The History of New York State
Book I, Chapter III
Part VII

Editor, Dr. James Sullivan

Online Edition by Holice, Deb & Pam


It is somewhat unfortunate that all references of this incident are contained in English works and not a Dutch paper has been found which could, by the broadest of inferences, be connected with it. Murphy asserts that the Argall story is "a pure fiction, unsustained by any good authority;" #86 but it might be permissible here to remark that both Murphy's and Brodhead's reasearches were in Dutch records, mainly, and that both, in their interpretations, manifest a kindlier feeling toward the Dutch then toward the English.

In Plantagenet's "New Albion," #87 it is stated that Argall took back to Virginia a letter from the Dutch "governor," in which letter, the trader "submitted himself, company, and plantation, to his majesty and to the governor and government of Virginia." The latter was duly recorded, it is said. If so, it was no doubt destroyed with the early records of Virginia, which were burned at Williamsburg. Stith's "History of Virginia," published in 1747, was, it seems, based on the early records of the colony; at least, Jefferson says that Stith "had access to the early records," also to the papers of the London Company. AS Stith repeats the story of Argall's visit to Manhattan, there seems to be some justification for crediting it. Still, Stith dud not produce the latter of submission. So, at best, the story is open to question. In any case, however, it would not materially strengthen the English claim to New Netherland. #88

Plantagenet stated that Argall, in 1613, found four houses built "at Manhattan isle, in Hudson's River." These, it would seem, were the buildings erected #89 to house the crew of the burned "Tiger," while they were building the yacht "Onrust." It does not seem that Christiaensen, who was apparently in supreme charge of the American operations of the grouped Dutch merchants, erected a fort on Manhattan at that time. The fort erected in 1614 or 1615, on Castle Island, at the head of navigation, was probably the first built by the Dutch in New Netherland. Whether Christaensen was troubled in mind after the visit of the English in 1613, or whether he was merely following plans earlier formulated, can only be surmised. He seems to have soon take his vessel, the "Fortune," up to the head of navigation, and selected a site for a fort. If Argall visited Manhattan in November, 1613, Christiaensen's trip to Albany was probably deferred until the opening of navigation in the spring, though it is said that he had already "made ten voyages to the river," #90 before he built "the great trading post upon it, in 1614--Fort Nassau, on Castle Island." #91 Bancroft states that "the records prove that there was no fort at Albany till 1615," #92 but upon the "Figurative Map," of 1614, which Brodhead found in the archives at the Hague in 1841, the dimensions of Fort Nassau, on Castle Island, are given. No fort was at Manhattan then, nor in 1616, when another map was drawn. Indeed, it seems that no other fort was erected until after the West India company took possession of New Netherland in 1623. Stuyvesant testified to that effect in 160, also stating that Fort Nassau at Albany was built in 1614.#93

The plan of trading operations seem to have been comprehensively drawn during the winter of 1613-14. In the spring, Christiaensen went up the Mauritius River to the later Albany. Captain Block, in his yacht "Onrust," sailed through Hellegrat, #94

and into the Housatonic and Connecticut rivers, following the course of the latter for a long way, also exploring Long Island sound, discovering Narragansett Bay, and following the New England coast until he reached Nahant Bay, which he considered to be "the limit of New Netherland." Meanwhile, Captain May, in the "Fortuyn" (of Hoorn), explored the southern shore of Long Island and the Atlantic coast to Delaware Bay, the northern cape of which is known by his name, and to the southern headland of which he gave the name "Hindlopen." Captain John de Witt, in the "Little Fox," in the same year, sailed up the Mauritius river, and gave his man to one of the islands near Red Hook.

Possibly the main reason for this spurt in exploration lay in knowledge brought perhaps by one of the returned trading vessels, of the action of the High and Mighty Lords, States General, of the Untied Netherlands, who, on March 27, 1614, published an octroy which sought to excite and encourage "the good inhabitants" of the Provinces to seek pout and discover new lands. The paper further stated that "having been informed by some traders that they intend, through God's merciful help, by diligence, trouble, danger, and expense, to employ themselves thereat, as they should expect to derive handsome profit there from, if it pleased US to privilege, octroy, and favor them, that they should alone resort and sail to, and frequent the Courses, Havens, Countries, and Places by them newly found and discovered, for six voyages, in compensation for their outlays, troubles and dangers," the States General wished it to be known throughout the United Netherlands, that they, in their federal authority, wee disposed to protect enterprise. To the first inhabitant who should place before them direct convincing evidence of discovery, they were prepared to grant a trading company monopoly, to the entent of four voyages to the newly-discovered land.

Although the States General could not favor any group of citizens to the detriment of another group, and, although they could not indeed act al att without obtaining the sanction of the states and municipalities, it was probably recognized by the supreme and lesser governments that the octroy would be most likely to benefit those associated merchants who had equipped the five ships in 1612-13, and some of whose representatives were actually, at that moment, in the new land. It may be feasibly believed that these merchants hastened to seize the opportunity. Perhaps they took action before the publication of the octroy. Christiaensen, it would seem, lost no time introducing evidence of occupation. He built Fort Nassau on Castle Island, mounting two cannons and 11 swivel-guns upon it walls. It is said that he was the first commander of it, but the command seems to have soon devolved upon Jacob Eelkens, his deputy. Twelve men were detailed to garrison it, and as soon as possible Christiaensen's ship, the "Fortune," sailed down the river, and out of New York waters, bound for Holland. Possibly by arrangements, they sighted the "Onrust," off Cape Cod; where upon Captain Block took passage in the "Fortune," transferring the command of the "Onrust," to Cornelis Hendricksen, who, it is suggested, may have been the son of Hendrick Christaensen.

The record is somewhat hazy here, it being stated that Adriaen Block "embarked in his old companion's ship the 'Fortune' and returned with her to Holland, to report the discoveries which he and his fellow-navigators had made in the New World." Christiaensen does not come into the subsequent records of negotiations with the States General, and there is doubt whether he also returned with Block. There is doubt, indeed, whether he was then alive, Wassenaer stating that Christiaensen was murdered "not long after" he completed Fort Nassau. O'Callaghan is non-committal, and De Laet says that Block "returned home with the ship of Hendrick Christaensen," which, however, may not mean with his old fellow-navigators. Brodhead, however, was evidently under the impression that the death of Christiaensen did not take place until 1615.

Upon the arrival of Block at Amsterdam, the interested merchants took immediate steps "to appropriate to themselves the advantageous trade opened to them by their navigators." A cartographer was at once engaged, and, with Captain Block's assistance, drew a "Figurative Map" of the territory explored by himself and his associates. The merchants then deputed some of their number to proceed to the Hague, and lay the data before the States General. Adriaen Block, probably, accompanied the deputies. They appeared before the "high and mighty lords," of the Great Council and before these 12 dignitaries Block's narrative was told. The Figurative Map spread upon the oval council-table was the convincing evidence of discovery. The associated merchants had, apparently, met the conditions of the octroy, and were justified in claiming the trading privileges. The authorities interested therefore conferred, and eventually, on October 11, 1614, the States General was in a position to, and did, sign and seal a charter which granted to these deputies and their associates "all now united into one company," the exclusive right to trade in the "new lands situated in American, between New France and Virginia. . . . . . and called New Netherland." In the footnotes is given a translation of this charter, which seems to have been the first state document in which the name New Netherland appears. #95 The region is defined as extending from latitude 40° to 45° N., with the western limit undetermined, of course, the monopoly was to continue for three years from January 1, 1615, and to embrace four voyages with the period.

So, for another three years, this Amsterdam-Hoorn syndicate of ship-owners, merchants and navigators--either as the Amsterdam Company, the New Netherland Company, or the United New Netherland Company' generally as the last--controlled the operation of Dutch traders within the territory. Traders of other nationalities would probably not recognize the Dutch charter, but by its provisions the Dutch government forbade "any other person from the United Netherland to said to, navigate, or frequent" new Netherland during the existence of the charter, under pain of confiscation of any trade advantage secured and the infliction of a heavy fine.

Adriaen Block did not return to New Netherland. He took command of an expedition to the Arctic in 1615, in the employ of a newly-organized "Northern Company," which seems to have had whaling chiefly in mind. #96 New Netherland affairs seems to have devolved upon Eelken, after the death of Christiaensen. He collected "valuable cargoes of furs which, from time to time, were sent in shallops down the river to Holland." He was not content with bartering for the peltries that were brought to his trading station by Indians of nearby tribes. He began to reach our for trade. In 1616, three Dutch traders set out from Fort Nassau, on an expedition "into the interior, and downward, along the New (Delaware) River to the Ogehage." It would seen that the traders followed the trail of the Esopus Indians to the source of the Delaware. At all events, they were the first to explore the region. They descended those waters to the Schuykill, where they were captured by the Minquas.

news of their plight reaching Fort Nassau, Cornelis Hendricksen was sent in the "Onrust," from Manhattan, southward. He followed New jersey coast, and entered Delaware Bay. His little yacht being much more suited to those waters than Hudson's "Half Moon," had been, Hendricksen explored the Delaware region, discovering "three rivers, situated between the thirty-eighth and fortieth degree of latitude." They were probably the Delaware, the Schuykill, and the Hoarkill, or Broadkill Creek, upon which Lewiston now stands. He found the three traders "on the sit eof Philadelphia." They had been held for ransom; and this was paid in "kettles, beads, and other merchandise," It was at this time that the river above was given the name of "South," to distinguish it from the Mauritius (Hudson) River, which thereafter was known as the North River.

Upon the return of the "Onrust" to New York waters, Hendricksen took passage to Holland, eager to secure fro his employers an exclusive charter to trade in the regions he had recently explored. But he did not succeed, the States General being reluctant to jeopardize relations with England, by encroaching upon what they recognized as the bounds of the Virginia colony.

So the United New Netherland Company had to confine its operations to the North River chiefly. Eelkens was especially active from that center, but by this time he had realized that Fort Nassau was not ideally sited. Castle Island had been flooded several times, and during the spring thaw of 1617, a freshet almost swept the fort away. Eelkens then resolved to abandon it altogether, and seek another site. This he found on the west bank o the river, at the mouth of the Tawasentha, or Norman's Kill. It led to a strengthening of the bonds between the Iroquois and the Dutch. Champlain had brought marauding Canadian Indians into New York in 1615, thus again arousing the Iroquois. Eelkens made haste to benefit by the bitterness. He found the Iroquois nations especially receptive, and the Treaty of Tawasentha, the first to be completed between Indians and the Hollanders, was signed in 1617m, "in all the solemn forms of Indian diplomacy." The Mohawks were the prime movers of the treaty, but at the invitation of the Iroquois confederacy many other subordinate tribes attended the council. The supremacy of the Five Confederated Nations was acknowledged by the lesser tribes represented, and the solemn treaty of amity and alliance with the Dutch was signed. There was an interesting ceremonial. The Belt of Peace was held fast at one end by the Iroquois and at the other by the Dutch, the lesser parties resting under its middle. The calumet was smoked, and the tomahawk buried. Over it the Dutch declared that "they would erect a church, so that none should big it up again."

Thus the Dutch gained the lasting friendship of the powerful Iroquois. The agreement was the logical expression of the Dutch viewpoint, or at least of that of the Dutcher merchants who were exploring the region. They had no dreams of conquest, nor were they fired to religious zeal, two impelling motives present in Champlain, to his detriment. Eelkens sought only peltries, and he knew that the gathering of these in hostile country would be difficult. Moreover, he fully recognized that the peltries must be gathered by the Indians. So in Eelken's mind, the Indians were equal parties to the trading transaction. In this attitude he met them, a proud, powerful, honorable aboriginal group of nations.

Since basically the Dutch attitude did not change throughout the about 50 years of Dutch occupations, the compact entered into at Tawasentha was never seriously violated. There was Indian unrest--at least tribal excitement, which brought warfare between the Dutch and certain groups of Indians, but the Treaty of Tawasentha stood unchanged for 28 years, and a renewal in 1645 carried it forward until 1664, when the English displaced the Dutch, and New Netherland became New York. The English were even more careful to carry on the spirit of the treaty' so that this, which Jacob Eelkens negotiated in 1617, settled "the most momentous and far-reaching question ever brought to an issue on this continent," bringing to the side of the Dutch and their successors the friendship and strength "of that powerful confederation of red men who overawed or held in tribute the Indians from the Mississippi to the Atlantic and from Lake Champlain to the Chesapeake." The negotiations of the Treaty of Tawasentha was, therefore, one of the most significant steps in the destiny of America.

The charter of the United New Netherland Company expired by its own limitation in January, 1618. It hardly seems, however, that this company expected to be denied a renewal of their monopoly. They had certainly become well established in the region during the three years. profits had been satisfactory, the fort at Tawasentha was a strong one, a post had been established among the Esopus Indians, Dutch traders had penetrated to the rich vale of Tuplehocken, and drawn trade from a considerable portion of what is now Pennsylvania; the Manhattan Island depot, with its large storehouses, made "the little hamlet a social village"; and opposite Manhattan--at Bergen, in Scheyichbi or New jersey--it is asserted a trading settlement was commenced in 1618. The Treaty of Tawasentha, which to all intents gave the Dutch an army, was the assurance of the company that they could withstand French opposition. So the Untied New Netherland Company was, therefore, able to present strong arguments in support of its application for renewal of charter.

There were, however, stronger influence at work, influences with which the company could not hope to successfully compete. The truce with Spain was still the bone of contention. Since 1608, the civil aristocracy--in other works, the wealthy classes, head by Jan van Olden Barneveldt--had held the upper hand and kept the truce effective, against the wish of the bulk of the people, who were led by Prince Maurice of Nassau, the Stadtholder of the Republic of the Netherlands. One of the ways in which the truce was maintained inviolate was by refusing to charter a West India Company, armed with authority like that of the East India Company. The truce ingeniously drafted, an ambiguous clause enabling the East India company to trade without positively violating its terms, but no such scope could be given to a West India Company without war resulting. This catastrophe Barneveldt and his party desperately stove to prevent; and this was what Maurice and his party were anxious to bring about, deeming it to be good fortune, not misfortune. At the head of the Dutch armies, Prince Maurice had been wining notable victories, when Barneveldt, in 1607, swept away the war in the armistice, and subsequent truce. Each party though that the very existence of the Republic depended upon the success of its designs. The political strife showed itself in the division of the republic into the religious parties, those who favored the theological theories of Jacob van Hermansen (or in Latin form, Arminus) forming the Arminians, or Remonstrants, against those who supported Francis Gomar, who defended the current popular Calvinistic theology. Generally, the upper classes rallied to the Arminians, or Remonstrants, and the lower classes to the Calvinists, or Anti-Remonstrants. Barneveldt headed the Aminians and Maurice took the side of the people. Until James I, of England, lent his aid to the Calvinists, in 1617, in recommending the convocation of a national synod, Prince Maurice had been fighting a futile fight. After that events in his favor moved rapidly.

During this period of almost a decade all attempts to form a Dutch West India Company had come to nought. Barneveldt and his party had seen fit only top grant the makeshift trading licenses, such as that to the United New Netherland Company. It seems that in 1614, when the Dutch people wee awakening to the possibilities of the new land, several of the States favored the prompt erection of a West India Company. The States of Holland--the dominant member of the seven sovereign states, or provinces, that formed the confederation known as the United Netherlands--had under consideration, in July, 1614, an appeal by merchants, who sought a charter for a "general company," that is, a national association of capitalists, to direct the West Indian trade. The appeal was approved by the State legislature, and sent to the States General, the Federal body, or national Parliament. From another source, from "divers traders," the States General had been approached earlier in the same year, the petitioners praying "for the formation and erection in this country of a general company for the West Indies." On August 25, 1614, the States General recognized this powerful movement to the extend of resolving: "That the business of forming a General West India Company shall be undertaken tomorrow morning; moreover, that to this meeting shall come those deputed from the provinces, those who will request to promote this work, those who act on orders, as well as those who appear and have seats in the Assembly and at extraordinary meetings of other chambers, and at the meeting of their high Mightinesses." In the committee to arrange for this special order of business were placed Nicasius Kien and William Usselinex. What took place on the next day we do now know; but evidently no final decision was taken, for a week later, September 2, resolution was taken at the morning session of the States General "to make the question of the West India Company a special order again that same afternoon." Nothing resulted for: "the country was not yet ripe for the enterprise." Always before the States General loomed the truce, an insuperable obstacle. The States of Holland once again in the same year tried to revive the subject, but without success. Whether Grand Pentionary Barneveldt was the forbidding influence is not clear, but the failure seems to have been attributed to him.

So the next three years, during which the United New Netherland Company operated under a trading monopoly in the land that Hudson had discovered, were void of progress by those who sought to promote a powerful West India Company. It is true that public opinion had ripened behind the promoters, but Barneveldt and Grotius still held the government reins, determined to d nothing that might jeopardize the truce. The States were fast coming to see that the end of the truce was war; and there were some who would welcome such a termination. It has been said that until Barneveldt had been ousted, the proponents of a West India Company could do nothing ' that, in fact, "they had to pass over his body execute their plans." Certainly, they did gain their ends after Barneveldt had been beheaded, but such an extravagant statement seems to exaggerate the situation. The formation of the West India Company was not the chief cause at issue between Barneveldt and Maurice. Barneveldt's principal reason for opposing the incorporation was that the Company's operations would almost inevitably endanger the truce. Usselinex, by his own testimony, and probably with his own pet West India scheme in mind, advised Prince Maurice to use "violent measures" to "cut the Gordian

know of his difficulties" with Barneveldt; but these difficulties did not, therefore, necessarily center in the West India Company proposition. Schemes for trading could not foment such bitter antipathies as were then raging. Differing opinions on matters of religion, different theories on matters of ecclesiastical procedure, were rather the irritants that were inciting the two parties--Arminian and Calvinistic--to violence at that time. Maurice, supported by the plebian clerical party, wanted the Calvinistic system established as the State religion, with none other tolerated; Barneveldt, supported by the nobles and wealthy classes of the municipalities and provinces, contended that each State should have religious freedom--or at least to the extent of choosing for itself the form of Protestantism it wished to follow. When Maurice proposed the convocation of a national Synod, Barneveldt resisted. The English King fanned the flame. In March, 1617, King James interjected some theological advise, as was his meddlesome wont. In a long letter to the States General, the King of England strongly urged the convocation of the national synod, "as the most effective means of establishing the Reformed faith."--:the only solid cement" that could bind the two countries. Later Prince Maurice toured the towns, to gain the consent of the municipalities. He made considerable headway, but Advocate-General Barneveldt, "the prime Minster of Protestantism,' as Motley calls him, ever stood in his way in the State of Holland. So Prince Maurice resorted to sterner measures. He "cut the Gordian knot" by assuming full power. When disturbances broke out against the Arminians, Maurice refused to suppress them, and disarmed the militia organized by Barneveldt for the purpose. On August 17, 1618, the two leaders, Maurice and Barneveldt, me to see if they could not compose their differences; but each held stubbornly to his own views. The Stadtholder, thereupon, decided upon extreme measures--with the most evil malicious design, some think; or with the sternness of unflinching patriotism, as others view his act. On August 29 he caused Barneveldt to be arrested and thrown into prison, with Grotius and Hoogerbeets, other Arminian leaders. In the following November, by command of the Stadtholder, the famous Synod of Dortrecht assembled. The English King was well represented, and so were also other foreign Protestant heads, the churches of the Palatinate, Hesse, Switzerland, Bremen, and Emden sending delegates. The Anglican Church was represented by the Bishop of Llandaff, Dean of Worcester, Archdeacon of Taunton, and a professor of Cambridge University. The King also sent another in the name of the Church of Scotland. These added considerable strength to the Synod. During its sessions the Heidelberg Catechism and the Confession of Faith were approved and ratified, and the Arminians were pronounced "innovators, disturbers of the Church and Nation, obstinate and rebellious, leaders of factions, teachers of false doctrine, and schismatics." Altogether, the delegates closed their sessions satisfied that the Synod had, as its president declared in his closing address, "made Hell tremble" by its "marvellous labors."

The fate of Barneveldt caused the Arminians to stiffen, not tremble. Even in England, where at the time of the accession of James I no clergyman who valued his frock would dare to voice Arminian theories, soon came to look upon such doctrines as "the best title to preferment." "A divine of that age, who was asked by a simple country gentleman what the Arminians held, answered, with as much truth as wit, that they held all the best bishopric and deaneries in England." #97 Such was the reaction to the "judicial murder" of the venerable Barneveldt. Within a few days of the opening of the sessions of the Synod of Dort, the trial of the Arminian prisoners had begun before a special commission. Barneveldt was found guilty, and sentenced to death, although the proceedings, it is asserted, wee illegal. The sentence was "unscrupulously confirmed by the clerical synod," and, on May 14, 1619, Barneveldt no longer stood in the way of Maurice, or for that matter of the projectors of the West India Company. The venerable statesman, the patriot who, next to William the silent, had done more--though by different methods--to build the Netherlands into a might republic, laid his head upon the block without a sign of fear, and with only one exclamation: "O, God! What then is man."

By this time the plans of the projectors of the West India Company were well on the way to consummation. Within a few weeks of the arrest and imprisonment of Barneveldt, the States of Holland had, on September 18, 1618, again raised the subject of a West India Company. In November of that year, the Federal body had resolved to refer the matter to the various provincial legislatures. This was one of the necessary legislative requirements, to preserve State sovereignty; and, as is the case in the United States, such references necessarily consume much time. In the Dutch Republic, the routine was even more complicated, even more subject to procrastination, for approval must come from the municipalities, as well as from the States, before the Federal body, the States General, could take final action. As the chief obstacle--Barneveldt--had now been removed, there was no reason to suppose that the erection of the West India Company would not in due course be sanctioned; so the States General thought it better to deny the petition of the old trading company for a renewal of its charter. They preferred to keep the region open by granting temporary licenses to all applicants. Therefore, while the United New Netherland Company was the best equipped, and continued to send its ships to the region, and perhaps maintained permanent staffs at its several trading posts, they could not prevent other traders from entering into competition with them. A schism seems to have developed in the company during 1618. Perhaps the United New Netherland Company did not dissolve, but some of the associates seceded. It is not clear whether Jacob Eelkens, who, with "other participants in the late company,' petitioned, in October, 1618, to be allowed to send their ship, the "Scheldt," on a trading voyage to Manhattan, "without prejudice to or from their former associates." The States General promptly granted them this privilege. Another trader, who clashed with Eelkens and perhaps with the old company was Cornelis Jacobsen May, who sailed in command of the "Glad Tidings," in 1620 and later disputed the claims of Eellkens before the States General. The latter body, by this time, however, was able to "table" both claims, because of the increasing probability that the West India Company would soon be authorized.

The old company came before the home authorities in a somewhat interesting way in February, 1620. At this time, in petitioning Prince Maurice for recognition, the directors of the "New Netherland Company" admitted that they had continued their operations, remarking, however, that "other associations and private merchants were also depatching vessels thither.' They could have continued their normal trading operations, perhaps, indefinitely, without called upon the authorities for extraordinary consideration had not an entirely new factor now entered in New Netherland affairs--English refugee, of the Separatist persuasion, who had lived in Holland, chiefly in Leyden, since 1608, and whose religious principles were so much in harmony with Calvinism that they could have readily and willingly subscribed to the Articles of Faith of the Dutch Reformed Church, yet had serious misgivings as to their future security in the Netherlands. The truce would expire in a few years, and if Spain should gain the ascendancy, these self-exiled Puritans, as Carver, Bradford and others only too clearly saw, would be in a sadder plight than if in their own country. Sot hey had sent two of their number, Carver and Cushman, to England, in 1617, to negotiate with the Virginia Company, for their removal to a new home in the New World. On the religious toleration they sought assurances from King James; and the latter, though not prepared to so state, "by his public authority under his seal," was disposed to shut his eyes to their non-conformity if they should established an English colony in the New World. On the subject of religious toleration they sought assurances from King James; and the latter, though not prepared to so state, "by his public authority under his seal," was disposed to shut his eyes to their non-conformity if the should establish an English colony in the New World. This dampened the ardor of the exiles, but in 1619, another attempt was made and the Virginia company then granted a "large patent" to the Leyden Separatists, to settle themselves "in the northern parts of Virginia, southward of the fortieth parallel of latitude." While negotiations were in process in England, the Puritans in Leyden sounded another channel. They would not be opposed to removing to New Netherland, if they could there have a certain degree of colonial independence. They did not wish to lose their English identity, but they would be loyal to the Dutch. Robinson approached the Amsterdam merchants, stating that 400 families were inclined to go with him to form a colony on the North River, "to plant there the true and pure Christina religion, to convert the savages of those countries to the true knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith, and through the grace of the Lord, and to the glory of the Netherlands Government, to colonize and establish a new empire there, under the order and command," of the Prince of Orange, and the High Mighty Lords States General.

The Amsterdam merchants who were operating the old trading company thought so well of the proposition that they were willing to transport the English refugees thither without charge, and furnish each family with cattle, for they saw that such a colony, successfully established, must improve their chances of securing the trading monopoly. But the company could not meet the political demand of the Puritans. The latter asked for assurance that they would be protected against assault by foreign powers, England, France, or Spain, who might challenge the right of the United Netherlands to colonize the region.


The History of New York State, Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., 1927

This book is owned by Pam Rietsch and is a part of the Mardos Memorial Library

Transcribed by Holice B. Young

HTML by Debbie Axtman

You are the Visitor to this USGenNet Safe-Site™ Since September 5, 2004.