Pelts and palisades: The story of fur and the rivalry for pelts in early AmericaHale, Nathaniel C. (Nathaniel Claiborne)
History
Pelts and palisades: The story of fur and the rivalry for pelts in early America
Hale, Nathaniel C. (Nathaniel Claiborne)
Fur trade -- Canada; Fur trade -- United States; United States -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775
Governor Stuyvesant, in high bluff, journeyed to Hartford in 1650 for
a meeting with the Commissioners of the United Colonies. He offered a
valiant front, opening the negotiations with a letter of considerations
signed at Hartford but dated “in New Netherland.” When the New
England commissioners took exception, Stuyvesant explained that, as
the substance of the letter was agreed upon in Council at Manhattan,
it was so dated. However, if the commissioners would cease speaking
of Hartford “in New England,” he would not date his letters “in New
Netherland.”
This was not to be his only retreat. His territorial claims east
along the coast retreated from Cape Cod to Greenwich in the face of
accomplished fact. And he could only agree to a stabilization of the
border between New England and New Netherland at about where it had
been fixed already by English traders. Roughly, this was a line running
northerly from the vicinity of Greenwich that was at no point to come
within ten miles of Hudson’s River. The only Dutch reservation east of
that line was the Fort Good Hope trading post.
It was all very humiliating. However it appeared to have the redeeming
feature of halting by treaty any further encroachment on the heart of
the Dutch trading preserves. The all-important Iroquois trade was saved.
But only for the time being, as it turned out. Significantly enough,
although the treaty signed at Hartford was eventually ratified by the
States General in Holland, the English government never did get around
to doing so. It wasn’t necessary. England planned to take all of New
Netherland, in due time.
Meanwhile, the pressure on New Netherland was renewed, while the treaty
itself was violated, even repudiated, by the New Englanders.
To begin with, Cromwell’s Navigation Act was passed in 1651. It decreed
that goods imported into England must come in English ships or ships
belonging to the country in which the goods were produced. Since this
was specifically directed against the Dutch carrying trade, it soon
plunged England and Holland into a naval war, from which England may be
said to have emerged the victor even though she was soundly thrashed at
sea. But, although the British fleet had to take refuge in the Thames
while an exulting Dutch admiral sailed up and down the Channel with
a broom tied to the masthead of his flagship, the Navigation Act was
maintained in force.
While all this was going on overseas, New Haven and Connecticut
clamored for the conquest of their “noxious” Dutch neighbors.
So alarmed was Peter Stuyvesant in 1653 that he made last-ditch
preparations for the coming English onslaught. It was at this time
that the famous wall of palisades was built along the line of what
is still called “Wall” Street. This pale was intended to hinder any
possible land envelopment of New Amsterdam by the English. But once
again Massachusetts held back. She prevented outright war in America by
refusing to join in a military offensive against New Netherland.
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