History of the state of New York Vol I, Part 65

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 65

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).

. Two days afterward, the English delegates returned to 11 Sept. Maryland. Rumors soon spread that five hundred men were to march upon the South River; and messengers were. dispatched overland to Stuyvesant to ask for large re-en- 21 Sept. Succor forcements. " It scems to me," added Beeckman, "that asked from Stuyve- Alrichs and Hinoyossa are much perplexed, and full of fear sant. with respect to the English coming from Maryland, which I can not believe."*

The news of the troubles on the South River found Stuy- vesant already sufficiently embarrassed by the hostile at- titude of the Esopus savages. Sixty soldiers, however, 23 Sept. Re-enforce- were sent at once, under the command of Captain Kregier, ments sent.

* Alb. Rec., xii., 509-514 ; xvii., 5-12 ; Hol. Doc., xvi., 117; Lond. Doc., iv., 174, 175 ;

N. Y. Col. MSS., iii., 344 ; O'Call., ii., 377-380 ; Hazard, Ann. Penn., 260-266, 275.

Reply to

666

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CH. XIX. and he, with Secretary Van Ruyven, was commissioned to

1659. act as general agents for the service of the company. At the same time, Stuyvesant severely censured Alrichs and Beeckman for a " want of prudence and courage" in their whole conduct toward Utie.

Embassy to Mary- land.

Augustine Heermans and Resolved Waldron, the under schout of New Amsterdam, were also dispatched on an em- bassy to the government of Maryland to request the sur- render of fugitives, or threaten retaliation, and to demand reparation for the seditious proceedings and " frivolous de- mands and bloody threatenings" of Colonel Utie on the South River. Stuyvesant likewise wrote a letter to Fen- dall, accrediting his representatives, and complaining of Utie's conduct as a breach of the treaty of 1654 between England and Holland .*

23 Sept.

The Dutch ambassadors, proceeding with a small escort overland from New Amstel, after many embarrassing ad- 6 October. ventures arrived in a week at Patuxent. . While awaiting an audience with the governor, they were hospitably en- tertained, and, among others, accidentally met Doughty, 8 October. Conference with Cal- vert .: the former minister at Flushing. Dining, on one occasion, with Secretary Calvert, they were surprised to find him claiming that Maryland extended to the limits of New En- gland. "Where, then, would remain New Netherland ?" ! asked the envoys. With provoking calmness, Calvert re- plied, " I do not know."

16 October. Interview with Fen- dall.

A week afterward, the ambassadors had an interview with Fendall and his council, to whom they delivered a " declaration and manifesto" in behalf of the government of New Netherland, setting forth the Dutch title to the South River, the first possession of which was "sealed with the blood of many souls." In regard to this possession, there had never been difficulty between New Netherland and Virginia or Maryland until Utie's unwarrantable pro- ceedings. Satisfaction should be made for this; and run- aways into Maryland should be surrendered, otherwise the

* Alb. Rec., xvii., 466 ; xix., 331 ; N. Y. II. S. Coll., iii., 370-373 ; Hazard, Ann. Penn., 266-273 ; Acrelius, 422.

667

PETER STUYVESANT, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

government at Manhattan would feel constrained "to pub- CH. XIX. lish frec liberty, access, and recess to all planters, servants, negroes, fugitives, and runaways, which from time to time 1659. may come out of the jurisdiction of Maryland into the ju- risdiction of New Netherland." Lord Baltimore's claim Statement to the South River was utterly "denied, disowned, and Dutch. of the rejected." His patent was only twenty-four or twenty- seven years old; while the Dutch had been forty years in just and lawful possession. Lord Baltimore's patent did not refer to the Delaware Bay as much as did Plowden's "invalid" charter. The Dutch title to New Netherland, moreover, had been acknowledged and confirmed by the Lord Protector's omission to reduce it to subjection, and by the Peace of 1654. Yet, "to prevent further mischief," the envoys proposed that "three rational persons" might be chosen from each province, "to meet at a certain day and time, about the middle of between the bay of Chesa- peake and the aforesaid South River or Delaware Bay, at a hill lying to the head of Sassafrax River," with full powers to settle the bounds between New Netherland and Mary- land, or otherwise that the dispute be referred for settle- ment to their common sovereigns in Europe .*

This statement produced " an astonishing change" in Reply of Fendall and his council ; and a long discussion followed. Fendall. The Maryland governor declared that he had not intended to meddle with the government at Manhattan, but only with the settlers on Delaware Bay, to whom Utie had been sent; and on being told that the Dutch colonists there were subordinate to the provincial government of New Netherland, he replied that he " knew no better." With great vehemence, Utie broke in : " All that has been done Utie's in- was against people who had dared to settle within the prov- ince of my Lord Baltimore; if the governor will renew my commission, I will do as I did before." "If you return and act as you did," replied Heermans, "you will lose the

* This " declaration and manifesto" was drawn up in Dutch, and " Englished" by Mr. Simon Oversee, at Patuxent, by order of the Maryland council. A copy of that version, which is imperfect, is in N. Y. H. S. Coll , iii., 373-381, and in Hazard's Ann. Penn., 277- 284. Copies of the original Dutch are in Hol. Doc., ix., 171, 274 ; xvi., 127.

terposition.

668

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CH. XIX. name of ambassador, and will be treated as a disturber of

1659. 17 October.

the public peace."

Comment of the Dutch en- voys upon

more's pat- ent.

On the morrow, Fendall exhibited Lord Baltimore's pat- ent to the Dutch envoys, who, detecting its weakness, drew up a memorandum neatly embodying their views. "Lord Baltimore," they stated, "hath petitioned his royal majes- ty of England for a country in the parts of America which was not seated and taken up before, only inhabited (as he saith) by a certain barbarous people, the Indians. Upon which ground his royal majesty did grant and confirm the said patent. But now, whereas our South River, of old called Nassau River of New Netherland (by the English surnamed Delaware), was taken up, appropriated, and pur- chased, by virtue of commission and grant from the High and Mighty States General of the United Provinces long before, therefore is his royal majesty's intention and jus- tice not to have given and granted that part of a country which before was taken in possession and seated by the subjects of the High and Mighty States General of the United Provinces, as is declared and manifested heretofore. So that the claim my Lord Baltimore's patent speaks of to Delaware Bay, or a part thereof, in several other respects and punctuality is invalid."

Fendall's defense of the Mary- land pat- ent. This clever paper took Fendall by surprise. In defense of the English title, he insisted that the king had fully in- tended to include Delaware Bay in the Maryland patent ; and he required the Dutch to produce their patent for New Netherland. The envoys replied that they had not come for that purpose, but only to arrange a future meeting between the parties. Fendall then remarked that Clay- borne, who had made, without avail, a similar objection respecting his earlier possession of Kent Island, had been obliged to beg Lord Baltimore to save his life. "That was Answer of a different case," answered the New, Netherland negotia- the Dutch. tors : " we are not subjects of England, but a free, sov- ereign people of the Dutch nation, who have as much right to countries in America as any other state."

As the Dutch envoys had not produced their patent, the

669

PETER STUYVESANT, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

council thought that the easiest method of treating their CH. XIX. exceptions to the Maryland charter was "to take no no- tice." The next day, a reply to Stuyvesant's letter was 19 October 1659. nswer the Dutch delivered to the ambassadors. Utic's proceedings on the th South River were justified, and the colonists settled there papers. were declared to be intruders. The "original rights of the kings of England" must be maintained. "The pretended title" of the Dutch was pronounced to be " utterly none," and their alleged patent from the States General " void and of none-effect." With respect to "indebted persons," the Maryland courts would be open as freely to the Dutch as to the Virginians. Upon receiving this reply, Waldron 20 October returned to Manhattan; while Heermans went on to Vir- returns. Waldron ginia " to inquire of the governor what is his opinion upon goes to Vir- Heermans the subject ; to create a division between them both ; and ginia. to purge ourselves of the slander of stirring up the In- dians to murder the English at Accomac."*

Stuyvesant took care to communicate all these transac- 26 Dec. tions to his superiors in Holland. "Your honors may see," sant's re- Stuyve- said he, "that notwithstanding our remonstrance and that w. I. Co. of the commissioners with regard to the honorable compa- ny's indisputable title, right, and actual possession of the South River, those of Maryland held fast to their frivolous pretensions ; from which it may be presumed that they will take hold of the first opportunity to expel our people from our possessions, unless, ere long, regard is paid by your honors and the burgomasters of Amsterdam to the popula- tion and defense of these parts. We are already informed with some certainty that the governor of Maryland has already caused a survey to be made of these lands at the distance of about one or two miles from the fortress of New Amstel, and made a distribution of these among several

* Heermans' Journal, in Alb. Rec., xviii., 337-365, and Hol. Doc., xvi., 141-156 ; Haz- ard's Ann. Penn., 284-296; N. Y. H. S. Coll., iii., 382-386 ; O'Call., ii., 381-388. Not- withstanding the contemptuous treatment, by Fendall and his council, of the exceptions of the Dutch envoys to Lord Baltimore's patent, those exceptions formed the ground upon which the English Committee of Trade and Plantations decided in 1685 that Delaware did not belong to Maryland. Indeed, it may safely be asserted that the independent ex- istence of the present State of Delaware is mainly owing to the very reasons which the Dutch maintained so ably in 1659 .- See Bancroft, ii., 308, 393, 394, and the authorities there cited ; Lond. Doc., i., 65-76 ; N. Y. Col. MSS., iii., 23-27; Bozman, ii., 9 ; ante, p. 252.

port to the

670

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CH. XIX. inhabitants of Maryland; against whom, if they take act- 1659. ual possession, we earnestly solicit your honors' orders to know what we have to do, and how to conduct ourselves against such usurpers."*

30 Sept.

The disastrous condition of the city's colony had mean- while sorely annoyed the burgomasters of Amsterdam, at whose suggestion the city council resolved to retransfer New Amstel to the West India Company. But the com- pany " showed no inclination whatever thereto ;" and the 8 Nov. city was obliged to vote a further subsidy of twelve thou- sand guilders for the support of its colony. The compa- 14 October. ny attributed the misfortunes of New Amstel chiefly to "the too rigid preciseness of Director Alrichs." On the other hand, Alrichs accused Van Ruyven and Kregier of causing disaffection ; while Hinoyossa and Van Sweringen laid all the blame upon their own chief. In the midst of 9 Dec. Death of Domine Welius. these troubles, Domine Welius fell a victim to the epidem- ic, and the afflicted colonists lost a kind friend who had helped to sustain them under their heavy trials. A few 30 Dec. Of Alrichs. weeks afterward Alrichs died, having intrusted the gov- ernment to Hinoyossa. The colony was overwhelmed with debt ; of all the soldiers who had been sent out from Hol- land, but five remained at the Horekills, and ten at New Amstel. At the close of the year 1659, the inhabited part of the colony on the South River did not extend beyond two Dutch miles from the fort.t

8 Dec.

Eastern Long Is1- and under Connecti- cut. Emigrants from New England had all the while been actively colonizing the northern shores of Long Island, east- ward of Oyster Bay, which the Hartford treaty had sur- Southamp- rendered to the English. Southampton had been under ton the jurisdiction of the General Court at Hartford since Easthamp- 1644; and Easthampton, which was purchased in 1648, ton. from Wayandanck, the " sachem of Montauk," and three other chiefs, was likewise " annexed" to Connecticut in the spring of 1658. Releases of land further to the west were

* Alb. Rec., xviii., 69; S. Hazard, Ann. Penn., 298.

t Alb. Rec., iv., 310-312 ; xvii., 22-25 ; xviii., 417-426 ; Hol. Doc., xvi., 106, 115, 157, 177, 208; Cor. Classis Amst., Alrichs' letter, 12th December, 1659; Wagenaar, i., 595; Acrelius, 422 ; ()'Call., ii., 388 ; S. Hazard, Ann. Penn., 297-300.

671

PETER STUYVESANT, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

also obtained from Wayandanck by Richard Woodhull and CH. XIX. others, and settlements were begun at Huntington and Se- tauket, on Cromwell's Bay, now a part of the town of Brook- haven. The restless Underhill, finding himself at Setau- ket, joined with the inhabitants in petitioning the General 6 August. Court at Hartford to receive that settlement as " a member of the said body politic," with the same privileges which Southampton and Easthampton enjoyed, in consideration of their "remoteness from the head court, and the uncer- tain passage over the Sound." The next spring, a similar 1660. request was presented from Huntington. The General 17 May. Court accepted the propositions of both these plantations, "so far as they may be consistent with the articles of con- federation ;" and the next autumn liberty was granted by September the commissioners, to the jurisdiction of Connecticut, " to take Huntington and Sautaukett, two English plantations on Long Island, under their government." Much embar- rassment was caused to the people of Southampton and its neighborhood by the same Captain John Scott, who in 1654 Captain had been arrested and examined at New Amsterdam, and who now returned to England. Claiming to have obtain- 6 October. ed from the Indians large tracts of land, he executed nu- merous conveyances, which, after much litigation, were found to be fraudulent and void .*

Unwilling to relinquish their purpose of establishing 1659. themselves on the North River, the Massachusetts adven- turers brought their case before the commissioners, who wrote to Stuyvesant requesting that the planters might be 17 Sept. allowed a free passage up the Hudson River, " they de- the com- Letter of meaning themselves peaceably, and paying such moderate duties as may be expected in such cases." The exact bounds of the Massachusetts patent " we leave to that gov- ernment to clear," added the commissioners, "only we con- coive the agreement at Hartford, that the English should not come within ten miles of Hudson's River, doth not prej-

* Alb. Rec., xviii., 168 ; Lond. Doc., i., 77-83 ; N. Y. Col. MSS., iii., 27-29 ; Col. Rec. Conn., 112, 200, 316, 341, 348, 365, 566, 572; Hazard, ii., 7, 18, 94, 173, 191, 384, 434 ; Trumbull, i., 235, 237 ; Thompson's L. I., 1., 293-302, 380, 408-411, 433, 465, 484-488 ; ii., 320; Hutch. Coll., 380 ; ante, p. 297-300, 579.

1659. Huntington and Setau- ket.

John Scott.

Massachu- setts claims.

missioners

672

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CH. XIX. udice the rights of the Massachusetts in the upland coun- 1659. try, nor give any right to the Dutch there." Stuyvesant, however, remembering the history of the English settle- 29 October. ments on the Connecticut, explained that his orders from Stuyve- sant's an- swer. the West India Company obliged him to refuse "categor- ically" to all persons, except citizens of New Netherland, the right of trading upon or passing up and down the North River. At the same time, he again earnestly wrote to the Amsterdam Chamber, and asked that a frigate of fourteen' or sixteen guns should be at once stationed at New Am- sterdam, to protect the river and transport soldiers. Dis- satisfied with Stuyvesant's reply, the Massachusetts Gen- Nov. eral Court sent Hawthorne and Richards "to communicate their honest intentions in this matter, and to demonstrate the equity of the motion of the commissioners in their be- half." The agents claimed that as the upper part of the North River was covered by the patent of Massachusetts, within which " the Dutch perhaps may have intruded," that river should afford the English a passage, as the Rhine and the Elbe were free to the various countries on their upper banks. The Hartford treaty did not affect Massa- chusetts ; her commissioners had been merely arbitrators; even had they been principals, it would not alter the case, for the provisional boundary line extended only twenty miles northerly from the sea ; and, as the south line of Massachusetts was beyond that point, her patent was not impaired by the treaty .*

Claims of the Massa- chusetts agents.

22 Dec.

9 March. Instruc- tions of the

This bold claim was urged upon the director at the very moment that Maryland was asserting an adverse title to the South River. The Amsterdam Chamber promptly ap- proved his proposition to establish a Dutch colony at the Wappinger's Kill, and directed him to purchase the land there to check the projected enterprise of the New England 1660. men. Instructions were soon afterward sent him to allow no English to settle themselves on the North River, and to W. I. Com- repress all attempts at encroachment as he had already op- posed the Maryland project on the South River. Feeling pany.

* Hazard, ii., 408 ; Hutchinson's Coll., 318; Alb. Rec., xviii., 61, 62; xxiv., 161-164.

673

PETER STUYVESANT, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

that he had the right on his side, Stuyvesant now drew up CH. XIX. an argument in which he refuted the pretension of Mas- sachusetts. Her patent had no connection with the ques- 20 April. 1660. tion, for it was not granted until after that of the West In- dia Company. The North River having been discovered by the Dutch, and constantly visited by them for more than half a century, and actually colonized by the West India Company for over thirty-seven years, the claim that that river was within the Massachusetts patent, which was only thirty-two years old, " scarcely deserves a serious answer." The Dutch had not "intruded." With much more justice might those be called " intruders" who now endeavor to thrust themselves within the Dutch limits, and who had already settled themselves between the Fresh River and the North River, upon territory which the Dutch had pos- sessed and secured by forts many years before "one single Englishman had any land or possession" there. The Rhine and the Elbe were not like the North River. There was more analogy, in respect to situation, between it and the Thames ; yet the English did not throw open that river to other nations. The Dutch had never prohibited their In- dians from trading with other nations; but they could not grant Massachusetts, or any other foreign government, the right to come and traffic within their own lawfully-pur- chased territory. At the time of the Hartford treaty, Mas- sachusetts had made no claim to lands on the North River ; if such a claim had been then advanced, it would have been fairly discussed and fully disproved .*

But, while Stuyvesant was preparing this able reply to the encroaching claims of Massachusetts, he was not blind to the almost desperate condition of New Netherland. "Place no confidence," wrote he to the Amsterdam Cham- 21 April. ber, "in the weakness of the English government and its indisposition to interfere in affairs here. New England 1 .

* Alb. Rec., iv., 321, 331 ; xxiv., 165-174. If Stuyvesant could have examined the Mas- sachusetts patent, he would probably have strengthened his argument by taking ground similar to that which Heermans and Waldron did respecting the Maryland Charter, and would have insisted that the proviso in the patent actually declared it " void" with regard to the territory possessed by the Dutch before the 3d of November, 1620 ; ante, p. 189, 668.

Stuyve- sant's reply to the claims of Massachu- setts.

674

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CH. XIX. does not care much about its troubles, and does not want 1660. its aid. Her people are fully convinced that their power overbalances ours ten-fold ; and it is to be apprehended that they may make further attempts, at this opportunity, with- out fearing or caring for home interference." Two months afterward he again wrote, "the demands, encroachments, and usurpations of the English give the people here great concern;" and in succeeding dispatches, he urged the com- pany to send out re-enforcements ; to station a frigate at the mouth of the North River ; and to put him in a position authoritatively and successfully to repel the characteristic assumption by which the English maintained that they alone had chartered rights to the possession of lands in the northern regions of America .*

25 June. Stuyve- sant's dis- patches to the W. I. Company.

9 April. Tonneman schout of New Am- sterdam. 5 August.

Burgher right ex- tended.

New Amsterdam now obtained what she had so long asked in vain, a schout of her own; and Pieter Tonneman, lately of Breuckelen, returning from Holland with a com- mission from the Amsterdam directors, took his oath of of- fice, and his seat in the City Hall in place of De Sille. The merchants of the metropolis were also gratified by a further concession from Stuyvesant, which extended their " burgh- er right" to all parts of the province. A second survey and a map of the city were made this summer by Jacques Cor- telyou, and New Amsterdam was found to contain three hundred and fifty houses. At the request of the burgomas- ters, the director sent this map, together with " a perspect- ive view," which Heermans had made some years before, to the Amsterdam Chamber, in case it should be thought good " to make it more public by having it engraved."i

6 October. Map and survey of New Am- sterdam.

16 August. New Haer- lem incor- porated.

New Haerlem having by this time become sufficiently populous to entitle it to a village government of its own, an inferior court was organized there, and Jan Pietersen, Daniel Terneur, and Pieter Coussen, were appointed its

* Alb. Rec., xviii., 89, 90, 104, 123, 140, 144 ; Hol. Doc., ix., 169-171 ; Smith's Hist. N. Y., i., 11, 12 ; O'Call., ii., 403-406 ; Bancroft, ii., 310.

t Alb. Rec., iv., 339 ; viii., 266, 267 ; xviii., 107, 138 ; xxiv., 295 ; Hol. Doc., xvi., 221 ; New Amst. Rec., i., 96 ; iii., 391-395, 426 ; iv., 208, 291; ante, p. 623, 628, 640. Cortel- you's map does not appear to have been engraved, and is probably now lost ; but Heer- mans' sketch, having been added to the map which accompanied the second edition of Van der Donck's work, has been preserved; ante, p. 561, note.

675

PETER STUYVESANT, DIRECTOR GENERAL.

first magistrates, with a limited jurisdiction, and in subor- CH. XIX. dination to the high tribunals of the capital.

The recent occurrences at Esopus being considered in council, in connection with the difficulties with Maryland and Massachusetts, it was determined that hostilities with troops. the savages should be postponed, and that steps should be taken to raise a force of at least a hundred men, "without distinction of nation," in Virginia, or in the North. Ser- geant Andries Laurensen was accordingly commissioned 4 March. to go to the South River, and endeavor to enlist soldiers for the Esopus war among the Swedes and Finns, who were estimated to number about one hundred and thirty men able to bear arms.

The Indians around New Amsterdam now desiring a 6 March. closer friendship with the Dutch, a new treaty was made with the Treaty with the Long Island, Staten Island, Hackinsack, Haver- and and Long Ist- straw, and Weckquaesgeek tribes, to seal which more firm- dians. river In- ly, Stuyvesant required the savages to allow some of their children to be educated by the Dutch. "Whereas," reads the interesting record, "our posterity, after the lapse of ages, will see and know what we now speak and conclude together, while your posterity can not do it equally well, as they can not read nor write, we demand that you intrust Indian chi ?- us with the education of some of your children." The red educated by dren to be men assented ; and, leaving a child at New Amsterdam, the Dutch. promised to bring others when the opportunity offered. The next week, the chief of the Wappingers asked that 15 March. the Esopus savages might be included in the new treaty ; but the director, suspecting their sincerity, required that they should come in person to New Amsterdam. "They are too much frightened, and dare not come," replied the Wappinger mediator; and Stuyvesant, hoping that his pres- ence might move the savages to peace, promptly set out for Esopus. On his arrival, he found that Ensign Smit had 18 Marc ... gone with forty men into the interior, where he had cap- at Esopus. Stuyvesant tured twelve savages, and taken a quantity of corn, pease, and bearskins, besides the palisaded fort of " Wiltmeet." The prisoners and booty were ordered to be sent to New

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 65

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