Chapter IV: , VII (196)

"The colony did not thrive. The patroon system kept settlers
away, and the paternal government of a trading corporation
checked all vigorous and independent growth, while Van Twiller
[Wouter Van Twiller, appointed governor in 1633] went steadily
from bad to worse. He engaged in childish quarrels with
everyone, from the minister down. … This utter misgovernment
led at last to Van Twiller's removal. He retired in possession
of large tracts of land, which he had succeeded in acquiring,
and was replaced [1638] by William Kieft, a bankrupt merchant
of bad reputation. Kieft practically abolished the Council,
and got all power into his own hands; but he had some sense of
order. … Despite his improvements, the place remained a mere
trading-post, and would not develope into a colony. The
patroons were the curse of the scheme, and too powerful to be
overthrown; so they proposed, as a remedy for the existing
evils, that their powers and privileges should be greatly
enlarged. The Company had bought back some of the lands; but
they were still helpless, and the State would do nothing for
them. In this crisis they had a return of good sense, and
solved the problem by destroying their stifling monopoly. They
threw the trade to New Netherlands open to all comers, and
promised the absolute ownership of land on the payment of a
small quit-rent. The gates were open at last, and the tide of
emigration swept in. De Vries who had bought land on Staten
Island, came out with a company; while ship followed ship
filled with colonists, and English came from Virginia, and
still more from New England. Men of property and standing
began to turn their attention to the New Netherlands; fine
well-stocked farms rapidly covered Manhattan, and healthy
progress had at last begun. Thus strengthened, the Company
[1640] restricted the patroons to a water-front of one mile
and a depth of two, but left them their feudal privileges,
benefits which practically accrued to Van Rensselaer, whose
colony at Beverwyck had alone, among the manors, thriven and
grown at the expense of the Company. The opening of trade
proved in one respect a disaster. The cautious policy of the
Company was abandoned, and greedy traders who had already
begun the business, and were now wholly unrestrained, hastened
to make their fortunes by selling arms to the Indians in
return for almost unlimited quantities of furs. Thus the
Mohawks obtained guns enough to threaten both the Dutch and
all the surrounding tribes, and this perilous condition was
made infinitely worse by the mad policy of Kieft. He first
tried to exact tribute from the Indians near Manhattan, then
offered a price for the head of any of the Raritans who had
destroyed the settlement of De Vries; and, when a young man
was murdered by a Weckquaesgeek, the Governor planned
immediate war." Public opinion among the colonists condemned
the measures of Kieft, and forced him to accept a council of
twelve select-men, chosen at a public meeting; but "the
twelve," as they were called, failed to control their
governor. Acting on the advice of two or three among them,
whose support he had secured, he ordered a cowardly attack
upon some fugitive Indians from the River tribes, who had been
driven into the settlements by the onslaught of the Mohawks,
and whom De Vries and others were trying to protect. "The
wretched fugitives, surprised by their supposed protectors,
were butchered in the dead of a winter's night [1643], without
mercy, and the bloody soldiers returned in the morning to
Manhattan, where they were warmly welcomed by Kieft. This
massacre lighted up at once the flames of war among all the
neighboring tribes of Algonquins. All the outlying farms were
laid waste, and their owners murdered, while the smaller
settlements were destroyed. Vriesendael alone was spared.
{2328}
A peace, patched up by De Vries, gave a respite until summer,
and the war raged more fiercely than before, the Indians
burning and destroying in every direction, while trade was
broken up and the crews of the vessels slaughtered." Kieft's
life was now in danger from the rage of his own people, and
eight men, appointed by public meeting, took control of public
affairs, as far as it was possible to do so. Under the command
of John Underhill, the Connecticut Indian fighter, who had
lately migrated to Manhattan, the war was prosecuted with
great vigor and success on Long Island and against the
Connecticut Indians who had joined in it; but little headway
was made against the tribes on the Hudson, who harassed and
ruined the colony. Thus matters went badly for a long period,
until, in 1647, the Company in Holland sent out Peter
Stuyvesant to take the place of Kieft. "In the interval, the
Indian tribes, weary at last of war, came in and made peace.
Kieft continued his quarrels; but his power was gone, and he
was hated as the principal cause of all the misfortunes of the
colony. The results of his miserable administration were
certainly disastrous enough. Sixteen hundred Indians had
perished in the war; but all the outlying Dutch settlements
and farms had been destroyed, and the prosperity of the colony
had received a check from which it recovered very slowly. In
Connecticut, the English had left the Dutch merely a nominal
hold, and had really destroyed their power in the East. On the
South river [the Delaware] the Swedes had settled, and,
disregarding Kieft's blustering proclamations, had founded
strong and growing colonies. … The interests of Holland were
at a low ebb."

_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 16._

A more favorable view of Kieft and his administration is taken
by Mr. Gerard, who says: "Few proconsuls had a more arduous
task in the administration of the government of a province
than had Director Kieft. The Roman official had legions at
command to sustain his power and to repel attack; and in case
of disaster the whole empire was at hand for his support.
Kieft, in a far distant province, with a handful of soldiers
crowded in a dilapidated fort and a few citizens turbulent and
unreliable, surrounded on all sides by savages ever on the
alert for rapine and murder, receiving little support from the
home government, and having a large territory to defend and
two civilized races to contend with, passed the eight years of
his administration amid turmoil and dissension within, and
such hostile attack from without as to keep the province in
continuous peril. The New England colonies were always in a
state of antagonism and threatening war. … The Swedes and
independent settlers on the South and Schuylkill rivers were
constantly making encroachments and threatening the Company's
occupancy there, while pretenders under patents and
independent settlers, knowing the weakness of the government,
kept it disturbed and agitated. What wonder that mistakes were
made, that policy failed, that misfortunes came, and that
Kieft's rule brought no prosperity to the land? The radical
trouble with his administration was that he was under a
divided rule—a political governor with allegiance to the
States-General, and a commercial Director, as the
representative of a great company of traders. The
States-General was too busily occupied in establishing its
independence and watching the balance of European power to
give supervision to the affairs of a province of small
political importance—while the Company, looking upon its
colony merely as a medium of commercial gain, drew all the
profit it could gather from it, disregarded its true
interests, and gave it only occasional and grudging support.
… Towards the Indians Kieft's dealings were characterized by
a rigid regard for their possessory rights; no title was
deemed vested and no right was absolutely claimed until
satisfaction was made to the native owner. Historians of the
period have been almost universal in their condemnation of him
for the various contests and wars engaged in with the Indians,
and have put on him all responsibility for the revolts. But
this is an ex post facto criticism, which, with a false
judgment, condemns a man for the results of his actions rather
than for the actions themselves. Indeed, without the energy
displayed by the Director towards the aborigines, the colony
would probably have been annihilated. … Imprudence,
rashness, arbitrary action, want of political sagacity may be
imputed to Director Kieft, but not excessive inhumanity, nor
want of effort, nor unfaithfulness to his employers or to his
province. He has been generally condemned, but without
sufficient consideration of the trials which he experienced,
the anxiety to which he was subject, and the perplexities
incident to a government over discontented, ignorant and
mutinous subjects, and to the continued apprehension of
outside attack. Left mostly to his own resources, and
receiving no sympathy and little aid, his motives the subject
of attack from both tavern and pulpit, and twice the object of
attempted assassination, his rule as a whole, though
disastrous, was not dishonorable."

_J. W. Gerard,
The Administration of William Kieft
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 6)._

ALSO IN:
_Mrs. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapters 6-8._

_E. B. O'Callaghan,
History of New Netherland,
book 2, chapter 7
and book 3, chapters 1-9 (volume 1)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1640-1643.
Expulsion of New Haven colonists from the Delaware.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664.
Peter Stuyvesant and his administration.

Peter Stuyvesant, the director or governor who succeeded
Kieft, "took possession of the government on the 11th of May,
1647. On his arrival he was greeted with a hearty and cordial
reception by the citizens, to which he responded by reciprocal
professions of interest and regard. He had for several years
been in the Company's service as Director of their colony at
Curaçoa, and was distinguished for his energy and bravery.
Having lost a leg in an attack on the Portuguese settlement at
St. Martin's, he had been obliged to return to Europe for
surgical aid, whence, still retaining his former commission,
he was sent to the charge of the Province of New Netherlands.
Immediately on his accession he organized a representative
Council of nine members from a list of eighteen presented to
him by the inhabitants of the province, and gave his assent to
various important provisions for the regulation of trade and
commerce. By a conciliatory and just treatment of the Indians
so recently in revolt he speedily gained their affection and
goodwill, and by his judicious measures for their mutual
protection restored peace and harmony among all classes."

_S. S. Randall,
History of the State of New York,
period 2, chapter 5._

{2329}

"The powers of government—executive, legislative, and
judicial—which he [Stuyvesant] assumed, were quite extensive,
and often arbitrary. Directly or indirectly, he appointed and
commissioned all public officers, framed all laws, and decided
all important controversies. … He directed churches to be
built, installed ministers, and even ordered them when and
where to preach. Assuming the sole control of the public
lands, he extinguished the Indian title thereto, and allowed
no purchase to be made from the natives without his sanction;
and granted at pleasure, to individuals and companies, parcels
of land, subject to such conditions as he saw fit to impose.
In the management of these complicated affairs the Director
developed a certain imperiousness of manner and impatience of
restraint, due, perhaps, as much to his previous military life
as to his personal character. … During the whole of his
predecessor's unquiet rule a constant struggle had been going
on between the personal prerogative of the Executive and the
inherent sentiment of popular freedom which prevailed among
the commonalty, leading the latter constantly to seek for
themselves the franchises and freedoms of the Fatherland, to
which, as loyal subjects, they deemed themselves entitled in
New Netherland. The contest was reopened soon after
Stuyvesant's installation, and the firmness of both Director
and people, in the maintenance of what each jealously
considered their rights, gave indication of serious
disturbance to the public weal." The governor, at length, in
1647, conceded "a popular representation in the affairs of
government. An election was therefore held, at which the
inhabitants of Amsterdam, Breuckelen, Amersfoort and Pavonia
chose eighteen of 'the most notable, reasonable, honest, and
respectable' among them, from whom, according to the custom of
the Fatherland, the Director and Council selected 'Nine Men'
as an advisory Council; and although their powers and duties
were jealously limited and guarded by the Director's
Proclamation, yet the appointment of the Nine Men was a
considerable gain to the cause of popular rights. … The
subsequent history of Stuyvesant's government is a record of
quarrels with colonial patroons, with the English in New
England, the Swedes on the South River, and last—not
least—with his own people. In fact, the government was by no
means well adapted to the people or adequate to protect them.
The laws were very, imperfect, and the Director and Council
either incompetent or indisposed to remedy the serious defects
which existed in the administration of civil and criminal
justice."

_H. R. Stiles,
History of the City of Brooklyn,
volume 1, chapter 3._

"Director Stuyvesant was recalled to Europe soon after the
surrender [to the English—see below], to vindicate his
conduct … and … found himself the object of serious
charges and most virulent attacks. He returned to this country
in 1668, and died on his bouwerie in 1672. … Throughout his
chequered life he exhibited a character of high morality, and
in his dealings with the Indians an energetic and dignified
deportment, which contributed, no doubt, considerably to the
success of his arms and policy. Alike creditable to his
talents are his negotiations with the neighboring English
colonies. His vindications of the rights of his country, on
these occasions, betoken a firmness of manner, a sharpness of
perception, a clearness of argument and a soundness of
judgment, combined with an extent of reading, which few of his
contemporaries could equal, and none surpass. … It would
afford pleasure were we justified in pronouncing a like
panegyric on other parts of his administration; but none can
review [his arbitrary resistance to just popular demands] …
and his persecution of the Lutherans and other Nonconformists,
without reprobating his tyranny, and regretting that a
character, so faultless in other respects, should be stained
by traits so repulsive as these, and that the powers of a mind
so strong should be exerted in opposing rather than promoting
civil and religious freedom. The hostility this part of his
public conduct evoked redounds most creditably to the
character of the settlers, whose struggles for freer
institutions cannot fail to win for them our sympathy and
regard."

_E. B. O'Callaghan,
History of New Netherland,
book 6, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_Remonstrance of New Netherlands
(Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 1, pages 275-317);
also volume 13._

_G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 9._

_B. Fernow,
Peter Stuyvesant
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 7)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
The adjustment of boundaries with Connecticut.

To settle the long pending controversy between Dutch and
English respecting the territory claimed by each on Long
Island and at the mouth of the Connecticut River, Governor
Stuyvesant went in person to Hartford, September, 1650, and
opened negotiations. His hands were tied from the beginning by
instructions from his company to press no claim to the
extremity of a quarrel, because the English were too strong in
America to be fought with. He assented, therefore, to the
appointment of two arbitrators on each side, and he named
Englishmen as his arbitrators. "The four agreed upon a
settlement of the boundary matter, ignoring all other points
in dispute as having occurred under the administration of
Kieft. It was agreed that the Dutch were to retain their
lands, in Hartford [the post of 'Good Hope,' established in
1633, and which they had continued to hold, in the midst of
the spreading English settlement]; that the boundary line
between the two peoples on the mainland was not to come within
ten miles of the Hudson River, but was to be left undecided
for the present, except the first 20 miles from the Sound,
which was to begin on the west side of Greenwich Bay, between
Stamford and Manhattan, running thence 20 miles north; and
that Long Island should be divided by a corresponding line
across it, 'from the westernmost part of Oyster Bay,' to the
sea. The English thus got the greater part of Long Island, a
recognition of the rightfulness of their presence in the
Connecticut territory, and at least the initial 20 miles of a
boundary line which must, in the nature of things, be
prolonged in much the same direction, and which in fact has
pretty closely governed subsequent boundary lines on that side
of Connecticut. If these seem hard terms for the Dutch, and
indicative of treachery on the part of their two English
agents, it must be borne in mind that, by the terms of his
instructions from his principals, Stuyvesant had to take the
best terms he could get. The treaty of Hartford was dated
September 19, 1650."

_A. Johnston,
Connecticut
(American Commonwealths),
chapter 10._

ALSO IN:
_E. B. O'Callaghan,
History of New Netherland,
book 4, chapters 1-9 (volume 2)._

_C. W. Bowen,
The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
part 1, chapter 1._

_Division of the Boundary in America
(Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 1, pages 541-577)._

{2930}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1653.
The grant of municipal government to New Amsterdam.

"An interesting moment arrived. A new city appeared in the
annals of the world. Its birth was announced on the evening of
February 2, 1653, at the feast of Candlemas. A proclamation of
the governor defined its exceedingly limited powers and named
its first officers. It was called New Amsterdam. There was
nothing in the significant scene which inspired enthusiasm. It
came like a favor grudgingly granted. Its privileges were few,
and even those were subsequently hampered by the most
illiberal interpretations which could be devised. Stuyvesant
made a speech on the occasion, in which he took care to reveal
his intention of making all future municipal appointments,
instead of submitting the matter to the votes of the citizens,
as was the custom in the Fatherland; and he gave the officers
distinctly to understand, from the first, that their existence
did not in any way diminish his authority, but that he should
often preside at their meetings, and at all times counsel them
in matters of importance. … A pew was set apart in the
church for the City Fathers; and on Sunday mornings these
worthies left their homes and families early to meet in the
City Hall, from which, preceded by the bell-ringer, carrying
their cushions of state, they marched in solemn procession to
the sanctuary in the fort. On all occasions of ceremony,
secular or religious, they were treated with distinguished
attention. Their position was eminently respectable, but it
had as yet no emoluments. … There were two burgomasters,
Arent van Hattam and Martin Cregier. … There were five
schepens,—Paulus Van der Grist, Maximilian Van Gheel, Allard
Anthony, Peter Van Couwenhoven, and William Beekman."

_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 10._

ALSO IN:
_D. T. Valentine,
History of the City of New York,
chapter 5._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1654.
Threatened attack from New England.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1655.
Subjugation of the Swedes on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
The English conquest.
New Amsterdam becomes New York.

The Navigation Act of Cromwell, maintained by the English
after the Stuart Restoration, was continually evaded, almost
openly, in the British American colonies; and it was with the
Dutch at New Amsterdam that the illicit trade of the New
Englanders, the Virginians and the Marylanders was principally
carried on. "In 1663 the losses to the revenue were so
extensive that the framers of the customs … complained of
the great abuses which, they claimed, defrauded the revenue of
£10,000 a year. The interest of the kingdom was at stake, and
the conquest of the New Netherland was resolved upon. … The
next concern of the Chancellor [Clarendon] was to secure to
the Crown the full benefit of the proposed conquest. He was as
little satisfied with the self-rule of the New England
colonies as with the presence of Dutch sovereignty on American
soil; and in the conquest of the foreigner he found the means
to bring the English subject into closer dependence on the
King. James Duke of York, Grand Admiral, was the heir to the
Crown. … A patent to James as presumptive heir to the crown,
from the King his brother, would merge in the crown; and a
central authority strongly established over the territory
covered by it might well, under favorable circumstances, be
extended over the colonies on either side which were governed
under limitations and with privileges directly secured by
charter from the King. … The first step taken by Clarendon
was the purchase of the title conveyed to the Earl of Stirling
in 1635 by the grantees of the New England patent. This
covered the territory of Pemaquid, between the Saint Croix and
the Kennebec, in Maine, and the island of Matowack, or Long
Island. … A title being thus acquired by the adroitness of
Clarendon, a patent was, on the 12th of March, 1664, issued by
Charles II. to the Duke of York, granting him the Maine
territory of Pemaquid, all the islands between Cape Cod and
the Narrows, the Hudson River, and all the lands from the west
side of the Connecticut to the east side of Delaware Bay,
together with the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
The inland boundary was 'a line from the head of Connecticut
River to the source of Hudson River, thence to the head of the
Mohawk branch of Hudson River, and thence to the east side of
Delaware Bay.' The patent gave to the Duke of York, his heirs,
deputies, and assigns, 'absolute power to govern within this
domain according to his own rules and discretions consistent
with the statutes of England.' In this patent the charter
granted by the King to the younger John Winthrop in 1662 for
Connecticut, in which it was stipulated that commissioners
should be sent to New England to settle the boundaries of each
colony, was entirely disregarded. The idea of commissioners
for boundaries now developed with larger scope, and the King
established a royal commission, consisting of four persons
recommended by the Duke of York, whose private instructions
were to reduce the Dutch to submission and to increase the
prerogatives of the Crown in the New England colonies, which
Clarendon considered to be 'already well nigh ripened, to a
commonwealth.' Three of these commissioners were officers in
the royal army,—Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr,
Colonel George Cartwright. The fourth was Samuel Maverick. …
To Colonel Nicolls the Duke of York entrusted the charge of
taking possession of and governing the vast territory covered
by the King's patent. To one more capable and worthy the
delicate trust could not have been confided. … His title
under the new commission was that of Deputy-Governor; the
tenure of his office, the Duke's pleasure. … When the news
of the gathering of the fleet reached the Hague, and
explanation was demanded of Downing [the English ambassador]
as to the truth of the reports that it was intended for the
reduction of the New Netherland, he boldly insisted on the
English right to the territory by first possession. To a claim
so flimsy and impudent only one response was possible,—a
declaration of war. But the Dutch people at large had little
interest in the remote settlement, which was held to be a
trading-post rather than a colony, and not a profitable post
at best.
{2331}
The West India Company saw the danger of the situation, but
its appeals for assistance were disregarded. Its own resources
and credit were unequal to the task of defence. Meanwhile the
English fleet, composed of one ship of 36, one of 30, a third
of 16, and a transport of 10 guns, with three full companies
of the King's veterans,—in an 450 men, commanded by Colonels
Nicolls, Carr, and Cartwright,—sailed from Portsmouth for
Gardiner's Bay on the 15th of May. On the 23d of July Nicolls
and Cartwright reached Boston, where they demanded military
aid from the Governor and Council of the Colony. Calling upon
Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and appointing a
rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set sail
with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside
of Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place
of Lord Howe's troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by
militia from New Haven and Long Island. The city of New
Amsterdam … was defenceless. The Director, Stuyvesant, heard
of the approach of the English at Fort Orange (Albany),
whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the Indians.
Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The
folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by
which the Director-General sought to save something of his
dignity, a commission for a surrender was agreed upon between
the Dutch authorities and Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation
confirmed the inhabitants in the possession of their property,
the exercise of their religion, and their freedom as citizens.
The municipal officers were continued in their rule. On the
29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified … and the
city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on
taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the
civic authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam
be thereafter known as New York, and the fort as Fort James,
in honor of the title and name of his lord and patron. At the
time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its
magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not
exceed 1,500 souls, was housed within the triangle at the
point of the island. … Nicolls now established a new
government for the province. A force was sent up the Hudson
under Captain Cartwright, which took possession of Fort
Orange, the name of which was changed to Albany, in honor of a
title of the Duke of York."

_J. A. Stevens,
The English in New York
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 10)._

ALSO IN:
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of New York,
volume 1, chapter 20._

_Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
volumes 2-3._

See, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
The separation of New Jersey,
by grant to Berkeley and Carteret.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
The annexation of the Delaware settlements.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664-1674.
The province as the English received it.
Dutch institutions, their influence and survival.

"In the year 1664, when the government passed to the English,
New Netherland is said by the Chevalier Lambrechtsen to have
consisted of three cities and thirty villages. Its population
was then about ten thousand souls, exclusive of the Indians,
who were important auxiliaries for trade and peltries. The
inhabitants enjoyed a fair measure of freedom and protection.
High roads already existed, and there were numerous owners of
flourishing farms, or bouweries, and other real property,
while urban life was well policed by proper laws. The
treatment by the Dutch of the many English and other aliens
who already dwelt within the Dutch territory was rather in
advance of the age, while the jurisprudence established here
by the Dutch, being largely borrowed from the high
civilization of Rome, was certainly superior in refinement to
the contemporary feudal and folk law introduced by the English
in 1664. Theoretically, the administration of justice
conformed to a high standard, and both Dutch and aliens were
protected by adequate constitutional guaranties. We cannot for
an instant presume that the institutions which half a century
had reared were swept into oblivion by a single stroke of the
English conquerors in 1664. It would be more rational to
suppose that the subsidence of the Dutch institutions was as
gradual as the facts demonstrate it to have been. Negro
slavery was introduced by the Dutch, but it existed here only
under its least objectionable conditions. A large measure of
religious liberty was tolerated, although the Dutch Reformed
Church was the only one publicly sanctioned. On several
occasions delegates of the commonalty were brought into
consultation with the Director-General and Council, and thus,
to some extent, a principle of representative government was
at least recognized, although it was somewhat at variance with
the company's standard of colonial government, and savored too
much of the English idea and encroachment to be palatable. It
must not be forgotten that at home the Dutch were a
self-governing people and accustomed to that most important
principle of free government—self-assessment in taxation. In
common with all commercial peoples, they possessed a sturdy
independence of mind and demeanor. There is no proof that
these excellent qualities were diminished by transplantation
to the still freer air of the new country. New Netherland was
not altogether fortunate in its type of government, experience
demonstrating that the selfish spirit of a mercantile monopoly
is not the fit repository of governmental powers. Yet, on the
whole, it must be conceded that the company's government
introduced here much that was good and accomplished little
that was pernicious. In 1664 it certainly surrendered to the
English one of the finest and most flourishing colonies of
America, possessing a hardy, vigorous, and thrifty people,
well adapted to all the principles of civil and religious
freedom. History shows that this people speedily coalesced
with all that was good in the system introduced by the
English, and sturdily opposed all that was undesirable. … It
is certain … that after the overthrow of the Dutch political
authority the English proceeded gradually to introduce into
New York, by express command, their own laws and customs. Yet
it requires a very much more extended examination of original
sources than has ever been made to determine absolutely just
how much of the English laws and institutions was in force at
a particular epoch of colonial history. The subject perplexed
the colonial courts, and it is still perplexing."

_R. L. Fowler,
Constitutional and Legal History, of New York
in the 17th Century
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 14)._

{2332}

"Although the New Netherland became a permanent English colony
under the Treaty of Westminster in 1674 [see below], its
population remained largely Dutch until nearly the middle of
the next century. The prosperity of New York, growing steadily
with the progress of trade and the exportation of grains,
attracted emigrants from Holland notwithstanding the change of
flag. Many families now living on Manhattan Island are
descended from Dutchmen who came out after the English
occupation. The old names with which we have become familiar
in the early annals of New Amsterdam continue in positions of
honour and prominence through the English colonial records. In
1673, we find among the city magistrates Johannes van Bruggh,
Johannes de Peyster, Ægidius Luyck, Jacob Kip, Laurans van der
Spiegel, Wilhelm Beeckman, Guleyn Verplanck, Stephen van
Courtlandt. In 1677, Stephanus van Courtlandt is mayor, and
Johannes de Peyster deputy mayor. In 1682, Cornelis Steenwyck
is mayor; in 1685, the office is filled by Nicholas Bayard; in
1686, by Van Courtlandt again. Abraham de Peyster was mayor
from 1691 to 1695; and in his time the following Dutchmen were
aldermen: W. Beeckman, Johannes Kip, Brandt Schuyler, Garrett
Douw, Arent van Scoyck, Gerard Douw, Rip van Dam, Jacobus van
Courtlandt, Samuel Bayard, Jacobus van Nostrandt, Jan
Hendricks Brevoort, Jan van Home, Petrus Bayard, Abraham
Wendell, John Brevoort. These names recur down to 1717. In
1718, John Roosevelt, Philip van Courtlandt, and Cornelius de
Peyster are aldermen. In 1719, Jacobus van Courtlandt is
mayor, and among the aldermen are Philip van Courtlandt,
Harmanus van Gilder, Jacobus Kip, Frederic Philipse, John
Roosevelt, Philip Schuyler. In 1745, Stephen Bayard is mayor.
During the last half of the eighteenth century the Dutch names
are more and more crowded out by the English. … By the
beginning of the nineteenth century, the Dutch names occur
only occasionally. These Dutchmen not only preserved their
leadership in public affairs, but carried on a large
proportion of the city's trade. New York was an English
colony, but its greatness was largely built on Dutch
foundations. It is often said that the city became flourishing
only after the English occupation. This is true, with the
qualification that the Dutch trader and the Dutch farmer after
that event had greater opportunities for successful activity.
… Dutch continued to be the language of New York until the
end of the seventeenth century, after which time English
contended for the mastery with steady success. In the outlying
towns of Long Island and New Jersey and along the Hudson
River, Dutch was generally used for a century later. … In
New York city the large English immigration, the requirements
of commerce, and the frequent intermarriages of Dutch and
English families had given to English the predominance by the
year 1750. … In New York city the high-stoop house, and the
peculiar observance of New Year's Day which continued until
1870, are two familiar relics of Holland. The valuable custom
of registering transfers of real estate has been received from
the same source."

_B. Tuckerman,
Peter Stuyvesant,
chapter 4._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.
The Duke's Laws.

"At a general meeting held at Hempstead, on Long Island [March
1, 1665], attended by deputies from all the towns, Governor
Nichols presently published, on his own and the duke's
authority, a body of laws for the government of the new
province, alphabetically arranged, collated, and digested,
'out of the several laws now in force in his majesty's
American colonies and plantations,' exhibiting indeed, many
traces of Connecticut and Massachusetts legislation. … The
code [was] known as the 'Duke's Laws,' which Nichols imagined
'could not but be satisfactory even to the most factious
Republicans.' A considerable number of immigrants seem to have
come in on the strength of it from the neighboring colonies of
New England,"

_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 17 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_The Duke of York's Book of Laws,
compiled and edited by S. George, et al._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665-1666.
French invasions of the Iroquois country,
under Courcelles and Tracy.

See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
The reconquest of the city and province by the Dutch.

The seizure of New Netherland by the English in 1664 was one
of several acts of hostility which preceded an actual
declaration of war between England and Holland. The war became
formal, however, in the following year, and ended in 1666,
ingloriously for England although she retained her American
conquests.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666

Then followed a period of hypocritical alliance on the part of
Charles II. with the Dutch, which gave him an opportunity to
betray them in 1672, when he joined Louis XIV. of France in a
perfidious attack upon the sturdy republic.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

During the second year of this last mentioned war, Cornelis
Evertsen, worthy son of a famous Dutch admiral, made an
unexpected reconquest of the lost province. Evertsen "had been
sent out from Zealand with fifteen ships to harass the enemy
in the West Indies, which was effectually done. At Martinico
he fell in with four ships dispatched from Amsterdam, under
the command of Jacob Binckes. Joining their forces, the two
commodores followed Krynssen's track to the Chesapeake, where
they took eight and burned five Virginia tobacco ships, in
spite of the gallantry of the frigates which were to convoy
them to England. As they were going out of the James River,
the Dutch commodores met a sloop from New York," and received
information from one of its passengers which satisfied them
that they might easily take possession of the town. "In a few
days [August 7, 1673] the Dutch fleet, which, with three ships
of war from Amsterdam, and four from Zealand, was now swelled
by prizes to 23 vessels, carrying 1,600 men, arrived off Sandy
Hook. The next morning they anchored under Staten Island." On
the following day the city, which could make no defense, and
all the Dutch inhabitants of which were eager to welcome their
countrymen, was unconditionally surrendered. "The recovery of
New York by the Dutch was an absolute conquest by an open
enemy in time of war. … 'Not the smallest' article of
capitulation, except military honors to the garrison, was
granted by the victors. …
{2333}
Their reconquest annihilated British sovereignty over ancient
New Netherland, and extinguished the duke's proprietary
government in New York, with that of his grantees in New
Jersey. Evertsen and Binckes for the time represented the
Dutch Republic, under the dominion of which its recovered
American provinces instantly passed, by right of successful
war. The effete West India Company was in no way connected
with the transaction. … The name of 'New Netherland' was of
course restored to the reconquered territory, which was held
to embrace not only all that the Dutch possessed according to
the Hartford agreement of 1650, but also the whole of Long
Island east of Oyster Bay, which originally belonged to the
province and which the king had granted to the Duke of York.
… It was, first of all, necessary to extemporize a
provisional government. No orders had been given to Evertsen
or Binckes about New Netherland. Its recovery was a lucky
accident, wholly due to the enterprise of the two commodores;
upon whom fell the responsibility of governing their conquest
until directions should come from the Hague." They appointed
Captain Anthony Colve to be Governor General of the Province.
"Colve's commission described his government as extending from
15 miles south of Cape Henlopen to the east end of Long Island
and Shelter Island, thence through the middle of the Sound to
Greenwich, and so northerly, according to the boundary made in
1650, including Delaware Bay and all the intermediate
territory, as possessed by the English under the Duke of York.
… The name of the city of New York was … changed to 'New
Orange,' in compliment to the prince stadtholder. … The
metropolis being secured, 200 men were sent up the river, in
several vessels, to reduce Esopus and Albany. No opposition
was shown." Albany was ordered to be called Willemstadt.

_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapters 4-5._

ALSO IN:
_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 14-15._

_Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
volume 2._

_Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 9._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674.
Restored to England by the Treaty of Westminster.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674-1675.
Long Island annexed, with attempts against half of
Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684.
Doubtful origin of English claims to the sovereignty of the
Iroquois country.

"Colonel Dongan [governor of New York] was instrumental in
procuring a convention of the Five Nations, at Albany, in
1684, to meet Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia,
at which he (Dongan) was likewise present. This meeting, or
council, was attended by the happiest results. … Colonel
Dongan succeeded in completely gaining the affections of the
Indians, who conceived for him the warmest esteem. They even
asked that the arms of the Duke of York might be put upon
their castles;—a request which it need not be said was most
readily complied with, since, should it afterwards become
necessary, the governor might find it convenient to construe
it into an act of at least partial submission to English
authority, although it has been asserted that the Indians
themselves looked upon the ducal insignia as a sort of charm,
that might protect them against the French."

_W. L. Stone,
Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
volume 1, page 15._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684-1687.
French invasions of the Iroquois country
under De La Barre and De Nonville.

See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1686.
The Dongan Charter.

"The year 1686 was distinguished by the granting of the
'Dongan Charter' to the city of New York. It was drafted by
Mayor Nicholas Bayard and Recorder James Graham, and was one
of the most liberal ever bestowed upon a colonial city. By it,
sources of immediate income became vested in the corporation.
Subsequent charters added nothing to the city property, save
in the matter of ferry rights, in immediate reference to which
the charters of 1708 and 1730 were obtained. … The
instrument was the basis of a plan of government for a great
city."

_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, page 317._

ALSO IN:
_M. Benjamin,
Thomas Dongan and the Granting of the New York Charter
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 11)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
Joined with New England under the governorship of Andros.

In April, 1688, Sir Edmund Andros, who had been made
Governor-general of all New England in 1686, received a new
commission from the King which "constituted him Governor of
all the English possessions on the mainland of America, except
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 'Territory
and Dominion' of New England was now to embrace the country
between the 40th degree of latitude and the River St. Croix,
thus including New York and the Jerseys. The seat of
government was to be at Boston; and a Deputy-Governor, to
reside at New York, was to be the immediate head of the
administration of that colony and of the Jerseys. The Governor
was to be assisted by a Council consisting of 42 members, of
whom five were to constitute a quorum. … The Governor in
Council might impose and collect taxes for the support of the
government, and might pass laws, which however were, within
three months of their enactment, to be sent over to the Privy
Council for approval or repeal. … The seal of New York was
to be broken, and the seal of New England to be used for the
whole jurisdiction. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed,
agreeably to the Declaration of Indulgence."

_J. G. Palfrey,
Compendious History of New England,
book 3, chapter 14 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 18._

_J. R. Brodhead, editor
Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 3, pages 537-554._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.
The Revolution.
Jacob Leisler and his fate.

News of the revolution in England which drove James II. from
the throne, giving it to his daughter, Mary, and her husband,
William of Orange, reached New York, from Virginia, in
February, 1689, but was concealed as long as possible from the
public by Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson. No disturbance of the
authority of the latter occurred until after the people of
Boston had risen, in April, and seized the Governor-General,
Sir Edmund Andros, stripping his authority from him and
casting him into prison. This spirited movement was followed a
little later by like action in New York. Two parties had
quickly taken form, "one composed of the adherents of James,
the other of the friends of William and Mary. The former
embraced the aristocratic citizens, including Nicholas Bayard,
the commander of the city militia, the members of the council,
and the municipal authorities.
{2334}
The friends of the new monarchs formed a large majority of the
citizens. They maintained that the entire fabric of the
imperial government, including that of the colonies, had been
overthrown by the revolution, and that, as no person was
invested with authority in the province, it reverted to the
legitimate source of all authority—the people—who might
delegate their powers to whomsoever they would. Among the
principal supporters of this view was Jacob Leisler, a German
by birth, a merchant, the senior captain of one of the five
train-bands of the city commanded by Colonel Bayard, and one
of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants. … He was a zealous
opponent of the Roman Catholics, and a man of great energy and
determination. … Rumors of terrible things contemplated by
the adherents of James spread over the town, and produced
great excitement. The five companies of militia and a crowd of
citizens gathered at the house of Leisler, and induced him to
become their leader and guide in this emergency. Colonel
Bayard attempted to disperse them, but he was compelled to fly
for his life. A distinct line was now drawn between the
'aristocrats,' led by Bayard, Van Cortlandt, Robert
Livingston, and others, and the 'democrats'—the majority of
the people—who regarded Leisler as their leader and
champion. At his suggestion a 'Committee of Safety' was
formed, composed of ten members—Dutch, Huguenot, and English.
They constituted Leisler 'Captain of the Fort,' and invested
him with the powers of commander-in-chief—really chief
magistrate—until orders should come from the new monarch.
This was the first really republican ruler that ever attained
to power in America. He took possession of Fort James and the
public funds that were in it, and, in June, 1689, he
proclaimed, with the sound of trumpets, William and Mary
sovereigns of Great Britain and the colonies. Then he sent a
letter to the king, giving him an account of what he had
done." Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson made little attempt to
assert his authority in the face of these demonstrations, but
departed presently for England, "after formally giving
authority to his councillors to preserve the peace during his
absence, and until their Majesties' pleasure should be made
known. … Nicholson's desertion of his post gave Leisler and
the Republicans great advantages. He ordered the several
counties of the province to elect their civil and military
officers. Some counties obeyed, and others did not. The
counter influence of Nicholson's councillors was continually
and persistently felt, and Leisler and his party became
greatly incensed against them, especially against Bayard, who
was the chief instigator of the opposition to the 'usurper,'
as he called the Republican leader. So hot became the
indignation of Leisler and his friends that Bayard was
compelled to fly for his life to Albany. The other
councillors, alarmed, soon followed him. At Albany they
acknowledged allegiance to William and Mary. They set up an
independent government, and claimed to be the true and only
rulers of the province. In this position they were sustained
by the civil authorities at Albany." Leisler's son-in-law,
Jacob Milborne, was sent with a force to take possession of
their seat of government, but failed to accomplish his
mission. "Soon after this event a letter arrived at New York
by a special messenger from the British Privy Council,
directed to 'Francis Nicholson, Esq., or, in his absence, to
such as, for the time being, take care for preserving the
peace and administering the laws in His Majesty's province of
New York.'" This letter was delivered by the messenger to
Leisler. Bayard, who had come to the city in disguise, and
attempted to secure the missive, was arrested and imprisoned.
"From this time the opposition to Leisler's government assumed
an organized shape, and was sleepless and relentless. Leisler
justly regarding himself as invested with supreme power by the
people and the spirit of the letter from the Privy Council, at
once assumed the title of lieutenant-governor; appointed
councillors; made a new provincial seal; established courts,
and called an assembly to provide means for carrying on war
with Canada. … Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed
Governor of New York, but did not arrive until the spring of
1691. Richard Ingoldsby, a captain of foot, arrived early in
the year, with a company of regular soldiers, to take
possession of and hold the government until the arrival of the
governor. He was urged by Leisler's enemies to assume supreme
power at once, as he was the highest royal officer in the
province. He haughtily demanded of Leisler the surrender of
the fort, without deigning to show the governor his
credentials. Leisler, of course, refused, and ordered the
troops to be quartered in the city. Ingoldsby attempted to
take the fort by force, but failed. For several weeks the city
was fearfully excited by rival factions—'Leislerians' and
'anti-Leislerians.' On the arrival of Governor Sloughter, in
March (1691), Leisler at once loyally tendered to him the fort
and the province. Under the influence of the enemies of
Leisler, the royal governor responded to this meritorious
action by ordering the arrest of the lieutenant-governor; also
Milborne, and six other 'inferior insurgents' … , on a
charge of high treason." The accused were tried, convicted and
sentenced to be hanged; but all except Leisler and Milborne
received pardon. These two appealed to the king; but the
governor's councillors succeeded in suppressing the appeal. As
Sloughter hesitated to sign the death-warrant, they
intoxicated him at a dinner party and obtained his signature
to the fatal document while his judgment was overcome. Before
the drunken governor recovered his senses Jacob Leisler and
Jacob Milborne had been hanged. "When the governor became
sober, he was appalled at what he had done: He was so keenly
stung by remorse and afflicted by delirium tremens that he
died a few weeks afterward. Calm and impartial judgment,
enlightened by truth, now assigns to Jacob Leisler the high
position in history of a patriot and martyr."

_B. J. Lossing,
The Empire State,
chapter 8._

"Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs,
but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are
imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the
utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an
opposition led by persons who held office under King James.
They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the
office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity
as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a
patriot."

_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic,
chapter 3._

{2335}

"The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler.
… And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a
martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice,
aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as
one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors
of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a
traitor."

_W. Dunlap,
History of the New Netherlands,
volume 1, chapter 12._

ALSO IN:
_C. F. Hoffman,
The Administration of Jacob Leisler
(Library of American Biographies,
series 2, volume 3)._

_Papers relating to
Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration
(O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2)._

_Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration
(New York Historical Society Collection, 1868)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War: The Schenectady massacre.
Abortive expedition against Montreal.
French plans of conquest.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697:

NEW YORK: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1692.
Bradford's press set up.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696.
Count Frontenac's invasion of the Iroquois country.

See CANADA: A. D. 1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696-1749.
Suppression of colonial manufactures.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711.
Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal.
Capture of Port Royal.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1710.
Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson.
Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.

See PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
Conflicts of royal governors with the people.
Zenger's trial.
Vindication of the freedom of the press.