Knickerbocker's history of New York, vol. 1 (of 2)Irving, Washington
History
Knickerbocker's history of New York, vol. 1 (of 2)
Irving, Washington
New York (State) -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775
The thriving state of the settlement and the rapid increase of houses
soon made it necessary to arrange some plan upon which the city should
be built; but at the very first consultation held on the subject, a
violent discussion arose; and I mention it with much sorrowing as being
the first altercation on record in the councils of New Amsterdam. It
was, in fact, a breaking forth of the grudge and heart-burning that had
existed between those two eminent burghers, Mynheers Ten Broeck and
Harden Broeck, ever since their unhappy dispute on the coast of
Bellevue. The great Harden Broeck had waxed very wealthy and powerful,
from his domains, which embraced the whole chain of Apulean mountains
that stretched along the gulf of Kip’s Bay, and from part of which his
descendants have been expelled in latter ages by the powerful clans of
the Joneses and the Schermerhornes.
An ingenious plan for the city was offered by Mynheer Harden Broeck, who
proposed that it should be cut up and intersected by canals, after the
manner of the most admired cities in Holland. To this Mynheer Ten Broeck
was diametrically opposed, suggesting, in place thereof, that they
should run out docks and wharves, by means of piles driven into the
bottom of the river, on which the towns should be built. “By these
means,” said he triumphantly, “shall we rescue a considerable space of
territory from these immense rivers, and build a city that shall rival
Amsterdam, Venice, or any amphibious city in Europe.” To this
proposition, Harden Broeck (or Tough Breeches) replied, with a look of
as much scorn as he could possibly assume. He cast the utmost censure
upon the plan of his antagonist, as being preposterous and against the
very order of things, as he would leave to every true Hollander. “For
what,” said he, “is a town without canals?—it is like a body without
veins and arteries, and must perish for want of a free circulation of
the vital fluid.” Ten Breeches, on the contrary, retorted with a sarcasm
upon his antagonist, who was somewhat of an arid, dry-boned habit: he
remarked, that as to the circulation of the blood being necessary to
existence, Mynheer Tough Breeches was a living contradiction to his own
assertion: for everybody knew there had not a drop of blood circulated
through his wind-dried carcase for good ten years, and yet there was not
a greater busy-body in the whole colony. Personalities have seldom much
effect in making converts in argument; nor have I ever seen a man
convinced of error by being convicted of deformity. At least, such was
not the case at present. If Ten Breeches was very happy in sarcasm,
Tough Breeches, who was a sturdy little man, and never gave up the last
word, rejoined with increasing spirit; Ten Breeches had the advantage of
the greatest volubility, but Tough Breeches had that invaluable coat of
mail in argument, called obstinacy. Ten Breeches had, therefore, the
most mettle, but Tough Breeches the best bottom; so that though Ten
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account