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
The boundaries set up by the Treaty of Hartford were violated however.
By 1655 the English had pushed across the line at Greenwich, well into
present-day Westchester County. By 1659 Massachusetts itself was ready
to repudiate the treaty.
In that year, it appears, the Hollanders made the mistake of
objecting too vigorously to being divested of the bulk of their
beaver trade by Boston merchants. The Bay Colony, claiming unlimited
western boundaries, had granted a tract in the Hudson valley to
merchants interested in establishing a fur trading post close by Fort
Orange itself. Then, as if this was not offensive enough to the New
Netherlanders, the Boston men boldly requested free use of the Hudson
River waterway to reach their new property. The overland route was too
difficult, they explained.
When Peter Stuyvesant angrily refused this request the Boston traders
persisted, bringing their case before the Commissioners of the United
Colonies. Whereupon those gentlemen announced airily that “The
agreement at Hartford that the English should not come within ten miles
of Hudson’s River, doth not prejudice the rights of the Massachusetts
in the upland country, nor give any rights to the Dutch there!” Only
the excitement generated by the Restoration in England quelled the
ensuing controversy long enough to forestall a local conflict.
This same year, only four years after the Dutch conquest of New Sweden,
English pressure commenced from the south. There, Governor Fendall
of Lord Baltimore’s Maryland colony was invading the Delaware valley
with men and ultimatums. He demanded that “the pretended Governor of
a people seated in Delaware Bay, within his Lordship’s Province ...
depart forth!” Otherwise, he declaimed, that part of his lordship’s
province “would be reduced to its due obedience under him.”
Stuyvesant, of course, refuted the Maryland claim. He pointed out
that Lord Baltimore’s patent gave him rights only to lands hitherto
uncultivated by Christians. But the English pressure in that quarter,
once commenced, was maintained with the same stubborn persistence as
that on the New England front. The British were closing their ranks on
the eastern seaboard of America. The squeeze was on New Netherland.
The Dutch governor fought desperately for the life of his colony. He
had been plagued with Indian uprisings in the valley of the Hudson,
pirates in Long Island Sound and English plotters in New Amsterdam
itself. Now the very life’s breath of his colony was being squeezed
out, for, in addition to the loss of Indian trade to the trespassing
Englishmen, Peter Stuyvesant also had to contend with the stifling
effects of the new British Navigation Acts. These laws had not been
relaxed in any degree since Cromwell’s death. On the contrary, they had
been tightened upon the restoration of the crown.
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