388, 390, 410–411, 414–416, 419, 421–425, 429–431, 435, 439, 444, 457, 466, 471, 473 Rensselaer, Johannes van (son of Jeremias), 421–423 Rensselaer, Johannes van, 78, 118, 421 Rensselaer, Kiliaen van (son of Jan Baptist), 423

Rensselaer, Kiliaen van (son of Jeremias), 423 Rensselaer, Kiliaen van, 43, 63, 70, 79, 96, 115–118, 120–122, 132, 204, 216, 220, 227–228, 236, 476; mentioned, 10, 18, 79, 109, 114, 148, 199–200, 218, 229, 279, 242, 319, 375, 395–396, 419–420, 455. See also Rensselaerswijck. Rensselaer, Leonora van, 260, 439 Rensselaer, Maria van. See Cortlandt, Maria van. Rensselaer, Nicolaes van, 118, 259, 439 Rensselaer, Rijckert van, 70, 118, 260, 424, 431, 439 Rensselaer, Susanna van, 439 Rensselaer, Van (family), 70, 118, 126, 148, 255, 259, 282, 421, 423, 430 Rensselaerswijck, 11–12, 20, 48, 63, 115–118, 120–126, 132, 141, 218–219, 223, 228–229, 234, 242, 282, 344, 370, 419, 455, 494; servants, 78–79, 81–82, 114, 204, 259; court, 81, 114, 116–118, 125, 168, 183, 210, 282, 352, 411, 419–420, 465; mentioned, 10, 14, 18, 55, 148, 156, 162, 167, 220, 225, 227, 239, 260, 269, 286, 289–290, 312, 320, 351, 356–357, 375, 397, 422–423, 431, 439, 453, 466. See also patroons. Reynolds, Helen W., 403–404 Rhode Island, 305 ‘ridings’, 182 Riemer, Margaretha de, 80, 422 Rieuwertsz., Willem, 484 Rijnland, 125 Rijser, Cornelis, 32 Rijswijck, Anthonia van, 424 Rijverdingh, Pieter, 91 Ringo, Philip Jansz., 383 Rink, Oliver, 48n, 72–73, 255 Ripsz., Claes, 287 Ritchie, Robert, 187 Rochelle, La, 41, 60 Rodrigo, Maria, 433n Roelantsz. van Dokkum, Adam, 313, 314n Rombouts, François, 338, 491 Rooseboom, Hendrick, 442, 444 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 403–404 rope-makers, 58 Roskam, Vincent Adriaensz., 433n

index Rotterdam, 62, 228 Roy, Jacob Jacobsz., 414, 417 Ruijl, Albert Gerritsz., 34–3 Ruinen, 76 Rustdorp, 48, 152, 309 Ruurlo, 76 Ruyter, Michiel Adriaensz. de, 66, 184–185 Ruyven, Cornelis van, 65, 163, 274, 332, 334, 338, 361, 485, 487, 491 Ruyven, Levinus van, 65 rye, 220, 245–247 Sabbath, 379, 461–463, 468, 474, 479. See also Sunday. Sabijn, Lucas Andriesz., 433n Sarcharson, Johan, 418 sailmaker, 57 sailors, crew, 31–34, 36, 46, 51, 57–61, 65–67, 90, 92, 95, 133, 134, 204, 206, 258, 313, 333, 408 salary, wages, 52, 59, 62, 78, 82, 87–88, 98, 105, 107, 162, 172, 195–197, 220, 271–272, 283–285, 297–298, 324, 327, 341–345, 389, 399–400, 479 Salee, Anthony Jansz. van, 220, 386, 449, 451n salt, 25, 37, 40–41, 235–237, 251, 254, 410, 425, 430 Sandy Hook, 206 São Tomé, 37 sappaen, 26, 416 Scandinavia and the Scandinavians, 53–54, 92, 113, 279, 372. See also Norway; Sweden. Schaefbanck, Pieter, 332 Schaeff, Clara, 396 Schaeff, Hendrick, 53 Schaets, Anna, 425 Schaets, Gideon, 271, 281–282, 287, 293, 295, 319, 324, 421, 425, 441, 494 Schagen, Pieter Jansz., 43–44 Schaick, Goosen Gerritsz. van, 243, 351, 493 Schalkwijck, Hendrick Jansz. van, 345–346 scheepsraad, 102 Schellinger, Jan Tjebkensz., 253 Schenck, Wessel, 32 Schenectady, 48, 253, 183, 211, 323, 396, 407, 444, 456

553

schepenen, 59–69, 86, 128, 135, 151, 168, 171–172, 174, 178, 186, 192–193, 314, 330, 332, 334, 336, 338–339, 344, 348–351, 353–354, 361, 363, 367, 400, 441, 451, 464, 490–491; of Rensselaerswijck, 116–117; of New Amstel, 128–129, 131; of Amsterdam, 129; of Breuckelen, 154–155, 165, 341, 351; of Wiltwijck, 157–160, 346; of Beverwijck, 208, 286, 367; of Haerlem, 433. See also burgemeesters and schepenen; magistrates. Schermerhoorn, Jacob Jansz., 493 Schiedam, 62 Schol, Pieter Jansz., 239 Schoof, Philip, 433 school, 85, 143, 159; Latin, 171, 334, 432; Collegiate, 314n; schoolbooks, 418. See also education; schoolmasters schoolmasters, 61, 171, 237, 267, 281, 313, 334–335, 342–343, 416, 418, 432 Schoone Boerin. See Jacobs, Geertje. Schoorsteenveeger, Jan de, 341 schout, officer, 95, 105–106, 116, 139, 160–162, 164, 392, 452; of New Amsterdam, 106, 177, 149, 161, 172, 174–177, 183, 241, 248–249, 349, 354, 407, 436, 449, 468–469, 492; of Rensselaerswijck, 116–117, 183, 352–353, 419–421, 423; of New Amstel, 128–129, 131, 343; of Wiltwijck, 157–161, 164, 184, 477; of Amersfoort, 162; of Amsterdam, 161, 177; of Breuckelen, 161–162, 176, 221; of Heemstede, 161; of Vlissingen, 162, 308–309, 311, 164, 437; of Midwout, 162; of Amersfoort, 162; of Albany, 183; of Schenectady, 183; of Beverwijck, 208, 241, 246, 454; of Haerlem, 434 Schrick, Paulus, 298, 300, 302 Schut, Cornelis, 332 Schuyler, Margaretha. See Slichtenhorst, Margaretha van. Schuyler, Philip Pietersz., 410, 421, 493 secretary, of director (general) and council, 43, 61, 65, 104, 106–109, 134, 148–149, 186, 223, 274, 276, 332, 342–343, 361, 390, 410, 487; of Amsterdam, 60; of

554

index

Rensselaerswijck, 63, 156, 286, 422; of New Amsterdam, 172, 248, 336, 350; of Wiltwijck, 184; of Albany, 446 Selijns, Henricus, 270–271, 274, 283, 287–288, 291, 293–294, 315–317, 381, 419, 432, 443, 470, 494 Seneca, 22, 202 Senequam, Thomas, 399 sergeant, 52, 54, 126, 329, 343, 367–368, 388 servants. See contract laborers. servant girls. See maidservants. sewant, 25, 27, 192–197, 207, 209, 225, 235, 243, 246–247, 262, 284, 335–336, 340–341, 358, 387, 393, 397, 409–410, 412, 427, 443, 447, 479 sexton, 442 Shattuck, Martha, 210n, 294, 391n sheep, 19, 222, 225, 227–228 sheet piling, 143, 170 sheriff, 181–182, 492 shipping; passim; duration of voyage, 43, route, 46; regulations, 205–206; volume, 257 shipping monopoly, 2, 41, 45, 61, 256, 258 ships; passim; building, 15, 33, 35, 234; types, 57; council, 102, 292; Abrahams Offerhande, 254; Bonte Koe, 76; Brant van Troyen, 74; Bruinvis, 304; Coninck David (1622, captain De Vries), 41; Coninck David (1641, captain Job Arisz.), 222; Coninck Salomon, 352; Duyf, 41; Eendracht, 42, 58, 199; Fortuyn (1612, captain Block), 32; Fortuyn (1613, captain Christiaensz.), 33; Fortuyn (1614, captain), 33; Fortuyn (1618, captain Pietersz.), 35; Gelderse Blom, 78, 259; Gideon, 381; Groote Gerrit, 59, 142, 280; Halve Maen, 31; Hoff van Cleeff, 45, 258; Hoop, 253; IJseren Vercken, 35; Jonge Tobias, 32; Mackreel, 41; Meulen, 46; Nachtegael, 33; Nieu Nederlant (1632), 234; Nieu Nederlandt (1624, captain May), 204; Onrust, 33–35; Prins Maurits, 129–130; Prins Willem, 259; Prinses, 46, 52, 69, 142–143, 200, 280, 284; Rensselaerswijck, 200; Schildpad, 36; Soutbergh, 111; St. Jacob, 68; St. Pieter, 32; Swarte Arent, 62; Swarte Beer, 36;

Swoll, 59; Tijger, 33; Trouw, 76; Utrecht, 52; Valckenier, 200; Vergulde Beer, 254; Vergulde Meulen, 302; Vosje, 34; Waegh, 126–127; Wapen van Amsterdam, 43, 199; Wasbleecker, 236, 252; Witte Duyf, 37; Witte Paert, 358, 380 shipwreck, 46, 52, 69, 200, 280, 284 shirts, 25, 207, 250, 254, 345, 413 shoemakers, 78–79, 237–239, 253, 261, 308, 333–334, 336, 338, 346, 362; shoes, 12, 25, 239, 253–254, 261–262, 345, 414 shopkeepers, 237, 336, 345; shop, 70; open shop, 359–360, 362, 379 Sibout, Anneke, 433 Siecken, Dirck, 226 Sijbingh, Jan Hendricksz., 340 Sijmensz., Michiel, 484 silk, 70, 69, 259–260, 298 silver, 2, 259–260, 352, 410, 425, 430, 440, 443, 472 Sille, Nicasius de, 171, 174, 176, 270, 329n, 330, 393, 439, 485, 486, 492 Sint Maarten, 63 Sinterklaas, 471 slander, gossip, 165, 279, 288, 311, 433, 447, 449, 450, 474 slaves. See blacks. Slecht, Cornelis Barentsz., 346 sleigh, 422, 466 Slichtenhorst, Arend van, Slichtenhorst, Brant Aertsz. van, 117, 124–126, 219, 225, 228, 282, 420, 449, 466 Slichtenhorst, Gerrit van, 125, 454, 493 Slichtenhorst, Margaretha van, 410, 421, 424 Slijck, Cornelis Teunisz., 396 Slijcksteeg, 383 Slot, Jan Pietersz., 433–434 Slot, Pieter Jansz., 433–434 Sluyter, Peter, 90 Småland, 74 small bench of justice. See courts. Smeeman, Harmen, 468 Smet, Stoffel, 76 Smith, Anna, 311 Smith, George, 307 smiths, 237; blacksmiths, 77, 237–238, 338, 382; gunsmith, 252; goldsmith, 410; silversmith,410n, 472

index smuggling, 59, 66, 68, 105, 120, 205–206, 259, 348–350 Snijder, Hendrick Jansz., 242, 488 soap, 254, 467 social stratification, 327, 345–347, 399, 478 sodomy, 387, 397, 438–439 Soest, 116 soldiers, 51–57, 61, 65, 90–91, 95, 104, 124–126, 129, 133–134, 137, 155, 179, 279, 298, 306, 309–310, 333, 335–336, 345, 362, 366, 369, 377, 388–389, 394, 397–398, 400, 416, 438, 443, 457; recruitment, 51–53, 476; salary, 53, 343–344; origin, 53–54, 92; number, 54–55, 129. See also defense. Soleil, François, 428 Sound, 127, 215 South River, 4, 8–11, 13, 17, 20, 23, 31, 34–35, 42, 48, 54–55, 60, 87, 89–90, 106, 115, 126–127, 130–131, 199, 212, 216–217, 256, 267, 293, 302, 330–331, 365, 368, 378, 393, 397, 409 Southold, 180–181 sovereignty, 95–96, 122, 128, 164, 477 Spaans, Joke, 294 Spain and the Spanish, 1–3, 14, 38–39, 47, 63, 263, 316, 323, 372, 475 Spanjaard, Manuel de, 383 spices, 1, 107 Spiegel, Laurens van der, 248–249, 491 spinhuis, 240, 450 Spits, Jan Reijndertsz., 87 Spitsbergen, 34 spring, 12–13, 19, 21, 25, 228, 364, 470 St. Kitts, 66 St. Laureins, 333 St. Lawrence River, 11 Stad en Lande, 39 stadholder, 129, 150 Staets, Abraham, 204, 246, 368, 424, 493 Stam, Arent Corsz., 228, 253 Stam, Dirck Corsz., 228, 253, 484 staple right, 113, 256, 358–359 Staten Island, 48, 60–61, 81, 122–123, 134, 152, 181, 185, 345 States General, 38, 41, 43–44, 83, 110, 118–119, 122, 125, 128–129, 138, 144–148, 152, 154, 164, 166,

555

184–185, 188–189, 210, 216, 223, 244, 254, 281, 295, 298, 352, 356, 385, 420, 425; charters of, 34–38, 40, 95, 101, 188, 257, 266; and the WIC, 38–39, 42, 66, 95–96, 121, 129, 138, 140–142, 147–151, 188, 205, 210, 476–477, 481 States of Holland, 103, 150–151, 265, 420 States of Zeeland, 185, 425 Steen, Jan, 433n Steendam, Jacob, 7, 45, 432 Steenwijck, Cornelis, 70, 80, 186, 255, 329–330, 334–335, 338–339, 346, 350, 422, 481, 490–491 steward, 58, 348 stockade, 407 stockbreeding, 217, 221, 226 stockings, 12, 25, 250, 254, 259–260, 354, 413–414, 433 Stoffelsz., Jacob, 382, 409, 414, 488 Stol, Jacob Jansz., 435 stone, 12–13, 404–409 Stone Street. See Brouwerstraet. stoneware, 252 Stoothof, Elbert Elbertsz., 341, 489 strangulation, 387, 439 Strijcker, Jacob Gerritsz., 361, 490 Strijcker, Jan, 76 Stuyvesant, Anna, 298, 307 Stuyvesant, Nicolaes Willem, 425 Stuyvesant, Petrus, 65–66, 79, 99, 124, 126, 142–151, 163–166, 168, 171, 173, 175, 178, 183, 214, 217, 225, 244, 257, 269–270, 280–283, 286, 298, 301–302, 305–306, 316, 328, 331, 334–335, 351–353, 361, 368–369, 381, 385–386, 424–426, 468, 470, 483; early career, 63; appointment, 95, 97, 141–142; character, 124, 142–143, 147, 164, 274, 281, 299, 324; instructions, 141, 143, 153, 298; mentioned, 53–54, 71–72, 75–76, 85, 105, 124, 157–158, 176, 196, 201, 210, 213, 223, 236, 269, 280, 291, 299, 310, 325, 330, 362, 373, 393. See also director general and council. sugar, 1, 37, 48, 234, 247, 251, 357, 372, 377, 387, 416 summer, 13–14, 16, 24, 25, 67–69, 72, 239, 283, 416, 470 Sunday, 86, 163, 208, 240–241, 283, 297, 460–463. See also Sabbath.

556

index

supercargo, 32–33, 36, 42, 61–62, 67, 259 surgeons, 18, 57–58, 61, 77, 88, 204, 332–333, 336, 338, 343, 362, 400, 412, 418, 440, 447, 452–453, 457, 461 Surinam, 3, 185 surveyors, 43, 123 Susquehanna River, 23 Susquehannocks, 23, 202 Swaenenburgh, 186. See also Wiltwijck. Swanendael, 115, 120, 132, 204 Swanevelt, Helena Jacobs, 60 Swart, Gerrit, 117, 183, 421 Swartwout, Roelof, 156–157, 160–162, 164, 177 Swartwout, Thomas, 156 Sweden and the Swedish, 4, 8, 17, 73, 74n, 126–127, 171, 215, 302, 330, 368, 463 Sweers, Barent, 32 Swits, Claes Cornelisz. (died 1641), 135–136 Swits, Claes Cornelisz. (died 1663), 456 Switzerland, 54 synod, 265–266, 273, 288, 295, 323, 461 Taffin, Jean, 418 tailors, 78, 237–239, 250, 261, 333 Taiwan, 407n takeover, 65–66, 89, 91, 97, 126, 132, 178, 182–184, 197–198, 281, 285–286, 291, 304, 314–315, 324, 333, 336, 394, 460, 476, 480; articles of capitulation, 179–180, 182–184, 257 Talckjen, 259–260 Tappan, 23, 123, 481 tappers, tap houses, 170, 237–243, 333, 337, 452, 459, 461 Tarrytown, 417 taverns, tavern keepers, 52, 170, 240, 461 tax; taxation, 27, 65, 105, 133, 172, 179, 181–182, 188, 195, 220, 228, 249, 257, 285, 324, 338, 355, 358, 360, 376, 378, 477; on shipping, 57, 61, 66–67, 104, 107, 205, 256; pressure of, 76–77; tenths, 83, 105, 121–122, 154–155, 218, 220–221, 226, 271, 283, 285, 377; exemption of, 83, 91, 114, 154–155, 221, 336,

381; on export, 107, 114, 206, 253–254, 256, 349; on import, 107, 114, 206, 253–254, 256; on peltries, 119, 121, 201, 203–204, 253–254, 349; on wine, 171–172, 339; on beer, 172, 244, 423, 339; on land, 220, 226; on stock, 226; slaughter, 226–227, 238; tax farmers, 227, 243–244, 335, 376–377; on tobacco, 227, 230, 232, 253; on tapping, 239, 241, 337; burgher excise, 243; on brewing, 243–244; lists, 328–342, 362, 381, 400; on beer, 423. See also contribution. Teffenechki, 391 Teller, Willem, 393–394, 456 tenants, 55, 82, 217–219, 227, 230, 341 Terneur, Daniël, 449 Tesselaer, Evert, 69, 396 Teunisz. van Breukelen, Cornelis, 117 Teunisz., Claes, 466 Teunisz., Jan, 161 Texel, 42, 80, 204–206 textiles, 211, 234, 250, 252, 256, 261–262, 390, 413 theft, thief, 105, 159, 348, 387, 393, 447–450 Theunisz. van Amsterdam, Arent, 236 Theunisz. van Enkhuizen, Seger, 68 Thienpont, Adriaen Jorisz., 36, 42, 98–99, 106, 483–484 Thijssen, Lijsbet, 192–193 Thirty Years War, 46 Thomas, Stijntje, 85 Thomasz., Jelmer, 485 Thomasz., Willem (captain), 79 Thomasz, Willem (1634), 207 Tienhoven, Cornelis van, 106, 134–135, 148–149, 175–177, 221, 223, 241, 329n, 330, 332, 343, 362, 390, 395, 405, 434–435, 469, 485, 486–487, 492 Tilburg, 373 tiles, 235–236, 407, 409 Tilton, John, 309 tobacco, 18, 74, 179, 191, 193, 217, 227–233, 256, 258, 261, 279, 333, 387, 477; inspectors, 64, 231; taxation, 227, 230, 232, 253; ordinances, 231–232 Tobias, 397 tolerance, 46, 93, 295, 301–302, 325, 379, 468. See also freedom

index Tonneman, Pieter, 176–177, 248–249, 349, 354, 436, 485, 492 town meetings, 159, 162, 181–182, 187 Townsend, Henry, 309–310 trading season. See fur trade Tricht, Gerrit van, 50, 286 Trico, Catelina, 447–448 trumpeter, 444–445, 459 Truy, Marie de, 434 Tulp, Nicolaes, 418 Turks, 22, 449 Turnhout, 59, Tweenhuysen, Lambert van, 32, 35–46 Twelve Men, 135–138, 165, 330, 348, 356, 488. See also advisory bodies. Twelfth Night, 466 Twelve Years’ Truce, 38, 263, 475 Twente, 436 Twiller, Jan van, 70 Twiller, Van (family), 70, 78 Twiller, Wouter van, 59, 63–64, 82, 95, 109–111, 116–117, 140, 145, 192, 200, 219, 229, 259, 277–278, 281, 382, 445, 483 Uijlenberg, Engel, 79, 239 Unami language, 23 Underhill, John, 162 United States of America, 404 Usselincx, Willem, 38, 214, 233, 475 Utrecht; city, 40, 60, 108, 123, 422, 462; province, 77, 122, 223, 265, 477 Uylenspiegel. See Teunisz., Claes. Valckenborgh, Lammert van, 368 Valckenburgh, Herman Jansz. van, 451 Van Tweenhuysen Company, 32–34 Varleth, Casper, 298 Varleth, Maria, 298 Varleth, Nicolaes, 298 Varleth, Pieter, 298 Varrevanger, Jacob Hendricksz., 332, 338 Vastrick, Gerrit, 70 Växjö, 74n Vechten, Theunis Dircksz. van, 218 Vedder, Harmen, 70 Veen, Pieter Cornelisz. van der, 386, 490 Veen, Walewijn van der, 354

557

Veere, 192, 227, 279 vegetables, 17, 224 Venema, Janny, 294, 359n Venezuela, 37, 40 Verbeeck, Jan, 238, 356–357, 493 Verbrugge (family), 69–71, 200, 255, 260, 344, 376n Verbrugge, Gillis, 69, 71, 235, 344 Verbrugge, Seth, 69–70, 235 Verde, Cape, Islands, 37 Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie. See East India Company. Verhulst, Willem, 12, 42–43, 44n, 98, 99, 101–104, 106–109, 217, 222, 236, 264, 318, 461, 483 Verplanck, Geleyn, 338, 427, 491 Verrazano, Giovanni da, 30 Vesaert, François, 99, 109, 234, 484 vice-director, 61, 65, 99, 106, 108, 140–141, 145, 149, 213, 278, 316, 342, 426 Vigne, Jan, 243, 490 Vigne, Rachel, 362 Vigo, Johannes de, 418 Vin, Hendrick Jansz. van der, 332, 336, 490 Virgin Mary, 168 Virginia, 2, 25, 28, 31, 35, 41, 50, 60, 89, 130–131, 179, 227–232, 258, 261, 282–382, 312, 397–398 Vlasbloem, Jan, 258 Vliegende Engel. See Dircks, Magdalena. Vlissingen (Long Island), 48, 152–153, 162–165, 308–309, 311, 437; Vlissingen (Rep.), 36 VOC. See East India Company. Voetius, Gisbertus, 419, 462 Vogels, Aernout, 32 Vogelsang, Marcus, 332, 361 Vondel, Joost van (father), 215, 419, 432 Voorhout, Cornelis Segersz. van, 55 Voorhout, Seger Cornelisz. van, 457 Voorthuizen, 78n Vorst, Cornelis van, 116, 353, 455–456, 474 Vos, Hans, 397, 449 Vos, Mattheus de, 50, 56, 334, 336 Vreeland, 78n Vries, David Pietersz. de, 41, 60–61, 64, 110–111, 116, 134, 204–205, 228, 395, 444–445, 488 Vries, Frederick de, 60 vroedschap, 177, 243, 367; of

558

index

Amsterdam, 84, 127, 131; of New Amstel, 128–129, 177; of New Amsterdam, 177–178, 189; of Utrecht, 422 Vrooman, Pieter Meese, 236 Walebocht, 341 Wales, 46, 280 Walingen, Jacob, 488 Wall Street, 171, 328 Walloons, 42, 51, 88, 98–99, 108, 112, 292, 475, 480 wampum. See sewant. Wappinger, 23, 68, 398 warehouse, 205–206, 256, 259 Wassenaer, Nicolaes van, 13, 35, 394, 405 Waterhont, Pieter Dircksz., 358 Waterland, 406, 478 Watervliet, 421 Watson, Willem, 52 Waverveen, 443 Webber, Wolfert, 224 Wechquaesgeek, 138 Weesp, 55, 412n weighhouse, 170, 172, 333, 337, 376–377 Wel, Eva Louwerens van der, 433n Welius, Everardus, 271, 409, 494 Wely, Barent van, 409 Wely, Johan van, 421, 423 Wely, Van (family), 70 Wendel, Evert Jansz., 493 Werckhoven, Cornelis van, 123, 329n, 485 Wesel, 108, 275 Wessels, Warnaer, 335, 423 West Africa, 3, 15, 38, 56, 60, 194, 216 West Indies, 15, 265, 428 Westbroeck, Cornelis Teunisz. van, 493 Westbroeck, Gerrit Teunisz. van, 345 Westbroek, 78n Westercamp, Grietje Hendricks, 422, 428 Westercamp, Hendrick Jansz., 246 Westchester, 152, 163, 180–181. See also Oostdorp. West India Company, passim; objectives, 2, 38–39, 263, 323, 325, 475; early years, 37, 40–42; founding, 35–38, 95, 214, 263, 265, 475; organization, 39–40, 96–97;

shares, shareholders, 39–40, 113, 263, 257, 374–376; debt, 47, 55, 96, 131, 138, 188, 324, 377, 425; House, 53, 80; charter, 37–38, 40, 60, 95–96, 101, 113, 187–188, 263, 266, 481; chambers, 39, 96, 141, 150, 323. See also Amsterdam chamber; Chamber of Accounts; Heren XIX; director (general) and council; shipping monopoly. whaling, 20, 34, 116, 205, 217 wheelwright, 238 Whitbeck, Jan Thomasz., 493 Whitehall Street, 170, 461 Whitfield, Ralph, 491 Wickendam, William, 311 widows, 156, 192, 336, 338, 362, 390, 456 Wieder, F.C., 233–234 Wieuwerd, 90 Wijckersloot, Hendrick van, 422 Wijckersloot, Sophia van, 422 Wijckoff, Pieter Claesz., 346n Wijk bij Duurstede, 65 Wijngaerts, Geertruijt, 427 Wijs, Guilliaem de, 450 Willem II, stadholder, 150 Willemsz. van Garderbroek, Aert, 82 Willemsz., Abraham, 59 Willemsz., Hendrick, 248 Willett, Thomas, 183, 332, 491 Wilmerdock, Abraham, 96 Wiltwijck, 48, 55, 152–153, 155–160, 163–164, 169, 172, 177, 184, 186, 226, 285, 289, 293–294, 339, 346, 369, 389, 407, 419, 422, 428, 432, 460, 464, 469, 477, 494. See also Esopus. Winckelman, Johannes, 123 wine, 17, 110, 171–172, 209, 240, 242–243, 251, 254, 262, 339, 443, 469 Winschoten, 287 winter, 13–14, 18, 25–26, 130, 211, 223, 228, 239, 247, 283, 390, 405, 466, 479 Winthrop, John, 200 Wirtsung, Christoph, 418 Wissinck, Jacob Elbertsz., 58, 106, 484 Wit, Jan de, 462 Witsen, Gerrit Jacobsz., 34 Witsen, Jonas Cornelisz., 34–37 Woerden, 277, 346

index Wolff, Abel de, 70, 236 Wolff, De (family), 237, 255 Wolff, Dirck de, 70, 236–237, 340 wolves, 18–19, 225 wood, 15–16, 26, 124–125, 234–235, 367, 369, 382, 406, 450, 454 World Trade Center, 33n Wyckoff House, 404 Yonkers, 79, 123 York, Duke of, 178–181, 257, 352 Yorkshire (England), 181

559

Yorkshire (New York), 181 Yucatan, 1 Zantkuyl, Henk, 405 Zee, Storm Albertsz. van der, 70 Zeeland, 36, 103, 185, 219, 404, 425, 427n, 459, 470; chamber, 39, 141 ziekentrooster. See comforter of the sick. zielverkopers, 51 Zwarte Hans. See Hans, Zwarte.