Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 121)

C. H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven, chapter 3, section 5.

ALSO IN: S. Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, pages 57-178.

{2320}

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667. The English occupation and proprietary grant to Berkeley and Carteret. The naming of the province. The Newark immigration from New Haven.

"Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of his easily acquired territory [of New Netherlands, or New York—see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664], on the 23d and 24th of June, 1664, he executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of Saltrum in Devon, granting to them, their heirs and assigns, all that portion of his tract 'lying and being to the westward of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath upon the west, Delaware bay or river, and extending southward to the main ocean as far as Cape May, at the mouth of Delaware bay; and to the northward, as far as the northernmost branch of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is 41° 40' of latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to Hudson's river, in 41° of latitude; which said tract of land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Cæsarea, or New Jersey.' The name of 'Cæsarea' was conferred upon the tract in commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of Jersey, in 1649, by Sir George Carteret, then its governor, against the Parliamentarians; but the people preferred the English name of New Jersey, and the other was consequently soon lost. The grant of the Duke of York from the crown conferred upon him, his heirs and assigns, among other rights appertaining thereto, that most important one of government; the power of hearing and determining appeals being reserved to the king; but, 'relying,' says Chalmers, 'on the greatness of his connection, he seems to have been little solicitous to procure the royal privileges conferred on the proprietors of Maryland and Carolina,' whose charters conferred almost unlimited authority. 'And while as counts-palatine they exercised every act of government in their own names, because they were invested with the ample powers possessed by the prætors of the Roman provinces, he ruled his territory in the name of the king.' In the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret, they, their heirs and assigns, were invested with all the powers conferred upon the duke. … Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, now sole proprietors of New Jersey, on the 10th February 1664, signed a constitution, which they made public under the title of 'The Concessions and agreement of the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant there.' … On the same day that this instrument was signed, Philip Carteret, a brother to Sir George, received a commission as governor of New Jersey. … The ship Philip, having on board about 30 people, some of them servants, and laden with suitable commodities, sailed from England in the summer, and arrived in safety at the place now known as Elizabethtown Point, or Elizabeth Port, in August of the same year. What circumstance led to the governor's selection of this spot for his first settlement, is not now known, but it was, probably, the fact of its having been recently examined and approved of by others. He landed, and gave to his embryo town the name of Elizabeth, after the lady of Sir George. … Governor Carteret, so soon as he became established at Elizabethtown, sent messengers to New England and elsewhere, to publish the concessions of the proprietors and to invite settlers. In consequence of this invitation and the favorable terms offered, the province soon received large additions to its population."

W. A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments (New Jersey Historical. Society Collections., volume 1), period 2.

"In August, 1665, he [Governor Carteret] sent letters to New England offering to settlers every civil and religious privilege. Mr. Treat and some of his friends immediately visited New Jersey. They bent their steps toward the New Haven property on the Delaware Bay, and selected a site for a settlement near what is now Burlington. Returning by way of Elizabeth, they met Carteret, and were by him influenced to locate on the Passaic River. … Early in the spring of 1666, the remnant of the old New Haven, the New Haven of 1638, under the leadership of Robert Treat and Mathew Gilbert, sailed into the Passaic. … In June, 1667, the entire force of the little colony was gathered together in their new abode, to which the name 'Newark' was applied, in honor of Mr. Pierson's English home. [Mr. Pierson was the minister at Branford, in the New Haven colony, and his flock migrated with him to Newark almost bodily.] The Fundamental Agreement was revised and enlarged, the most notable expansion being the following article: 'The planters agree to submit to such magistrates as shall be annually chosen by the Friends from among themselves, and to such Laws as we had in the place whence we came.' Sixty-four men wrote their names under this Bill of Rights, of whom 23 were from Branford, and the remaining 41 from New Haven, Milford, and Guilford. Most of them were probably heads of families, and, in all the company, but six were obliged to make their marks. … It seems to me that, after 1666, the New Haven of Davenport and Eaton must be looked for upon the banks, not of the Quinnipiac, but of the Passaic. The men, the methods, the laws, the officers, that made New Haven Town what it was in 1640, disappeared from the Connecticut Colony, but came to full life again immediately in New Jersey. … Newark was not so much the product as the continuation of New Haven."

C. H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven, chapter 4, section 6.

ALSO IN: Documents Relating to the Colonial History New Jersey, volume 1.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673. The Dutch reconquest.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682. The sale to new Proprietors, mostly Quakers, and division of the province into East Jersey and West Jersey. The free constitution of West Jersey.

In 1673 Lord Berkeley, one of the original proprietors, "sold his one-half interest in the Province for less than $5,000. John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, two English Quakers, were the purchasers. A dispute arose between the new proprietors about the division of their property, and William Penn, who afterward became the founder of Pennsylvania, was chosen arbitrator to settle the difficulty, and succeeded to the satisfaction of all parties interested. Fenwick sailed from London, in 1675, in the ship 'Griffith,' with his family and a small company of Quakers. This was the first English vessel that came to New Jersey with immigrants. {2321} The party sailed up the Delaware bay, and, entering a creek, landed on its banks three miles and a half from the Delaware. This creek, and the settlement founded on it, Fenwick named Salem. This was the first English settlement permanently established in West Jersey."

J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar, History of New Jersey, chapter 1.

In July, 1676, the province was divided, Philip Carteret taking East Jersey, and the successors of Berkeley taking West Jersey. "Thereupon, Carteret, by will, devised his plantation of New Jersey to trustees to be sold for certain purposes, by him stated, in 1681-2. … He had not a peaceable time. Indeed, anything like constant peace was the lot of very few of New Jersey's early Governors. Governor Andros, of New York, disputed Carteret's authority; nay, failing by peaceable means to gain his point, he sent a party of soldiers by night [1678], who dragged Carteret from his bed, carried him to New York, and there kept him close until a day was set on which he was tried before his opponent himself in the New York Courts, and three times acquitted by the jury, who were sent back with directions to convict, but firmly each time refused. The authority of Carteret was confirmed by the Duke of York, and Andros was recalled. … The trustees of Sir George Carteret could not make sale of East Jersey. After ineffectual attempts at private sale they offered it at public auction, and William Penn and eleven associates, most if not all Quakers, bought it for £3,400. It was too heavy a purchase, apparently, for their management. Each sold half his right to another, and so were constituted the twenty-four Proprietors. They procured a deed of confirmation from the Duke of York March 14th, 1682, and then the twenty-four Lords Proprietors by sealed instrument established a council, gave them power to appoint overseers, and displace all officers necessary to manage their property, to take care of their lands, deed them, appoint dividends, settle the rights of particular Proprietors in such dividends, grant warrants of survey, in fine, to do everything necessary for the profitable disposition of all the territory. … The new Proprietors were men of rank. William Penn is known to all the world. With him were James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond, Robert Barclay, famous, like Penn, as a Quaker gentleman, and a controversialist for Quaker belief; David Barclay. … Each Proprietor had a twenty-fourth interest in the property, inheritable, divisible, and assignable, as if it were a farm instead of a province. And by these means the estate has come down to those who now own the property. … In New Jersey … our Legislature has nothing at all to do with our waste or unappropriated land. It all belongs to the Proprietors, to those, namely, who own what are known as Proprietary rights, or rights of Proprietorship, and is subject to the disposition of the Board of Proprietors. … What is left in their control is now [1884] of comparatively slight value."

C. Parker, Address, Bi-Centennial Celebration of the Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey.

The division line between East Jersey and West Jersey, as established by the agreement between the Proprietors, began at Little Egg Harbor and extended northwestward to a point on the Delaware river in 41 degrees of north latitude. "After this line had been established, John Fenwick's interest in West Jersey was conveyed to John Eldridge and Edmund Warner in fee, and they were admitted into the number of proprietors. In order to establish a government for the Province of West Jersey, provisional authority was given to Richard Hartshore and Richard Guy, residents of East Jersey, and to James Wasse, who was sent especially from England to act on behalf of the proprietors. These persons were commissioned on the 18th of August, 1676, by Byllinge and his trustees, in conjunction with Eldridge and Warner, and full power was given them to conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with instructions from the proprietors. Fenwick, who had founded a settlement at Salem, refused to recognize the transfer of his portion of the Province to Eldridge and Warner, and declared himself to be independent of this new government. It therefore became the first duty of the commissioners to settle this difficulty. All efforts, however, for that purpose failed. The original plan of the government was devised by William Penn and his immediate associates. It was afterward approved by all the proprietors interested in the Province, and was first published on the 3d of March, 1676, as 'The Concessions and Agreements of the proprietors, freeholders and inhabitants of the Province of West Jersey in America.' This constitution declared that no man or number of men on earth had power or authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters; and that no person or persons within the Province should be in any wise called in question or punished, in person, estate or privilege, on account of opinion, judgment, faith or worship toward God in matters of religion. … That all the inhabitants of the Province should have the right to attend court and be present at all proceedings, 'to the end that Justice may not be done in a corner, nor in any covert manner.' … The executive authority of the government was lodged in the hands of commissioners, to be appointed at first by the proprietors or a majority of them; but after the further settlement of the Province they were to be chosen by the resident proprietors and inhabitants, on the 25th of March of each year. The first election for commissioners occurred in 1680. … One of the most remarkable features in this instrument is the fact that no authority is retained by the proprietary body. 'We put the power in the people,' was the language of the fundamental law."

J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar, History of New Jersey, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: W. A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments, pages 66-99.

Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New Jersey, volume 1.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1674. Final recovery by the English.

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

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688. Joined with New England under the Governorship of Andros.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738. Extinguishment of the Proprietary political powers. Union of the two Jerseys in one royal province.

"In New Jersey, had the proprietary power been vested in the people or reserved to one man, it might have survived, but it was divided among speculators in land, who, as a body, had gain, and not the public welfare, for their end. In April, 1688, 'the proprietors of East New Jersey had surrendered their pretended right of government,' and the surrender had been accepted. {2322} In October of the same year, the council of the proprietaries of West New Jersey voted to the secretary-general for the dominion of New England the custody of 'all records relating to government.' Thus the whole province fell, with New York and New England, under the government of Andros. At the revolution, therefore [the English Revolution of 1688-89], the sovereignty over New Jersey had reverted to the crown; and the legal maxim, soon promulgated by the board of trade, that the domains of the proprietaries might be bought and sold, but not their executive power, weakened their attempts at the recovery of authority, and consigned the colony to a temporary anarchy. A community of husbandmen may be safe for a short season with little government. For twelve years, the province was not in a settled condition. From June, 1689, to August, 1692, East New Jersey had apparently no superintending administration, being, in time of war, destitute of military officers as well as of magistrates with royal or proprietary commissions. They were protected by their neighbors from external attacks: and there is no reason to infer that the several towns failed to exercise regulating powers within their respective limits. … The proprietaries, threatened with the ultimate interference of parliament in provinces 'where,' it was said, 'no regular government had ever been established,' resolved to resign their pretensions. In their negotiations with the crown, they wished to insist that there should be a triennial assembly: but King William, though he had against his inclination approved triennial parliaments for England, would never consent to them in the plantations. In 1702, the first year of Queen Anne, the surrender took place before the privy council. The domain, ceasing to be connected with proprietary powers, was, under the rules of private right, confirmed to its possessors, and the decision has never been disturbed. The surrender of 'the pretended' rights to government being completed, the two Jerseys were united in one province; and the government was conferred on Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury, who, like Queen Anne, was the grandchild of Clarendon. Retaining its separate legislature, the province had for the next thirty-six years the same governors as New York. It never again obtained a charter: the royal commission of April 1702, and the royal instructions to Lord Cornbury, constituted the form of its administration. To the governor appointed by the crown belonged the power of legislation, with consent of the royal council and the representatives of the people. … The freemen of the colony were soon conscious of the diminution of their liberties."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (author's last revision), part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. O. Raum, History of New Jersey, chapter 8 (volume 1).

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1711. Queen Anne's War.

See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1744-1748. King George's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745: and 1745-1748.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1760-1766. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act and its repeal. The Declaratory Act. The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775: 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1766-1774. Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774: and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776. End of royal government. Adoption of a State Constitution.

In the person of William Franklin, unworthy son of Benjamin Franklin, New Jersey was afflicted, at the outbreak of the Revolutionary struggle, with an arbitrary and obstinately royalist governor. Finding the assembly of the colony refractory and independent, he refused to convene it in 1774, when the people desired to send delegates to the Continental Congress. Thereupon a convention was held at New Brunswick; and this body not only commissioned delegates to the general Congress, but appointed a "general committee of correspondence" for the Province. The committee, in May of the following year, called together, at Trenton, a second Provincial Convention, which took to itself the title of the "Provincial Congress of New Jersey," and assumed the full authority of all the branches of the government, providing for the defense of the Province and taking measures to carry out the plans of the Continental Congress. "Governor Franklin convened the Legislature on the 16th of November, 1775. No important business was transacted, and on the 6th of December the Assembly was prorogued by the governor to meet on the 3d of January, 1776, but it never reassembled, and this was the end of Provincial legislation in New Jersey under royal authority. … Though the Provincial Congress of New Jersey had to a great extent assumed the control of public affairs in the Province, it had not renounced the royal authority. … On the 24th of June, a committee was appointed to draft a constitution. … New Jersey was, however, not yet disposed to abandon all hopes of reconciliation with the Crown, and therefore provided in the last article of this constitution that the instrument should become void whenever the king should grant a full redress of grievances, and agree to administer the government of New Jersey in accordance with the constitution of England and the rights of British subjects. But, on the 18th of July, 177[6] the Provincial Congress assumed the title of 'The Convention of the State of New Jersey,' declared the State to be independent of royal authority, and directed that all official papers, acts of Assembly and other public documents should be made in the name and by the authority of the State." Before this occurred, however, Governor Franklin had been placed under arrest, by order of Congress, and sent to Connecticut, where he was released on parole. He sailed immediately for England. "When the State government was organized under the new constitution, the Legislature enacted laws for the arrest and punishment of all persons who opposed its authority."

J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar, History of New Jersey, chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN: T. F. Gordon, History of New Jersey, chapter 12.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. Siege of Boston. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

{2323}

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1776-1778. The battle ground of Washington campaigns.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776; 1776-1777; and 1778 (JUNE).

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1777-1778. Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1779. British raids from New York.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1778-1779.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1783. The war on the Hudson, on the Delaware, and in the South. Surrender of Cornwallis. Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778, to 1783.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1787. Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

—————NEW JERSEY: End—————

NEW MADRID, The capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NEW MARKET, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

NEW MARKET (Shenandoah Valley), Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA) THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

—————NEW MEXICO: Start—————

NEW MEXICO: Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846. The American conquest and occupation by Kearney's expedition.

"While the heaviest fighting [of the Mexican War] was going on in Old Mexico [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847], the Government [of the United States] easily took possession of New Mexico and California, by means of expeditions organized on the remote frontiers. New Mexico was wanted for the emigration to the Pacific. If we were to have California we must also have the right of way to it. In the hands of the Spaniards, New Mexico barred access to the Pacific so completely that the oldest travelled route was scarcely known to Americans at all, and but little used by the Spaniards themselves. If now we consult a map of the United States it is seen that the thirty-fourth parallel crosses the Mississippi at the mouth of the Arkansas, cuts New Mexico in the middle, and reaches the Pacific near Los Angeles. It was long the belief of statesmen that the great tide of emigration must set along this line, because it had the most temperate climate, was shorter, and would be found freer from hardship than the route by way of the South Pass. This view had set on foot the exploration of the Arkansas and Red Rivers. But if we except the little that Pike and Long had gathered, almost nothing was known about it. Yet the prevailing belief gave New Mexico, as related to California, an exceptional importance. These considerations weighed for more than acquisition of territory, though the notion that New Mexico contained very rich silver-mines undoubtedly had force in determining its conquest. … With this object General Kearney marched from Fort Leavenworth in June, 1846, for Santa Fe, at the head of a force of which a battalion of Mormons formed part. After subduing New Mexico, Kearney was to go on to California, and with the help of naval forces already sent there, for the purpose, conquer that country also. … General Kearney marched by the Upper Arkansas, to Bent's Fort, and from Bent's Fort over the old trail through El Moro and Las Vegas, San Miguel and Old Pecos, without meeting the opposition he expected, or at any time seeing any considerable body of the enemy. On the 18th of August, as the sun was setting, the stars and stripes were unfurled over the palace of Santa Fe, and New Mexico was declared annexed to the United States. Either the home government thought New Mexico quite safe from attack, or, having decided to reserve all its strength for the main conflict, had left this province to its fate. After organizing a civil government, and appointing Charles Bent of Bent's Fort, governor, General Kearney broke up his camp at Santa Fe, September 25. His force was now divided. One part, under Colonel Doniphan, was ordered to join General Wool in Chihuahua. A second detachment was left to garrison Santa Fe, while Kearney went on to California with the rest of his troops. The people everywhere seemed disposed to submit quietly, and as most of the pueblos soon proffered their allegiance to the United States Government, little fear of an outbreak was felt. Before leaving the valley, a courier was met bearing the news that California also had submitted to us without striking a blow. This information decided General Kearney to send back most of his remaining force, while with a few soldiers only he continued his march through what is now Arizona for the Pacific."

S. A. Drake, The Making of the Great West, pages 251-255.

ALSO IN: H. O. Ladd, History of the War with Mexico, chapters 9-12.

P. St. G. Cooke, The Conquest of New Mexico and California.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 12, chapter 17.

H. O. Ladd, The Story of New Mexico, chapter 16.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1848. Cession to the United States.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1850. Territorial organization.

See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1875-1894. Prospective admission to the Union.

A bill to admit New Mexico to the Union as a state was passed by both houses of Congress in 1875, but failed in consequence of an amendment made in the Senate too late for action upon it in the House of Representatives. Attempts to convert the scantily populated territory into a state were then checked for several years. At this writing (July 1894) a bill for organizing and admitting the state of New Mexico has again passed the House of Representatives, and is likely to have a favorable vote in the Senate.

—————NEW MEXICO: End—————

NEW MODEL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL).

NEW NETHERLAND.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

NEW ORANGE.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

—————NEW ORLEANS: Start————

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1718. The founding of the city.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1763. Reserved from the cession to England in the Treaty of Paris, and transferred with western Louisiana to Spain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1768-1769. Revolt against the Spanish rule. A short-lived Republic and its tragic ending.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

{2324}

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1785-1803. Fickle treatment of American traders.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800; and 1798-1803.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1798-1804. Transferred to France and sold to the United States. Incorporation as a city.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1789-1803; and 1804-1812.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1815. Jackson's defense of the city and great victory. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (April). Farragut's capture of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (May-December). The rule of General Butler.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1866. Riot and massacre.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

—————NEW ORLEANS: End————

NEW PLYMOUTH.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

NEW SCOTLAND.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

—————NEW SOUTH WALES: Start————

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1770-1788. The discovery. The naming. The first settlement.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1850. Separation of the Colony of Victoria.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1859. Separation of the Moreton Bay District and its erection into the Colony of Queensland.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1890. Characteristics. Comparative view.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

—————NEW SOUTH WALES: End————

NEW SPAIN: The name given at first to Yucatan, and afterwards to the province won by Cortes.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518; and MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

NEW STYLE.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

NEW SWEDEN.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEW WORLD, The: First use of the phrase.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

—————NEW YORK: Start————

NEW YORK: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, HURONS, &c., HORIKANS; and MANHATTAN ISLAND.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1498. Probable discovery of the Bay by Sebastian Cabot.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1524. The Bay visited by Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1606. Embraced in the territory granted by King James I. of England to the Plymouth or North Virginia Company.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609. Discovery and exploration of Hudson River by Hendrik Hudson, in the service of Holland.

"Early in September, 1609, the ship 'Half-Moon,' restlessly skirting the American coast, in the vain quest for a strait or other water route leading to India, came to the mouth of a great lonely river, flowing silently out from the heart of the unknown continent. The 'Half-Moon' was a small, clumsy, high-pooped yacht, manned by a score of Dutch and English sea-dogs, and commanded by an English adventurer then in Dutch pay, and known to his employers as Hendrik Hudson. … Hudson, on coming to the river to which his name was afterward given, did not at first know that it was a river at all; he believed and hoped that it was some great arm of the sea, that in fact it was the Northwest Passage to India, which he and so many other brave men died in vainly trying to discover. … Hudson soon found that he was off the mouth of a river, not a strait; and he spent three weeks in exploring it, sailing up till the shoaling water warned him that he was at the head of navigation, near the present site of Albany. … Having reached the head of navigation the 'Half-Moon' turned her bluff bows southward, and drifted down stream with the rapid current until she once more reached the bay. … Early in October, Hudson set out on his homeward voyage to Holland, where the news of his discovery excited much interest among the daring merchants, especially among those whose minds were bent on the fur-trade. Several of the latter sent small ships across to the newly found bay and river, both to barter with the savages and to explore and report further upon the country. The most noted of these sea-captains who followed Hudson, was Adrian Block."

T. Roosevelt, New York, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: R. Juet, Journal of Hudson's Voyage (New York Historical Society Collection, series 2, volume 1).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609-1615. Champlain and the French in the North.

See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; and 1611-1616.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614. Possession taken by the Dutch. Named New Netherland.

"The gallant and enterprising people under whose auspices Hudson had achieved his brilliant discovery [of the Hudson River] had just emerged from a long, bloody, but glorious contest for freedom, which they had waged with dogged determination against Spain since 1566. …

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and after.

It was at this crisis, when peace had at length returned, after an absence of more than forty years, and when numbers of people must, by the transition, have found themselves deprived of their accustomed active employment and habitual excitement, that the intelligence of Hudson's discovery broke on the public, affording to private adventure a new field. … The commodities which abounded among the natives of the newly discovered countries were objects of great demand in Europe. The furs that the rigors of the northern climate rendered indispensable to the inhabitants of Holland, and which they had hitherto obtained through Russian and other traders, were to be had now from the Indians in exchange for the veriest baubles and coarsest goods. Stimulated by these considerations, … a vessel was despatched by some Amsterdam merchants, freighted with a variety of goods, to the Manhattans, in the course of the following year [1610]. The success of this venture seems to have given increased stimulus to the spirit of enterprise. {2325} New discoveries were projected; licenses were granted by the States-General, on the recommendation of the Admiralty, to two ships, the Little Fox and Little Crane, ostensibly to look again for a northerly passage to China; and the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hoorn, and Enckhuyzen, as well as several private merchants and citizens, applied for information to the States of Holland and West Friesland, relative to a certain newly discovered navigable river, and the proper course to be steered in proceeding thither. These ships proceeded, on procuring the requisite information, to that quarter early in the ensuing spring; and of so much importance was the country now considered, that the traders erected and garrisoned one or two small forts on the river, for the protection of the fur-trade. … The favorable position of the island of Manhattan for commerce was easily perceived by the Europeans from the first, and it soon became the head-quarters of the traders. Their establishment in that locality consisted now [1613] of four houses, under the superintendence of Hendrick Corstiaensen, who, by means of his trading-boats, visited every creek, inlet, and bay in the neighborhood, where an Indian settlement was to be found, and thus secured for his employers the furs and other valuable produce of the country. But the growing prosperity of the infant post was now fated to experience an unexpected check. Captain Argal, of Virginia, returning in the month of November of this year from a seemingly predatory visit to a settlement which the French had made at Port Royal, in Acadia, touched at the island of Manhattans, with a view, it is said, of looking after a grant of land which he had obtained there from the Virginia Company, and forced Corstiaensen to submit himself and his plantation to the king of England, and to the governor of Virginia under him, and to agree to pay tribute in token of his dependence on the English crown. … Active steps were taken, early in the next year, to obtain an exclusive right to the trade of those distant countries," and in March, 1614, the States General passed an ordinance conferring on those who should discover new lands the exclusive privilege of making four voyages thither before others could have admission to the traffic. This ordinance "excited considerable animation and activity among adventurers. A number of merchants belonging to Amsterdam and Hoorn fitted out and dispatched five ships: namely, the Little Fox, the Nightingale, the Tiger, and the Fortune, the two last under the command of Adriaen Block and Hendrick Corstiaensen, of Amsterdam. The fifth vessel was called the Fortune also; she belonged to Hoorn, and was commanded by Captain Cornelis Jacobsen Mey. The three last-named and now well-known navigators proceeded immediately on an exploring expedition to the mouth of the Great River of the Manhattans, but Block had the misfortune, soon after his arrival there, of losing his vessel, which was accidentally burnt. … He forthwith set about constructing a yacht, 38 feet keel, 44½ feet long, and 11½ feet wide, which, when completed, he called the 'Restless,' significant of his own untiring industry. … In this craft, the first specimen of European naval architecture in these waters, Skipper Block proceeded to explore the coast east of Manhattan Island. He sailed along the East River, to which he gave the name of 'The Hellegat,' after a branch of the river Scheld, in East Flanders; and leaving Long Island, then called Metoac, or 'Sewan-hacky, 'the land of shells,' on the south, he discovered the Housatonick, or river of the Red Mountain." Proceeding eastwardly, Block found the Connecticut River, which he named Fresh River, and ascended it to an Indian village at 41° 48'. Passing out of the Sound, and ascertaining the insular character of Long Island, he gave his own name to one of the two islands off its eastern extremity. After exploring Narragansett Bay, he went on to Cape Cod, and there fell in with Hendrick Corstiaensen's ship. "While these navigators were thus engaged at the east, Captain Cornelis Mey was actively employed in exploring the Atlantic coast farther south. … He reached the great Delaware Bay, … two capes of which still commemorate his visit; one, the most northward, being called after him, Cape Mey; another, Cape Cornelis; while the great south cape was called Hindlopen, after one of the towns in the province of Friesland. … Intelligence of the discoveries made by Block and his associates having been transmitted to Holland, was received there early in the autumn of this year [1614]. The united company by whom they had been employed lost no time in taking the steps necessary to secure to themselves the exclusive trade of the countries thus explored, which was guarantied to them by the ordinance of the 27th of March. They sent deputies immediately to the Hague, who laid before the States General a report of their discoveries, as required by law, with a figurative map of the newly explored countries, which now, for the first time, obtained the name of New Netherland. A special grant in favor of the interested parties was forthwith accorded … to visit and trade with the countries in America lying between 40° and 45° north latitude, of which they strangely claimed to be the first discoverers."

E. B. O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York, volume 1, pages 4-12.

B. Fernow, New Netherland (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 8).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1614-1621. The first trading monopoly succeeded by the Dutch West India Company.

"It was perceived that, to secure the largest return from the peltry trade, a factor should reside permanently on the Mauritius River [North, or Hudson, as it has been successively called], among the Maquaas or Mohawks, and the Mahicans, at the head of tide-water. Hendrick Christiaensen, who, after his first experiment in company with Adriaen Block, is stated to have made 'ten voyages' to Manhattan, accordingly constructed [1614] a trading house on 'Castle Island,' at the west side of the river, a little below the present city of Albany. … To compliment the family of the stadtholder, the little post was immediately named Fort Nassau. … It has been confidently affirmed that the year after the erection of Fort Nassau, at Castle Island, a redoubt was also thrown up and fortified 'on an elevated spot' near the southern point of Manhattan Island. But the assertion does not appear to be confirmed by sufficient authority. … The Holland merchants, who had obtained from the States General the exclusive right of trading for three years to New Netherland, though united together in one company to secure the grant of their charter, were not strictly a corporation, but rather 'participants' in a specific, limited, and temporary monopoly, which they were to enjoy in common. … {2326} On the 1st of January, 1618, the exclusive charter of the Directors of New Netherland expired by its own limitation. Year by year the value of the returns from the North River had been increasing; and the hope of larger gains incited the factors of the company to push their explorations further into the interior. … No systematic agricultural colonization of the country had yet been undertaken. The scattered agents of the Amsterdam Company still looked merely to peaceful traffic, and the cultivation of those friendly relations which had been covenanted with their savage allies on the banks of the Tawasentha [where they had negotiated a treaty of friendship and alliance with the Five Nations of the Iroquois, in 1617]. Upon the expiration of their special charter, the merchants who had formed the United New Netherland Company applied to the government at the Hague for a renewal of their privileges, the value of which they found was daily increasing. But the States General, who were now contemplating the grant of a comprehensive charter for a West India Company avoided a compliance with the petition." In June, 1621, "the long-pending question of a grand commercial organization was finally settled; and an ample charter gave the West India Company almost unlimited powers to colonize, govern, and defend New Netherland."

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1, chapters 2-3.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1615-1664. Dutch relations with the Iroquois.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, THEIR CONQUESTS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1620. Embraced in the English patent of the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646. Early operations of the Dutch West India Company. The purchase of Manhattan Island. The Patroons and their colonies.

"When it became evident that the war [of the United Provinces] with Spain would be renewed, the way was opened for the charter of a company, so often asked and denied. Just before the expiration of the twelve years' truce, April, 1621, the great West India Company was formed, and incorporated by the States General. It was clothed with extraordinary powers and privileges. It could make alliances and treaties, declare war and make peace. Although its field of operations was limited to Africa, the West India Islands, and the continent of America, it could in case of war fight the Spaniards wherever found on land or sea. And finally, it was permitted to colonize unoccupied or subjugated countries. To it especially were committed the care and the colonization of New Netherland. The West India Company, after completing its organization in 1623, began its work in New Netherland by erecting a fort on Manhattan Island [called Fort Amsterdam], and another on the Delaware, and by reconstructing the one at Albany. It sent over to be distributed in these places 30 families, not strictly as colonists, to settle and cultivate the land, but rather as servants of the Company, in charge of their factories, engaged in the purchase and preparation of furs and peltries for shipment. Some of them returned home at the expiration of their term of service, and no other colonists were brought out for several years. The Company found more profitable employment for its capital in fitting out fleets of ships of war, which captured the Spanish treasure-ships, and thus enabled the Company to pay large dividends to its stockholders. In 1626 its agents bought all Manhattan Island of the Indian owners for sixty guilders in goods on which an enormous profit was made; and about the same time they purchased other tracts of land in the vicinity, including Governor's and Staten Islands, on similar terms. The Company was now possessed of lands enough for the accommodation of a large population. They were fertile, and only needed farmers to develop their richness. But these did not come. … Accordingly, in 1629, the managers took up a new line of action. They enacted a statute, termed 'Freedoms and Exemptions,' which authorized the establishment of colonies within their territory by individuals, who were to be known as Patroons, or Patrons. An individual might purchase of the Indian owners a tract of land, on which to plant a colony of fifty souls within four years from the date of purchase. He who established such a colony might associate with himself other persons to assist him in his work, and share the profits, but he should be considered the Patroon, or chief, in whom were centred all the rights pertaining to the position, such as the administration of justice, the appointment of civil and military officers, the settlement of clergymen, and the like. He was a kind of feudal lord, owing allegiance to the West India Company, and to the States General, but independent of control within the limits of his own territory. The system was a modified relic of feudalism. The colonists were not serfs, but tenants for a specified term of years, rendering service to the Patroon for a consideration. When their term of service expired, they were free to renew the contract, make a new one, or leave the colony altogether. The privileges of a Patroon at first were restricted to the members of the company, but in about ten years were extended to others. The directors of the company were the first to improve the opportunity now offered of becoming 'princes and potentates' in the western hemisphere. … In 1630, the agents of Director Killian Van Rensselaer bought a large tract of land on the west side of the Hudson River below Albany, and in July following other tracts on both sides of the river, including the present site of Albany. In July, 1630, Director Michael Paauw bought lands on the west side of the Hudson opposite Manhattan Island, and named his territory Pavonia. A few months later Staten Island was transferred to him, and became a part of his domain. … Killian Van Rensselaer also formed a partnership with several of his brother directors, among whom was the historian De Laet, for the purpose of planting a colony on his lands on the upper Hudson, to be known as the colony of Rensselaerwyck. He seems to have had a clearer perception of what was required for such a work than the other Patroons. The colony was organized in accordance with the charter, and on business principles. Before the colonists left Holland they were assigned to specific places and duties. Civil and military officers were appointed, superintendents and overseers of the various departments were selected, and all were instructed in their duties. The number of the first colonists was respectable. {2327} They were chiefly farmers and mechanics, with their families. On their arrival, May, 1630, farms situated on either side the river were allotted to them, utensils and stock distributed, houses built, and arrangements made for their safety in case the natives should become hostile. Order was maintained, and individual rights respected. They were not long in settling down, each to his allotted work. Year by year new colonists arrived, and more lands were bought for the proprietors. In 1646, when Killian Van Rensselaer, the first Patroon, died, over two hundred colonists had been sent from Holland, and a territory forty-eight by twenty-four miles, besides another tract of 62,000 acres, had been acquired. The West India Company had changed its policy under the direction of new men, and no longer favored the Patroons. The Van Rensselaers were much annoyed, and even persecuted, but they held firmly to their rights under the charter. Their colony was prosperous, and their estate in time became enormous. … Of all the Patroon colonies Rensselaerwyck alone survived. It owed its existence mainly to its management, but largely to its situation, remote from the seat of government, and convenient for the Indian trade."

G. W. Schuyler, Colonial New York, introduction, section 1.

ALSO IN: I. Elting, Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson, pages 12-16.

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1, chapter 7.

See, also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1629-1631. Dutch occupancy of the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1630. Introduction of public registry.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1634. The city named New Amsterdam.

Soon after the appointment of Wouter Van Twiller, who became governor of New Netherland in 1633, "the little town on Manhattan Island received the name of New Amsterdam … and was invested with the prerogative of 'staple right,' by virtue of which all the merchandise passing up and down the river was subject to certain duties. This right gave the post the commercial monopoly of the whole province."

Mrs. Lamb, History of the City of New York, volume 1, page 73.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1634-1635. Dutch advance posts on the Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1635. Territory granted to Lord Lennox and Lord Mulgrave, on the dissolution of the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638. Protest against the Swedish settlement on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647. The colony thrown open to free immigration and free trade. Kieft's administration, and the ruinous Indian wars.

"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."