History of the state of New York Vol I, Part 26

Author: Brodhead, John Romeyn, 1814-1873. 4n
Publication date: 1871
Publisher: New York : Harper & Brothers
Number of Pages: 844

USA > New York > History of the state of New York Vol I > Part 26

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

24 May.

The States General, however, though they consented that the company might confer with Boswell, left the affair to "take its own course ;" and the question of damages, as 1638. well as that of boundaries remained unsettled. Four years afterward, Joachimi wrote from London that the owners of the William had again complained to him; but the Dutch government took no further notice of the subject.#

1633. 24 July. Meanwhile, De Vries had returned to Amsterdam, where

* Hol. Doc., ii., 51-55, 90-92.

# Hol. Doc., ii., 144, 196.

+ Hol. Doc., ii., 136 ; O'Call., i., 164.

247

WOUTER VAN TWILLER, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

he found his partners at variance with the other directors CHAP. VI.L. of the company. The chief cause of difficulty was the interference of the patroons with the peltry trade ; and even the few beaver skins, "not worth speaking of," which

1633. ariance between the direc- tors of the De Vries himself had procured in New Netherland, were w. I. Com- made the subject of recrimination. Unwilling to be in- the pa- pany and volved in the quarrels which were defeating the purposes 24 July. troons. of the Charter of Privileges, De Vries retired from his part- nership with the other patroons of Swaanendael. But his return to Amsterdam seems to have occasioned a beneficial change in the provincial administration. Notelman, the Notelman unfaithful schout-fiscal, was promptly superseded ; and superseded. Lubbertus van Dincklagen, "an upright man and a doc- Lubbertus tor of laws," was dispatched to succeed him at Manhat- lagen ap- van Dinch - tan .* In this appointment, the Amsterdam Chamber ex- schout. hibited much more wisdom than they had done in select- ing Van Twiller to be director.

The patroons, however, were not so much at variance The pa- with each other as with the company, whose engrossing bine monopoly of the fur trade they longed to change into spe- directors of against the cific monopolies for themselves. The Amsterdam Cham- ny. the compa- ber having determined that the Charter of Privileges was 24 Nov. legal, opened unsuccessful negotiations with the patroons. 19 Dec. Both parties, therefore, appealed to the States General, who Both par- appointed a committee of their own body to hear and de- to the ties appeal cide upon these differences. The patroons accordingly sub- eral. States Gen- mitted a statement of their grounds of complaint against 1634. 16 June. " Claim and de- the company, and of their " claims and demands." They alleged that they had involved themselves in expenses to mand" of the amount of one hundred thousand guilders for their the pa- troons. three patroonships, which now were costing them "at least forty-five thousand guilders annually." As the com- pany had repeatedly called their privileges in question, the damages thus caused should be made good. Within the limits of the patroonships, there were certain "lordships, having their own rights and jurisdictions," which had

troons com-

* De Vries, 119, 120 ; Renss. MSS. ; Hol. Doc., ii., 167, 169, 178 ; v., 217; Vertoogh van N. N., in ii., N. Y. H. S. Coll., ii., 291.

248

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CHAP. VIII. been ceded to the patroons, along with the ownership of 1634. the soil; and over the grantees of these prerogatives the company had no more power than it had " over the lords sachems the sellers." The inland fur trade within the patroonships, it was argued, was not included in the res- ervation of the company's monopoly ; and the patroons were not bound to pay any recognitions on peltries. Wherever the company had no commissaries at the time of the granting of the charter, the patroons also claimed the right to trade, on payment of the recognition ; and they maintained that, without their consent, the company . could not send commissaries into the patroonships, nor af- fix placards, nor oblige the colonists to abstain from the fur trade. With respect to the right of appeal in civil cases to the Director and Council of New Netherland, it " should not prejudice, in the least, the higher jurisdic- tion and.other privileges of the patroons."

These were the chief points which the patroons thought they had common cause to urge against the company. The destruction of Swaanendael by the Indians, furnished a specific ground of complaint on the part of the South River proprietaries, who insisted, that as the company had promised to aid and defend the colonists in New Nether- land from all inland and foreign wars, they were " bound to make good the injuries which befell the patroons, their people, cattle, and goods there, and which they still con- tinue to suffer."*

22 June. Answer of the compa- ny.

The directors avowed their willingness to submit the question as to the construction of the doubtful points in the charter to the judgment of the States General. On their part, the patroons reiterated their claims for dam- ages, and demanded an immediate decision upon their validity. But the States General prudently postponed a de- cision, "in order to enable the parties to come to an amica- ble settlement;" and here the question ended, so far as the formal action of the Dutch government was concerned.+

.24 June. The States General avoid a de- cision.

* Alb. Rec., xiii., 42, 43 ; Hol. Doc., ii., 39-50, 95-115 ; O'Call., i., 159-163 ; Moulton, 421, 422.

+ Hol. Doc., ii., 115, 119, 124.

249

WOUTER VAN TWILLER, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

In the mean time, Godyn had died ; and the remain- CHAP. VIII. ing patroons of Swaanendael commenced legal proceedings against the company for the damages they had sustained 1634. Death of in the loss of their colony. The Assembly of the XIX. Godyn. finding that these continual discords were only injuring the interests of all parties, commissioned some of their di- 22 August. rectors " to treat and transact with all the patroons and colonists in New Netherland" for the purchase of all their rights and property. An agreement was accordingly made 27 Nov. with the South River patroons and the heirs of Godyn, for the purchase of " their two colonies, named Swaanendael, in New Netherland," for the sum of fifteen thousand six hundred guilders. The formal surrender took place early 1635. the next year ; and the West India Company again be- Surrender 7 February came the legal proprietary of all the territory on both sides endael to of Swaan- of the Delaware .*

the W. I. Company.

An unexpected danger now menaced Southern New Argall's de- Netherland. After his recall from the government of Vir- the Dela- signs on ginia, Argall seems to have contemplated the establish- ware. ment of a "new plantation," to the northward of the En- glish settlements on the Chesapeake. It was, perhaps, to aid in this design, that John Pory, who had been one of the tools of Argall's rapacious administration, and was Colonial Secretary of Virginia under Yeardley, his suc- eessor, "made a discovery into the great bay," and as- 1620. cended the River Patuxent. But Pory's explorations, October. which were nearly contemporaneous with the grant of the ploration. Pory's ex- New England patent, were confined to the tributary wa- ters of the Chesapeake, and to a subsequent journey of 1621. sixty miles overland, from Jamestown " to the South Riv- February. er Chowanoek." A strange misapprehension has led a learned English annalist into the absurd error of eonfound- ing the " South River Chowanoek," upon which Edenton now stands, with the " South River" of New Netherland, which Pory never entered.t

- * "Papers relating to the Colony of Zwanendal," in O'Call., App., 479 ; Hazard, Ann. Penn., 39, 40.

t Chalmers, 206 ; Purchas, iv., 1784-7 ; Smith, ii., 61-64 ; Burk, i., 273 ; Bozman, i., 146, 153, 154.

250

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

1627. Subsequent Virginian explora- tions. 27 August. 1629. 13 March. Clay- horne's ex- peditions.

CHAP. VIII. After the accession of Charles I., colonial exploration was pushed with greater diligence, because that monarch instructed the governors of Virginia to procure more exact information of the geography of the province. Governor Yeardley, in 1627, and Governor Pott, in 1629, success- ively commissioned William Clayborne, their Secretary of State, to trade with the Indians, and explore the regions north and east of the Chesapeake. A company was soon afterward formed in England ; and through the influence of Sir William Alexander, the Secretary of State for Scot- 1631. land, Charles I., under the privy signet of that kingdom, 16 May. licensed Clayborne and his associates to trade freely " to those parts of America for which there is not already a patent granted to others for sole trade." To give effect to this royal license, Sir John Harvey, the new governor of 1632. Virginia, issued a colonial commission the next year, by 18 March. which Clayborne was authorized to sail and traffic " unto any English plantation," and also "unto the adjoining plantations of the Dutch, seated upon this territory of America." So entirely ignorant was the Virginia govern- or of the geography of " Lord Delaware's Bay," that the following autumn he dispatched a sloop, with seven or eight men, "to see if there was a river there." This was the first attempt ever made by the English to explore the Delaware. Clayborne, however, does not appear to have entered that river, or to have visited Manhattan. He availed himself of his trading licenses only in the neigh- borne's ex- borhood of the Chesapeake, after exploring the upper wa- ters of which, he limited his ambition to the establishment of a post on the Isle of Kent, and another at the mouth of the Susquehanna .*

September. First at- tempt of the English to explore the Delaware.

Extent of Clay- plorations.

Meanwhile, the characteristic intolerance of the Angli- can hierarchy was preparing noble materials for the foun- dation of a new colony on the banks of the Potomac. The Puritan Non-conformists were not the most oppressed ob- jects of religious persecution in their native land; nor was

* Lond. Doc., i., 40, 43, 45 ; N. Y. Col. MSS., iii., 14, 15 ; De Vries, 110, 111 ; ante, p. 227; Chalmers, 206, 227 ; Bancroft, i., 237 ; Hildreth, i., 208 ; Bozman, i., 115, 265, 269.

251

WOUTER VAN TWILLER, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

the constancy which led them to the shores of Massachu- CHAP. VIII. setts without an illustrious parallel. There were other subjects of the King of England whose faith in Christian- 1633. ity was as sincere, and whose opposition to the established hierarchy was as conscientious. These were the Roman Motives to Catholics, who suffered even greater severitics than the emigration Catholic Puritans, and were the victims of a double persecution. gland. from En- The Church of England struggled against both Roman and Puritan dissenters ; for the ultimate aim of all the an- tagonists was not toleration, but supremacy. Between the Papal and the Anglican hierarchies, Puritanism array- ed itself on the side of the Church of England, and con- stantly instigated her to new rigors against the sincere be- lievers in the venerable faith of Romc. It was thus that conscientious Papists had even stronger motives than con- scientious Puritans to seek an asylum in the New World.

James I. was not, however, as bitter against the Roman Catholics as were the majority of his subjects. One of the George Cal- last acts of his reign was to elevate to the Irish peerage, of Balti- vert, baron under the title of Baron of Baltimore, Sir George Calvert, 1625. more. who, after several years of faithful service as Secretary of State, openly avowing his adherence to the Roman faith, yielded to the growing cry against Popery, and resigned his office .* Charles I. was, perhaps, less disposed to show favor to the body of the Roman Catholics than his father had been. Yet he was magnanimous enough to appreciate and reward individual merit, even in a Papist. Calvert, who was an carly friend of American colonization, had ob- tained the grant of Avalon, on the coast of Newfoundland, and had endeavored to establish a settlement there. But that sterile and inhospitable region was unfavorable to sue- 1623. cess ; and about the time Endicott was settling himself at Salem, Lord Baltimore visited Virginia, in the hope of 1628. finding some unoccupied territory within that province, on ginia. Visits Vir-

* Sir George Calvert was appointed Secretary of State on the 16th of February, 1619, and resigned that office on the 9th of February, 1625. James I. died on the 27th of March, 1625, and Calvert's peerage was probably one of the last patents of that reign. Sir Al- bertus Morton was appointed by Charles I. Secretary of State, in place of Calvert, on the 9th of April, 1625.

252

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CHAP. VIII. which to plant a colony. Protestant feeling, however, was

1630. too strong in Virginia to allow the unmolested exercise of the Roman faith; and Baltimore returned to England, to solicit a royal charter for the colonization of the uninhab- ited regions north of the Potomac.

The personal regard of Charles I. easily induced his as- 1632. sent to an ample patent; but before the legal forms could 15 April. be completed, Lord Baltimore died. The royal promise, however, was faithfully executed ; and, two months after his father's death, Cecilius Calvert, baron of Baltimore, Royal char received a charter, granting and confirming to him the ter- ter for Ma- ryland. 20 June. ritory bounded by a line due east from the mouth of the Potomac, across the Chesapeake to the ocean, and thence along the coast to " that part of the Bay of Delaware on the north, which lieth under the fortieth degree of north latitude from the equinoctial, where New England is ter- minated;" thence, westwardly, along the fortieth parallel, to the " fountain" of the Potomac, and thence along the west bank of the river to its confluence with the Chesa- peake. The territory thus granted was erected into a province, the name of which, originally intended to be " Crescentia," was, by the king's desire, changed to that of MARYLAND, in honor of his queen, Henrietta Maria of France .* The new province comprehended within its boundaries, not only the whole of the present States of Ma- ryland and Delaware, but all that part of Pennsylvania lying south of the fortieth parallel, and east of the merid- ian of the source of the Potomac. The proprietary him- self was invested with the almost regal jurisdiction of the ancient bishops of Durham.

Leonard Calvert be- gins the coloniza- tion of Ma- ryland.

24 Feb.

About two years after the charter was sealed, the foun- dations of the colony of Maryland were peacefully laid by Leonard Calvert, a half-brother of Lord Baltimore. Two ships, the Ark and the Dove, conveying nearly two hund- red Roman Catholic gentlemen with their indented serv- 1634. ants, sailed from England by way of the West Indies, and reached the Chesapeake early in 1634. On one of the

* Hazard, i., 327; Bozman, i., 271 ; ii., 10.

253

WOUTER VAN TWILLER, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

streams flowing into the Potomac, Calvert found the In- CHAP. VIII. dian village of Yoacomoco, which was about being desert- ed by its inhabitants. Imitating the honesty of the Duteh 1634. at Manhattan, he purchased the possessory rights of the aborigines ; and the colonists at onee entered into oceupa- 27 March tion of their wilderness abode, to which they piously gave the name of "Saint Mary's." Comprehensive benevolence Saint Ma- insured the rapid prosperity of the new colony where re- ed. ry's found- ligious liberty was to be unrestrained. The conscientious Non-conformists of England at last found a eongenial asy- lum, under the banner of their country, in the New World ; for the Ark and the Dove had conveyed to the shores of the Potomac more liberal-minded fathers of a state than those earlier emigrants who were peopling the eoasts of Massachusetts Bay .*

In the mean time, the charter of Maryland had produced Jealousy of alarm and excitement among the colonists of Virginia, who Virginia. 1633. caused a remonstranee to be presented to the king against the dismemberment of their territory. But the Privy Coun- May. cil decided to leave Lord Baltimore " to his patent, and the other parties to the course of law." Clayborne, how- 3 July. ever, who chose to eonstrue his trading lieense into a com- mission to plant colonies, refused to relinquish his preten- sions to Kent Island, or submit to Calvert's authority. A skirmish occurred ; and Clayborne, eseaping to Virginia, 1635. was demanded by the Maryland authorities, as a fugitive Clay- February. from justice. But the Virginians, looking on the colonists contumacy. borne's of Maryland as intruders within their territory, were dis- posed to side with Clayborne. Harvey, however, unwill- ing to do any aet in apparent opposition to the royal char-

* Chalmers, 20 ;; Bozman, il., 26, 27 ; Bancroft, i., 247 ; Hildreth, i., 209 ; Chalmers's Revolt of the Colonies, i., 61, 62. The feelings of the Massachusetts people toward the Maryland colonists, who "did set up mass openly," do not seem to have been friendly, or even charitable. A few months after the settlement at Saint Mary's (August, 1634), Cal- vert dispatched the Dove to Boston, with friendly letters, and a cargo of corn to exchange for fish. Some of the crew were accused of reviling the people of Massachusetts, as " holy brethren, the members," &c. ; and, "upon advice with the ministers," the supercargo was arrested while on shore, in order to compel the surrender of the offenders. But the witnesses were found to " fall short," and disagree in their testimony ; and the Dove was suffered to depart, with an injunction to the inaster " to bring no more such disordered persons" to Massachusetts .- Winthrop, i., 134, 139, 144.

254

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CHAP. VIII. ter to Lord Baltimore, in a spirit of compromise sent Clay- 1635. Governor Harvey de- posed and borne a prisoner to England. This step was viewed by the Virginians as a betrayal of their interests ; and Har- vey was immediately deposed by the council, and Captain John West appointed to act as governor until the king's pleasure should be known .*

gland. 28 April.

While at Jamestown two years previously, De Vries had explained to Harvey the situation of Fort Nassau; and his account, though it did not prevent the hospitable govern- or from intimating that the Dutch should receive no an- noyance from him, provoked the covetousness of Clay- West's de- borne's friends. A foothold on the Delaware, they now signs on the Delaware.

August.

Fort Nas- sau seized by Holmes and a party of Virgin- ians.

thought, might perhaps compensate them for the loss of posts on the Chesapeake; and West eagerly seized the opportunity, which his temporary authority afforded, to execute the design. A party of fourteen or fifteen En- glishmen was accordingly dispatched from Point Comfort, under the command of George Holmes, to seize the va- cant Dutch fort. The enterprise was promptly effected ; for the West India Company had now "nobody in posses- sion" to oppose the invaders. But Thomas Hall, one of Holmes's men, deserting his party, brought prompt intel- ligence of the aggression to Fort Amsterdam.t

Van Twiller now perceived that Fort Nassau must be reoccupied by the Dutch, " or they would otherwise lose The En- glish cap- tured and brought to it to the English." An armed bark, belonging to the company, was therefore promptly dispatched thither with Manhattan. a competent force ; and Holmes and his party were im- 1 Sept. mediately dislodged, sent on board, and brought as pris- oners to Manhattan.

Their arrival increased the embarrassment of Van Twil-

* Hazard, i., 337 ; Bozman, ii., 32-35 ; Bancroft, i., 201 ; Hildreth, i., 210; Chalmers, Col. Ann., 231 ; Chalmers's Revolt of the Colonies, i", 63, 64; De Vries, 141. After dis- solving his partnership with the South River patroons, De Vries sailed a second time from the Texel, on the 10th of July, 1634, to plant a colony at Guiana. Having accom- plished this, he went to Virginia, and arrived, on the 17th of May, 1635, at Point Comfort Here he found lying at anchor " a flute ship of London, in which was Sir John Harvey, the governor for the King of England. He was now sent to London by his council and the people, which have made a new governor, which afterward turned out very badly for them."-Voyages, p. 141.

t De Vries, 143 ; Hol. Doc., v., 399 ; ii., N. Y. H. S. Coll., ii., 338

255

WOUTER VAN TWILLER, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

ler, who now learned that they had been expecting a re- CHAP. VIII. enforcement from Virginia. Meanwhile, De Vries had visited Manhattan again, in the ship "King David," and, 1 June. 1635. after three months' delay in repairing his leaky vessel, which he had " hauled up on the strand," was about to sail for the Chesapeake. His opportune presence extri- cated the troubled director from his new dilemma. At Van Twiller's earnest entreaty, De Vries delayed his voy- Holmes and age for a week ; the prisoners were sent on board the sent back to his party King David with " pack and sack ;" and two days after- 8 Sept. Virginia. ward, Holmes and his invading party were relanded at 10 Sept. Point Comfort. Here a bark was found lying ready to sail for the South River, with a force of twenty men on board, " to second" the enterprise which Holmes had be- gun ; but by the unexpected return of the captured in- vaders, " their design was broken up."* Thus ended the first actual English aggression on the southern frontier of New Netherland ; and the Dutch continued, for several years, in undisturbed possession of the South River and the Schuylkill.

The Plymouth people had now been for two years in Progress possession of Windsor, in spite of Van Twiller's prompt gland en- but ineffectual protest, and subsequent pusillanimous mil- ments. itary demonstration. Whatever scruples might, at first, have restrained Winthrop and his council from favoring the propositions of Winslow and Bradford in the summer of 1633, the example of New Plymouth soon infected Mas- sachusetts Bay.t At the General Court, Hooker urged em- 1634. igration to the Connecticut valley. The want of accom- Hooker 4 Sept. modation for their cattle at Newtown; "the fruitfulness and commodiousness of Connecticut, and the danger of having it possessed by others, Dutch or English ;" and " the strong bent of their spirits to remove thither," were the arguments he pressed. To these arguments it was

of New En-

urges emi- gration from Mas- sachusetts to Connec- ticut.

* De Vries, 120, 142, 143. The incident to which Winthrop (i., 167, 168), and Mather, in the Sixth Book of his "Magnalia," allude, as having occurred "at the Dutch planta- tion," happened to De Vries's boat on his arrival at New Netherland, Ist of June, 1635 .- See transiation, in ii., N. Y. H. S. Coll., iii.

t Lambrechtsen, 43 ; ii., N. Y. H. S. Coll., i., 98 ; Verplanck, in N. A. Rev., ix., 86.

256

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CHAP. VIII. objected that, "in point of conscience," the Newtown peo-

Leave to emigrate refused.

1634. ple ought not to desert their commonwealth, and that, in point of civil policy, the court "ought not to give them leave to depart." Their emigration would weaken Mas- sachusetts ; and "the removing of a candlestick" would be "a great judgment." Besides, the emigrants would be exposed to great peril, both from the Indians and from the Dutch, " who made claim to the same river, and had already built a fort there ;" and the home government in England " would not endure they should sit down, with- out a patent, in any place which our king lays claim unto." The court was divided in opinion. Three fifths of the dep- uties were for granting leave ; but a majority of the mag- istrates refused their assent. The two elements in the government of the ecclesiastical commonwealth were now in opposition. With the aid of a sermon from Cotton, the patrician magistrates carried their point against the ple- beian deputies ; the Newtown people gave up their proj- ect ; and, for a time "the fear of their removal to Con- necticut was removed."*

24 Sept.

6 Nov. Treaty with the Pequods.

But the question of emigration was soon revived. Two months afterward, ambassadors from the Pequods came to Boston, and " set their marks" to a treaty, which yielded up " all their right at Connecticut" to the Massachusetts colony. " To whom did that country belong?" was now the inquiry. "Like the banks of the Hudson, it had been first explored, and even occupied by the Dutch ; but should a log-hut and a few straggling soldiers seal a territory against other emigrants?" The colonists of Massachu- setts did not stop to argue the question of right with the authorities of New Netherland, or even wait for the per- mission of the English patentees of Connecticut. Nothing could long retard the rush of Puritan emigration to the "New Hesperia" on the banks of the Fresh River. De- tachments of families from Watertown and Roxbury now 1635. obtaining leave from the General Court, "to remove whith- er they pleased," provided they continued under the gov-

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of the state of New York Vol I, Part 26

Author: Brodhead, John Romeyn, 1814-1873. 4n Publication date: 1871 Publisher: New York : Harper & Brothers Number of Pages: 844

Author: Brodhead, John Romeyn, 1814-1873. 4n
Publication date: 1871
Publisher: New York : Harper & Brothers
Number of Pages: 844