Chapter VIII: New Netherland, or the Dutch in North America (2)

The latter, fearing that the destruction of the records would “unhinge the property of numbers in the colony, and throw all legal proceedings into the most fatal confusion,” requested, Sept. 2, 1775, Secretary Bayard, whose ancestor, Nicolas Bayard, also had them in charge when the English retook New York in 1674, to deposit them in some safe place. Bayard, struggling between his duties as a royal officer and his sympathies as a born American, hesitated to take the papers in his charge from the place appointed for their keeping, but packed them nevertheless in boxes to be ready for immediate removal. Sears’s _coup de main_ in November, 1775, and the intimation that he intended speedily to return with a larger body of “Connecticut Rioters” to take away the records of the province, induced Governor Tryon to remove “such public records as were most interesting to the Crown” on board of the “Dutchess of Gordon” man-of-war, to which he himself had fled for safety. When called upon, Feb. 7, 1776, by order of the Provincial Congress, to surrender them, he offered to place them on board a vessel, specially to be chartered for that purpose, which was to remain in the harbor. He pledged his honor that they should not be injured by the King’s forces, but refused to land them anywhere, because they could not be taken to a place safer than where they were. “Shortly afterwards,” he writes to Lord Germain in March, 1779, “the public records were for greater security (the Rebels threatening to board in the night and take the vessel) put on board the ‘Asia,’ under the care of Captain Vandeput. The ‘Asia’ being ordered home soon after the taking of New York, Captain Vandeput desired me to inform him what he should do with the two boxes of public records. I recommended them to be placed on board the ‘Eagle’ man-of-war.” The records not “most interesting to the Crown” (most likely including the Dutch records) were taken with Secretary Bayard to his father’s house in the “Out Ward of New York,” where a detachment of forty-eight men of the First New York City Regiment, later of Captain Alexander Hamilton’s Artillery Company, was detailed to guard them. In June of the same year, 1776, they were removed to the seat of government at Kingston, N. Y. Almost a year later two hundred men were raised for the special duty of guarding them, and when the enemy approached Kingston this body conveyed them to a small place in the interior (Rochester, Ulster County), whence they were returned to Kingston in November, 1777. From that date they followed the legislature and executive offices to New York in 1783, and finally in 1798 to Albany, where they have since remained. In New York the records which were carried off by Governor Tryon, and had been in the mean time transferred from the “Eagle” to the “Warwick” man-of-war and then returned to the city in 1781, were again placed with the others. At the instance of the New York Historical Society, the Dutch part of the State records were ordered to be translated; and this duty was entrusted by Governor De Witt Clinton to Dr. Francis A. van der Kemp, a learned Hollander, whom the political dissensions in the latter quarter of the eighteenth century had driven from his home. Unfortunately, Dr. van der Kemp’s knowledge of the English tongue was not quite equal to the task; nor was his eyesight, as he himself confesses in a marginal note to a passage dimmed by age, strong enough to decipher such papers as had suffered from the ravages of time and become almost illegible. This translation, completed in 1822, is therefore in many instances incorrect and incomplete; grave mistakes have been the consequence, much to the annoyance of historical students. Some of the errors were corrected by Dr. E. B. O’Callaghan, who published in 1849-54, under the authority of the State, four volumes of _Documents relating to the History of the Colony_ (1604-1799), selected at random from the copies procured abroad, from the State archives, and from other sources. In 1876 the Hon. John Bigelow, Secretary of State, directed the writer of this paper to translate and prepare a volume of documents relating to the Delaware colony, which was published in 1877; another volume, containing the records of the early settlements in the Hudson and Mohawk River valleys, translated by the writer, followed in 1881; this year will see a third, on the settlements on Long Island; and a fourth, to be published later, will contain the documents relating to New York city and the relations between the Dutch and the neighboring English colonies. These four volumes contain everything of a general and public interest, so that the parts not translated anew will refer only to personal matters.

These being the official sources of information for the history of New Netherland, it is proper to inquire whether they are trustworthy beyond doubt. The charge made by Robert Thorne, of Bristol, in 1527[792] against the “Portingals,” of having “falsified their records of late purposely,” might be repeated against the Dutch wherever the claim of first discovery of the country is discussed.

I have already stated that one of the motives, and perhaps the principal one, for establishing the West India Company was of a political nature. The destruction of Spain’s financial resources was to lead to an honorable and satisfactory peace with Holland. Spain relied for the sinews of war on its American colonies; and we must inquire how much of the information relating to location and extent of these colonies had reached the Dutch notwithstanding the Spanish efforts to suppress it.

Hakluyt says:[793] “The first discovery of these coasts (never heard of before) was well begun by John Cabot and Sebastian his son, who were the first finders out of all that great tract of land stretching from the Cape of Florida unto those Islands which we now call the Newfoundland, or which they brought and annexed to the Crown of England [1497].”

[This is a section of the Carta Universal of the Spanish cosmographer, Diego Ribero. It needs the following key:—

1. R. de St. iago.
2. C. de Arenas (Sandy Cape).
3. B. de S. _Χρō-a_l.
4. B. de S. Atonio.
5. Mōtana Vde.
6. R. de buena madre.
7. S. Juā Baptista.
8. Arciepielago de Estevā Gomez.
9. Mōtanas.
10. C. de muchas yllas.
11. Arecifes (reefs).
12. Medanos (sand-hills).
13. Golfo.
14. R. de M[=o]tanas.
15. Sarçales (brambles).
16. R. de la Buelta (river of return).
A. “Tiera de Estevā Gomez, la qual descrubrio
por mandado de su mag^t el año de 1525: ay
en ella muchos arboles y fructas de los de españa
y muchos rodovallos y Salmones y sollos: no han
alla do oro.”

The map, which is described more fully in another volume, has been the theme of much controversy, it being usually held to be the result of Gomez’s explorations; but this is denied by Stevens. References upon it by the Editor will be found in the Ticknor _Catalogue_, published by the Boston Public Library. It is of interest in the present connection as being one of the current charts of the coast, though made eighty years earlier, which Hudson could and did take with him. How he interpreted it is not known. In our day there is much diverse opinion upon its points. Mr. Murphy, for instance, in his _Voyage of Verrazzano_, puts the Hudson River at 5, and Cape Cod at 10. Sprengel, who published a memoir on this map in 1795, thought Hudson’s river was the one between 10 and 11. Asher, in his _Henry Hudson_, p. xciii, takes the same view. Kohl, in his _Discovery of Maine_, p. 304, and in his _Die beiden ältesten General-Karten von America_, p. 43, makes the river between 10 and 11 the Penobscot, and the hook near 2 Cape Cod, though he acknowledges some objections to this interpretation of the latter landmark, because the names between 2 and 8 are those that in later maps are given to the New Netherland coast. It seems to the Editor, however, as it does to Kohl, that Ribero had fallen into a confusion of misplacing names, common to early map-makers, and that we cannot keep the names right and accept the strange geographical correspondences which, for instance, Dr. De Costa imposes on the map in his _Verrazano the Explorer_, when he makes the hook near 2 to be Sandy Hook, at New York Bay, and the bay between 10 and 11 the Penobscot, which he thinks “clearly defined,” while “Ribero gives no hint of the region now embraced by Long Island, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.” It is difficult to accept Dr. De Costa’s “wildly exaggerated” Sandy Hook, or his notion of “Dr. Kohl’s confusion” in regarding the great gulf of these early maps, shown between 2 and 10, as the Gulf of Maine. With all the difficulties attending Kohl’s interpretation, it presents fewer anomalies than any other. There is so much uncertainty at the best in the interpretation of these early maps, that any understanding is subject to change from the developments now making in the study of this early cartography.—ED.]]

I will not assert that the Cabots actually saw and explored the whole coast from Florida to Newfoundland, but they must have brought away the impression that the land seen by them was a continent, and that no passage to the East Indies could be found in these latitudes, but should be looked for farther north. A map in the collection of the General Staff of the Army at Munich;[794] supposed to have been made by Salvatore de Pilestrina about 1517, shows that the cartographers of that period had accepted this Cabot theory as a fact. The voyage of Esteban Gomez in 1524, sent out “to find a way to Cathay” between Florida and the Baccalaos,[795] resulted only in discovering “mucha tierra, continuada con la que se llama de los Baccalaos, discurriendo al _Occidente y puesta en XL. grados y XLI_.”[796]

The next voyage along the coast of North America, made in 1526 by Lucas Vasquez de Aillon and Matienzo, must be considered of importance for the cartography of the first half of the sixteenth century; for their discoveries, although of no direct benefit to them or to Spain, proved to Spanish map-makers and their imitators that North America was not, like the West Indies, an archipelago of islands, but a continent. Even though Ramusio, in the preface to vol. iii. of his work, published in 1556, declares it is not yet known whether New France is connected with Florida or is an island, the maps made shortly after Aillon’s voyage[797] show that the cartographers had decided the matter in _their_ minds.

This knowledge was not confined to the map-makers and officials, who might have been forbidden to divulge such information. A contemporary writer says, in 1575:—

“La forme donc de la Floride est en peninsule et come triangulaire, ayant la mer qui la baigne de tous costez sauf vers le Septentrion.... Au Septentrion luy sont Hochelaga [Canada] et autres terres.... Or ce pays Floridien commence à la grande rivière, que les mondernes ont appelé de St. Jean [Cape Fear River?], qui le separe du pays de Norumbeg en la nouvelle France.” [798]

And I refer further to the divers _Descriptiones Ptolemaicæ_[799] published during the sixteenth century,—books accessible to the public of that day, and most likely known to and read by every navigator of the Atlantic.

To bring this information still nearer home to Henry Hudson, I mention the map made by Thomas Hood, an Englishman, in 1592,[800] and the work of Peter Plancius, published in 1594.[801] Hudson, an English navigator, could hardly have been ignorant of his countryman’s production, which shows under 40° north latitude the mouth of a river called Rio de San Antonio, the name given to Hudson’s River by the earlier Spanish discoverers. Before starting on his voyage in the “Half Moon,” Hudson had been in consultation with Dr. Peter Plancius, who adds to his chapter on “Norumberga et Virginia” a map, incorrect, it is true, as to latitudes and other details, but nevertheless showing an unbroken coast-line.

This cut is a fac-simile of one in the title of Schouten’s _Journal_, Amsterdam, 1618. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 87.]

When, therefore, it is stated that Hudson abandoned the plan of seeking for a northeast passage, in the hope of finding, under 40° north latitude, a passage to the Western Ocean, as advised by his friends Captain John Smith, of Virginia, and Dr. Plancius, we are asked to accept as true a statement made and spread about for political purposes. These will be understood when we recall the motives for the establishment of the West India Company,—a project in which Plancius, a minister of the Reformed Church, and as such driven from his Belgian home by the Spaniards, gave his hearty and active co-operation to Usselinx. International law gave possession for his sovereign to any one who discovered a new land not formerly claimed by any Christian prince or inhabited by any Christian nation. To have a base for their operations in America against Spain, Holland required territory not so claimed, and the shrewd projectors undoubtedly deemed it most advisable to establish this base not only in an unclaimed but also in a hitherto unknown country. Therefore it was necessary to claim for Hudson the discovery of the river bearing his name, as the West India Company did in 1634,[802] although a few years before, in 1632, they had admitted by inference[803] that Hudson’s River was known to other nations under the name of Rio de Montañas, and of Rio de Montaigne, before Hudson saw it.[804] In the following decade the statement of 1634 was forgotten, and the company in 1644 claimed title by the first discovery of the Hudson and Delaware rivers, through ships of the Greenland Company in 1598.[805] Still later, in 1659, by the mouth of their diplomatic agents in Maryland and Virginia, it is asserted that Holland derived its title to New Netherland through Spain as “first discoverer and founder of that New World,” and through the French, who, by one Jehan de Verrazano[806] a Florentine, were in 1524 the second followers and discoverers in the northern parts of America.[807] Falsification in politics was evidently then, as it is now, a venial sin; the statements made for political purposes, although emanating from official sources, must, therefore, be accepted with due caution.[808]

As the history of New Netherland is closely connected with that of the West India Company, and as the West India Company was one of the great political factors in the United Provinces, the Dutch State-Papers[809] and the writings of contemporaneous authors[810] must be duly considered by the student of this period of our history.

Most prominent among contemporaneous writers is Willem Usselinx, the originator of the Dutch West India and Swedish South Companies, even though his writings have not always a direct bearing upon the history of New Netherland. We know little of the life of this remarkable man, beyond the facts that he was a native of Belgium and a merchant at Antwerp, whom the political and religious troubles of the period had compelled to leave his fatherland and to seek refuge in Holland; that, inspired by hatred against Spain, he conceived the plan of the West India Company; that for some unexplained reason the West India Company lost his services, which were then, about 1626, offered to King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in the establishment of the South Company.[811] As Usselinx chiefly wrote before the West India Company was organized, and as its advocate, his books and pamphlets, instead of being historical, are of a more or less polemical character. He never forgets what he had to suffer through Spain, and points out constantly how important to Holland is the commerce of the West Indies, and that in their peace negotiations with Spain the States-General must by all means preserve the freedom of trading to America. These writings date from before Hudson’s voyage in 1609, and Usselinx disappears from the list of writers after the publication of the patent granted by Sweden to the South Company in 1627, unless we admit the above-quoted _West-Indische Spieghel_ to be his work. Asher, in his _Bibliographical Essay_, gives as the latest of his works the _Argonautica Gustaviana_,[812] and had evidently no knowledge of the _Advice to Establish a new South Company_, written by Usselinx in 1636.

The next writer to be considered had exceptional facilities in gathering his material. As director of the West India Company, Johannes de Laet[813] had of course ready access to the records, while as co-patroon of Rensselaerswyck he had an especial interest in the country where his daughter and son-in-law[814] had made their home. Two manuscript volumes in folio, written by De Laet himself, and now in the collection of Mr. J. Carson Brevoort, give us an idea of the painstaking diligence with which De Laet collected the matter of the books which he intended to write. These two volumes contain no material relating specially to New Netherland, but he made undoubtedly as extensive preparations for the chapter on the Dutch colony in North America in his _Nieuwe Wereld_,[815] as he had made for the others, by copying from the most authentic works on the subject, by talking with seafarers returned from the transatlantic colony, and by transcribing letters from private persons residing there. His intention to give to his fellow-citizens as perfect a description of the New World as circumstances would allow, was carefully carried out. It would have been difficult to produce anything better at the time when he wrote; and we must accept this book as the standard work on New Netherland of the seventeenth century, even though he makes in the book, as well as on its accompanying map, a few slight errors; saying, for instance, that “Manhattan Island is separated from the mainland by the Hellgate,” or that “Fort Orange stood [at the time of his writing, 1625] on an island close to the left [western] shore of [Hudson’s] river.”

The title of De Laet’s next work[816] is very misleading, for one would naturally expect to find the history of the first settlement on the soil of New York in all its details;[817] but the name of New Netherland is only mentioned, as it were, by accident. Still the book has its value for the student of the philosophy of American history, for in the preface the author frankly admits that the object of the West India Company was war on Spain, and he congratulates the country upon the successes so far obtained; and he further shows how the Company, organized for warlike purposes, could not give any attention to a country which, under the circumstances, required the utmost care for its profitable development. Considering that De Laet was personally interested in New Netherland as co-patroon of Rensselaerswyck and through the marriage of his daughter to an inhabitant of the province, it is astonishing to find so little said by him of the actual occurrences there. It may be that reasons of policy and prudence restrained him from baring to the public eye many things for which the Company could be called to account. The new race, however, with which his countrymen had come in contact, had sufficiently excited his interest to induce him to study their habits and speculate upon their origin, so that when the learned Grotius published a treatise on the American Indians,[818] De Laet rushed into the field combating Grotius’s theories.

While De Laet reports the events in New Netherland up to a given date as a member of the Government saw them, we have two authors before whose eyes some of these events took place, and who in writing about them criticise them in the manner of subjects and citizens. To the first of these, David Pietersen de Vries, _Artillerie-Meester van d’ Noorder Quartier_, Mr. Bancroft gives the credit of being the founder of the State of Delaware.[819] How far the abortive attempt of establishing the colony of Zwanendael, mentioned in the narrative, and the voyage bringing over the colonists may be called “the cradling of a state,” I leave others to decide. De Vries published in 1655 an account of his voyages[820] made twenty years before, and tells us in his book, in the most unvarnished manner and with the bluntness of a sailor, how badly New Netherland was being governed under the administration of Minuit and Van Twiller. No doubt as to the veracity of his statements can be entertained, as in his case there could be no motive for “divagation.” He views the loss of his Delaware colony with the proverbial equanimity both of a Dutchman and of a sailor, and stands so far above the coarseness of manners and life in his time, that he considers officials addicted to drink not much better than criminals. Where he speaks of matters not seen by himself, and of the Indians and their mode of life, he follows closely the best authority to be found; namely, the work of Domine Johannis Megapolensis.

The other author, Jonker[821] Adrian van der Donck, Doctor of Laws and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Holland, has done more to give to his contemporaries a full knowledge of the country of his adoption, and to implant in the country itself better institutions, than any other man. Sent over in 1642 as Schout (sheriff) of the Patroons’ Colony of Rensselaerswyck, he in 1647 left this service in consequence of a quarrel with the vice-director, and purchased from the Indians the colony of Colen Donck, now Yonkers, for which he received a patent in 1648.[822] A controversy arose about this time between the Government and several colonists, among whom was Van der Donck, which led to a remonstrance being drawn up, to be laid before the States-General for a redress of certain grievances which they had so far failed to obtain either from the provincial governor or the West India Company.[823] It is a contemporaneous relation of events in New Netherland signed by eleven residents of New Amsterdam. Its probable author was Van der Donck; at least his original journal was the source from which this “Remonstrance” was derived. The form in which Governor Stuyvesant seized it[824] is, however, different from the one in which it was published. In the latter it is divided in three parts: 1. A description of the natives and of the physical features of the country; 2. Events connected with the earliest settlements of the country; 3. Remonstrance against the policy of the West India Company. The tone and character of such a document must be necessarily aggressive; but, even though the reply to it by the provincial secretary, Van Tienhoven,[825] denies most of its allegations, it certainly contains valuable and trustworthy information.

Van der Donck’s next work, acknowledged by him as his own,[826] is an improvement on De Laet’s similar description. The time which had elapsed since De Laet’s publication had taught different lessons, and Van der Donck’s personal experience in the country described by him could not fail to give him a better insight than even the best written reports afforded to De Laet. But, with the latter, this author falls into the error of ascribing to the Indians a statement that the Dutch were the first white people seen by them, and that they did not know there were any other people in the world. This assertion is contradicted by the Long Island Indians, who talked with a later traveller, telling him that “the first strangers seen in these parts were Spaniards or Portuguese, who did not remain long, and afterwards the Dutch came.”[827] The so-called “Pompey Stone,” in the State Geological Museum, might be taken for another contradiction of De Laet’s and Van der Donck’s statements. Still more apparently contradictory evidence might be the similarity of some so-called Indian words with words of the Latin tongues.[828] Nor is Van der Donck correct in the relation of the discovery of the country by Hudson, and the map accompanying his work has several grave errors. The description of the physical features of the country, of the animals, and of the Indians is followed by a discourse between a patriot and a New Netherlander on the conveniences of the new colony, in which the questions are asked and answered, whether it is to the advantage of Holland to have such a flourishing colony, and whether this colony will ever be able to defend itself against foreign enemies.

Another resident of New Netherland, the Reverend Johannis Megapolensis (van Mekelenburg), one of the few educated men who came to this country at that early date, has given us a book which, though not strictly referring to the history of the country, must yet be considered as one of the collateral sources, and finds its most appropriate place here, following the _Descriptions_. As minister of the Reformed Church at Rensselaerswyck, whither he was called by the patroon in 1642, he came soon in close contact with the Indians; and having learned the difficult Mohawk language, he became, several years earlier than the New England preacher, John Eliot, a missionary among the Indians. The result of his labors was an account of the Mohawks, their country, etc.[829] This account was closely followed by De Vries, as mentioned above, and by most of the other writers on the Indians.

A large share of the material for this work Megapolensis must have received from Father Jogues, a Jesuit missionary whom the Dominie rescued from captivity among the Mohawks. The letters of this courageous and zealous servant of the Church to his superiors teem with information concerning the Indians, whom he endeavored to Christianize,[830] and at whose hands he died.

Either the financial success of De Laet’s works, whose copyright had in the mean time expired, or else the interest in New Netherland affairs which had been newly aroused by the presentation to, and discussion before, the States-General of the _Vertoogh_, led to the compilation in 1651[831] of a book on New Netherland by Joost Hartgers, a bookseller of Amsterdam, which is nothing more than a clever arrangement of extracts from De Laet’s _Description_, second edition, the _Vertoogh_, and Megapolensis’ Indian treatise. Of much greater importance and value to the historical student is an anonymous publication of 1659, the title of which gives no idea of its real contents. Like most popularly written works of the day discussing topics of public interest, it is in the form of a conversation between a countryman, a citizen, and a sailor, who discuss the deplorable depression of commerce, navigation, trade, and agriculture in Holland, and speculate on the best means to improve this state of affairs.[832] The author speaks of New Netherland matters with a positiveness which puts it beyond a doubt that he had been in that country.[833] Only a few pages are given to the description of New Netherland, but the propositions advanced on colonization, self-government of colonies, free-trade, and slavery are all aimed at the West India Company and its American territories. These propositions are of such a broad and liberal character, that they would do credit to any writer of our more enlightened times. A similar feeling of hostility against the West India Company and New Netherland, both then (1659) in a condition to invite criticism, pervades the work of Otto Keye,[834] who advocates the colonization of Guiana as being more rational and profitable than that of New Netherland. Starting with the argument that a warm climate is preferable to a colder one, on account both of physical comforts and of greater commercial advantages, he gives a description of the two countries, the bias being of course in favor of Guiana.

The most remarkable of all the contemporary Dutch books appeared also anonymously in 1662.[835] The description of the country given in this work adds nothing new to our store of information, and the book itself has therefore been ranked by American historians with such compilations as the works of Montanus, Melton, and others, who simply reprinted De Laet, Van der Donck, etc. It is, however, of great value, for through it we obtain an insight into the Dutch politics of the day, which had so far-reaching an influence on the history of New Netherland and on its colonization. The fight between the Gomarian (Orangist) and the Arminian[836] (Liberal) parties, which had so long prevented the first organization of the West India Company, had never been settled and was now revived. The De Witts, as leaders of the Arminians, were as much opposed to this organization as Oldenbarnevelt had been. Whether the ulterior loss of New Netherland, to which this opposition finally led, embarrassed them as much as is stated[837] or not, it was certainly at this time (1662) in the programme of the Arminian party to destroy the West India Company, and by reforming the government of New Netherland build up the country. This seems to have been the motive for writing the _Kort Verhael_, which, according to Asher,[838] was written by a journalist, opposing the third ultra-radical and the Orangist parties, in conjunction with a Mennonist. It will be remembered that in 1656-1657 part of the South River (Delaware) territory had been surrendered, for financial reasons, to the authorities of Amsterdam, and had ceased to be in the jurisdiction of the Governor-General of New Netherland. The plan[839] submitted to the burgomasters in the Requests and Representations, etc., aimed at a further curtailing of the Company’s territory in that region by planting there a colony of Mennonists, with the most liberal self-government, under the supreme jurisdiction of the city of Amsterdam; while the vehemence with which Otto Keye and his work favoring Guiana at the expense of New Netherland are attacked shows that the Anti-Orangists, though bent upon ruining one of the principal factors of the Orange party, were by no means inclined to give up New Netherland as a colony. A work from which copious extracts are given in the _Kort Verhael_, and called _Zeker Nieuw-Nederlants geschrift_,—“A Certain New Netherland Writing,”—seems to be lost to us; also a work, _Noort Revier_,—“North River,”—mentioned by Van der Donck.

The works of Montanus,[840] Melton,[841] and a few others[842] deserve no more mention than by title, as being compilations of extracts from books already referred to; and with these closes the list of such contemporary and almost contemporary Dutch works on New Netherland as are either purely descriptive or both descriptive and historical.

Of the contemporary Dutch works of purely historical character, not one treats of New Netherland alone; but the Dutch historians of the time could not well write of the _res gestæ_ of their nation without referring to what they had done on the other side of the Atlantic. The first of them in point of time, Emanuel van Meteren,[843] gives us in his _Historie van de Oorlogen en Geschiedenissen der Nederlanderen_,[844] a minute description of the discoveries made by Hudson, and must be specially consulted for the history of the origin of the West India Company. Although credulous to such an extent that the value of his painstaking labors is frequently endangered by the gross errors caused by his credulity, he had no chance of committing mistakes where, as in the case of the West India Company, everything was official. His information regarding Hudson’s voyage of 1609, we may assume, was derived from Hudson himself on his return to England, where Van Meteren lived as merchant and Dutch consul until 1612, the year of his death.

The next Dutch historian whose work is one of our sources, Nicolas Jean de Wassenaer,[845] takes us a step farther; but he too fails to give us much more than a record of the earliest years of the existence of the West India Company. His account of how this Company came to be organized differs somewhat as to the motives from all others.[846]

With the works of Aitzema,[847] _Saken van Staat en Oorlogh in ende omtrent de Vereenigde Nederlanden_, 1621-1669, and _Herstelde Leeuw_, 1650,[848] and with Costerus’s _Historisch Verhael_, 1572-1673, we come to the end of the list of Dutch historians giving us information of the events in New Netherland. But I cannot allow the reader to take leave of these Dutch books without a few words concerning the first book printed which treated of New Netherland. The _Breeden Raedt aende Vereenichde Nederlandsche Provintien ... gemaeckt ende gestelt uijt diverse ... memorien door I. A. G. W. C._, Antwerpen, 1649,[849] is neither purely historical nor descriptive, but its polemic character requires such constant allusion both to the events in, and to the geography of, New Netherland, that we must class it among the most important sources for our history. Its authorship is unknown, and has been subject to many surmises.

It may cause astonishment that the writers of Holland, a country then renowned for its learning, should not have thought it worth their while to write a history of their transatlantic colonies. But we must bear in mind, first, that the settlement of New Netherland was neither a governmental nor a popular undertaking; second, that in the beginning the West India Company had no intention of making it a colony, and that the people, who came here under the first governors as the Company’s servants, and also those who later came as freeholders, were hardly educated enough, even if they had not been too busy with their own affairs, to pay much attention to, or write of, public matters. The few educated men were officers of the Company, and did not care to lose their places by speaking with too much frankness of what was going on. Whatever they desired to publish they had to submit to the directors of the Company, and it is not likely that any unpleasant information would have passed the censor. Third, the Company did not desire any information whatever concerning New Netherland, except what they thought fit, to be given to the public,[850]—hence the obstacles which prevented Adrian Van der Donck from writing the history of New Netherland in addition to his _Description_,[851] and the scanty information which the contemporary historian has to give us.

Subsequent Dutch writers found a good deal to say about the Dutch colonies on the Hudson and Delaware rivers. The most trustworthy among them is Jean Wagenaar,[852] who, beginning life as a merchant’s clerk, felt a strong desire for acquiring fame as an author. He studied languages and history, and at last wholly devoted himself to Dutch history. His _Vaderlandsche Historie_ is held in Holland to be the best historical work written, although his political bias as an opponent of the House of Orange is evident. Wagenaar is, however, more an annalist than a historian. As official historiographer, and later Secretary of the City of Amsterdam, he had free access to the archives; hence his statements are not to be discredited. His account of the circumstances under which Hudson was sent out in 1609 differs materially from all other writers. “The Company,” he says, “sent out a skipper to discover a passage to China by the _northwest_, not by the northeast.” A resolution of the States of Holland, quoted by Wagenaar, proves that previous to Hudson’s voyage the Dutch knew that they would find _terra firma_ north of the Spanish possessions, and contiguous to them.[853]

The scantiness of information concerning New Netherland in Dutch books explains why we can learn still less from the writings of other nations; for sectional or national feeling caused either a complete silence on colonial affairs, or incorrect and contradictory statements, leading many to rely on hearsay, unsupported by records.

Among the earliest works (not in Dutch) speaking of New Netherland, we have the work of Levinus Hulsius (Hulse), a native of Ghent, distinguished for his learning, and after him his sons, who published, at Nürnberg, Frankfort, and Oppenheim, a _Sammlung von 26 Schiffahrten in verschieden fremde Landen_,—“Collection of twenty-six Voyages in many Foreign Countries,”—between the years 1598 and 1650; the twelfth part of this work chronicles the attempts of the English and Dutch to discover a passage by way of the North Pole, and includes Hudson’s voyage.[854] The twentieth part refers likewise to voyages to this continent, and specially to our coast. Other German works of this early period can only be mentioned by their title, because for the above reasons they are not sufficiently correct to be considered trustworthy sources of information.[855] Their titles show them to be not much more than “hackwork,” with little value to the contemporary or any later reader. But when we find that a celebrated geographer of the time, Philipp Cluvier (born at Dantzic, 1580, died 1623), omits all mention of the existence of such countries as New England and New Netherland, we can well understand how difficult it must have been to gather material for a universal geography.[856] Later editors of the same work, writing in 1697, had then apparently only just learned that up to 1665 a part of North America was called Novum Belgium. Hardly less ignorant, though he mentions Virginia and Canada in describing the bounds of Florida, is Gottfriedt in his _Neuwe Archontologia Cosmica_, Frankfort, 1638; yet he too was a distinguished geographer.[857]

Turning to the English, we find a few credible and a great many very fantastic and unreliable writers, treating either specially or incidentally of New Netherland. The first mention of the Dutch on the Hudson is made in a little work, republished in the _Collections_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society,[858] in which it is stated that an English sea-captain, Dermer, “met on his passage [from Virginia to New England] with certain Hollanders who had a trade in Hudson’s River some years before that time (1619).” This is probably the first application of Hudson’s name to the river. In a letter[859] from the same traveller, dated at a plantation in Virginia, December, 1619, he describes his passage through Hellgate and Long Island Sound, but does not say anything about the settlement on Manhattan Island.

This letter of Dermer and the _Brief Relation_ first informed the English that “the Hollanders as interlopers had fallen into ye middle betwixt the plantations” of Virginia and New England.[860] The _Description of the Province of New Albion_[861] informs us that “Capt. Samuel Argal and Thomas Dale on their return [from Canada in 1613] landed at Manhatas Isle in Hudson’s River, where they found four houses built, and a pretended Dutch governor under the West India Company’s of Amsterdam share or part, who kept trading-boats and trucking with the Indians;” but the official correspondence[862] between the authorities of Virginia and the Home Government proves that Argal and his party never went to New Netherland, although they intended to do so in 1621; for, hearing that the Dutch had settled on the Hudson, a “demurre in their p^{r}ceding was caused.”[863] The motive for making the above-quoted statement concerning Argal’s visit in 1613 is apparent. The imposing pseudonym under which the _Description of New Albion_ appeared was probably assumed by Sir Edmund Ploeyden (Plowden), to whom in 1634 Lord Strafford, then viceroy of Ireland, had granted the patent of New Albion[864] covering the Dutch possession, and who therefore had an obvious interest adverse to the Dutch title. Its publication at the time, when the right of the Dutch to the country was being discussed between England and the States-General of Holland, was intended to influence the British mind. It contains a queer jumble of fact and fancy, and it is not necessary to say more about its claims to be an historical authority than has already been published in the _Memoirs_ of the Pennsylvania Historical Society.[865]

Considering that, according to Van der Donck, Sir Edmund Ploeyden had been in New Netherland several times, it seems almost incredible that he should have made such astonishing statements, if he was the author of the book. A perusal of a work published a few years previous to the _Description of New Albion_ would have set him right, at least so far as the geography of the country was concerned.[866] The author of the _Short Discovery_ has very correct notions of the hydrography of New Netherland, acquired apparently by the study of Dutch maps; but the distances and degrees of latitude are as great a puzzle to him as to many other geographers and seamen of that day. As he wrote before the Dutch title to New Netherland was disputed, he is of course silent concerning the English claims to the territory.

The historian writing of New Netherland to-day has the advantage of being able to consult the journal of a governor of Massachusetts, John Winthrop, who took an active part in the occurrences which he describes.[867] Although it does not cover the whole of the Dutch period of New York, and his puritanical bias is occasionally evident, we have no more reliable source for the history of the relations between the colonies.

The few historical data given in the next book to be considered[868] are of interest, as the author endeavors to “assert the rights of the English nation in vouching the legal interest of England in right of the first discovery or premier seizure to Novum Belgium.” They show, however, also how in so short a period as a man’s life even contemporary history can be distorted. According to Heylin, who takes Sir Samuel Argal as his source, Hudson had been commissioned by King James I. to make the voyage of 1609, and after making his discoveries sold his maps and charts to the Dutch. The Dutch were willing to surrender their claims to Sir Edmund Ploeyden, he says, for £2,500, but took advantage of the troubles in England, and, instead of surrendering, armed the Indians to help them in resisting any English attempt to reduce New Netherland. Leaving aside Plantagenet’s _New Albion_, we meet here, in a work which the author’s high reputation must immediately have placed among the standard works of the day, a most startling falsification of facts and events which had occurred during the lifetime of the author. It is impossible to account for it, even if we suppose that these statements were made for political effect; for the men who read Heylin’s book had also read the correct accounts of Hudson’s voyages, and knew that Heylin’s statements were false. The learned prelate is only little less at fault in his geographical account. Although he tells us that Hudson gave his name to one of the rivers, he mentions as the two principal ones only the _Manhates_ or _Nassau_ or _Noort_ and the _South_ rivers, being evidently in doubt which is the Hudson. Heylin had studied geography better than his contemporary Robert Fage, who published about the same time _A Description of the whole World_, London, 1658, but he is utterly silent as to New Netherland. In 1667, when he published his _Cosmography, or a Description of the whole World, represented by a more exact and certain Discovery_, he had learned that “to the Southwest of New England lyeth the Dutch plantation; it hath good ground and good air, but few of that Nation are inhabiting there, which makes that there are few plantations in the land, they chiefly intending their East India trade, and but one village, whose inhabitants are part English, part Dutch. Here hath been no news on any matter of war or state since the first settlement. There is the Port Orange, thirty miles up Hudson’s River,” etc. This was written three years after New Netherland had become an English colony, when New York city numbered almost two thousand inhabitants, and some ten or twelve villages were flourishing on Long Island.

The best description, or rather the most ample, written by an Englishman, is that of John Josselyn, who published his observations made during two voyages to New England in 1638-1639 and 1663-1671.[869] Although he had been in the country, his notions concerning it are somewhat crude. New England, under which name he includes New Netherland, is thought to be an island formed by the “spacious” river of Canada, the Hudson, two great lakes “not far off one another,” where the two rivers have their rise, and the ocean. His account of the Indians, of their mode of living and warfare, is highly amusing, and at the same time instructive, although no philologist would probably accept as correct his statement that the Mohawk language was a dialect of the Tartar. Nor would the botanist place implicit faith in the statement that in New England barley degenerated frequently into oats; and the zoölogist would be astonished to learn of “frogs sitting upon their breeches one foot high.” His credulity has led this eccentric _raconteur_ into describing many similar wonderful details; but his work is nevertheless of value, as giving, I believe, the first complete description of the fauna and flora of the Middle Atlantic and New England States. In some of his historical data he follows Plantagenet, probably at second-hand through Heylin, and is so far without credit.

Religion, which had already done so much to increase the population of the colony on the Hudson, was to cause a new invasion by the Dutch into their old possessions. While Arminians and Gomarists, Cocceians and Vœtians, were continuing the religious strife in Holland, a new sect, the Labadists, sprang up. The intolerance with which they were treated compelled their leaders to look out for a country where they might exercise their religion with perfect freedom. An attempt at colonization in Surinam, ceded to Holland by England in the Treaty of Breda, 1667, having failed, they turned their eyes upon New York, then under English rule, and in 1679 sent two of their most prominent men—Jasper Danckers and Peter Sluyter—across the ocean to explore and report. The account of their travels was procured, translated, and published by Mr. Henry C. Murphy in the _Collections_ of the Long Island Historical Society.[870] It tells in simple language, showing frequently their religious bias, what the travellers saw and heard. The drawings with which they illustrated their journal give us a vivid picture of New York two hundred years ago. As they talked with many of the men who had been prominent in Dutch times, their account of historical events acquires special interest. The tradition then current at Albany, that the ruins of a fort on Castle Island indicated the place where Spaniards had made a settlement before the Dutch, is discredited by them; but the discovery of the so-called Pompey Stone, an evident Spanish relic, at not too great a distance from the Hudson River, makes it desirable that this tradition should receive special investigation. It is true the Indians in Van der Donck’s time who were old enough to recollect when the Dutch first came, declared that they were the first white men whom they saw;[871] but their descendants told these travellers “that the first strangers seen in these parts were Spaniards or Portuguese; but they did not remain long, and afterwards the Dutch came.” The Spaniards under Licenciado d’ Aillon had made landings and explored the country south and east of New York, and may not one of their exploring parties have come to Albany and fortified themselves?

While Aitzema gives us, in his _Saken van Staat_, the Dutch side of the public affairs in the seventeenth century, Thurloe,[872] in his _Collection of State Papers_, uncovers English statesmanship and diplomacy. His official position as secretary to the Council of State under Charles I., and afterwards to the Protector and his son, gave him a thorough insight into the workings of the public machinery, and makes his selection of papers extremely valuable. Among them will be found a document of the year 1656 on the English rights to New Netherland, which is highly interesting. I can refer only by title to other works of the seventeenth century speaking of New Netherland, as they are only either more or less embellished and incorrect repetitions of former accounts, or because they are beyond my reach.[873]

Skipping over a century, we come to the work of a native of New York, the _History of the Province of New York from its first Discovery to the Year 1732_, by William Smith, Jr. Considering that it was written and published before the author had reached his thirtieth year,[874] and that he had to gather his information from the then rare and scanty libraries of America and the official records of the province, the work reflects no small credit on its author. For the discovery by Hudson, he follows the accepted version,—that Hudson in 1608, under a commission from King James I., first landed on Long Island, etc., and afterward sold the country, or rather his rights, to the Dutch. Smith’s knowledge of law should have prevented his repeating this statement, for he ought to have been aware that Hudson could not have had any _individual_ claim to the country discovered by him. Another statement, repeated by Smith on the authority of elder writers,—namely, that James I. had conceded to the Dutch in 1620 the right to use Staten Island as a watering-place for their ships going to and coming from Brazil,—a careful perusal of the correspondence between the authorities of New Netherland and the Directors of the West India Company, then within easy reach, would have told him to be untrue or incorrect. If there were any truth in this statement, for which I have not found the slightest foundation, it would only prove that, with their usual tenacity of purpose, the Dutch, having once determined to settle on Manhattan’s Island, could not be deterred from carrying out their project. Although admitting that, in the long run, it would have been impossible for the Dutch to preserve their colony against the increasing strength of their English neighbors, he condemns the treachery with which New Netherland was wrested from the Dutch. It is to be regretted that with so many official Dutch documents as Smith found in the office of the secretary, he did not write the history of the Dutch period of the province with more detail, and that he studied those which he consulted with hardly sufficient care.

Before a proper interest in the history of New York had been reawakened after the exciting times of the Revolution and of 1812, it revived in the European cradle of New York to such an extent as to bring forth a valuable contribution to our historical sources from the pen of the learned Chevalier Lambrechtsen.[875] Its value consists principally in the fact that the author had access to the papers of the West India Company, since lost, and that it instigated research and called attention to the history of their State among New Yorkers, several of whom now set to work writing histories.[876] Not one of them is of great value now, the documents procured in the archives of Europe having thrown more and frequently a different light on many facts. Many statements are given as based on tradition, others are absolutely incorrect,[877] and none tell us anything about New Netherland that we have not already read in De Laet, Van der Donck, and other older writers.

To the anti-rent troubles in this State and to the researches into the rights of the patroons arising from them, we are indebted to the best work on New Netherland which has yet been written. Chancellor Kent’s assertion, that the Dutch annals were of a tame and pacific character and generally dry and uninteresting,[878] had deterred many from their study. Now it became an absolute necessity to discover what privileges had been held by the patroons under the Dutch government, and, upon examining the records, Dr. E. B. O’Callaghan was amazed to find a vast amount of historical material secluded from the English student by an unknown language. The writing of a history of that period, which had been a dark page for so long a time, immediately suggested itself; and as about the same time the papers relating to New York, which the State had procured abroad, were sent home by Mr. Brodhead, the agent of the State, the plan was carried into effect, and the _History of New Netherland, or New York under the Dutch_, by E. B. O’Callaghan, New York, 1846, vol. ii. 1850, made its appearance.[879]

It is perhaps beyond the possibilities of the human mind to write history, not simply annals, from a thoroughly objective point of view; but the historian must try to suppress his individuality as far as he can, or at least to criticise only the events of a remote period from the standpoint of that period, and not from his own, which is more modern and advanced. Dr. O’Callaghan followed no philosophy of history. He tried to suppress his individuality as Irishman, Canadian revolutionist, and devout Romanist; but occasionally it was stronger than his will, and impaired the objectivity and fairness of his judgment. Yet the descendants of the settlers of New Netherland owe to him a greater debt than to any of their own race, for he, first of any historian, has shown us the colony in its origin—the steadiness, sturdiness, and industry of the colonists, who were men as religious as the New England Puritans, but more tolerant towards adherents of other creeds. Notwithstanding this historian’s desire to be accurate in his statements, his unqualified reliance upon previous writers has on several occasions led him into errors, the gravest of which is perhaps the repetition of Plantagenet’s story of Argal’s invasion. I have tried to show above that the English documents disprove this statement, which O’Callaghan repeats on the authority of Heylin.