History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen (part 10 of 10)

History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen (part 10 of 10)

"But a few years of peace succeeded the treaty of Ryswick. First came the contest in Europe over the Spanish succession," and then the recognition of "the Pretender" by Louis XIV. "This recognition was, of course, a challenge to England and preparations were made for war. William III. died in March, 1702, and was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his wife, and daughter of James II. War was declared by England against France, May 15th, 1702. The contest that followed is known in European history as the War of the Spanish Succession; in American history it is usually called Queen Anne's 'War; or the Second Intercolonial War. On one side were France, Spain, and Bavaria; on the other, England, Holland, Savoy, Austria, Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark. It was in this war that the Duke of Marlborough won his fame. To the people of New England, war between France and England meant the hideous midnight war-whoop, the tomahawk and scalping-knife, burning hamlets, and horrible captivity. To provide against it, a conference was called to meet at Falmouth, on Casco Bay, in June, 1703, when Governor Dudley, of Massachusetts, met many of the chiefs of the Abenaquis. The Indians, professing to have no thought of war, promised peace and friendship by their accustomed tokens. … But, as usual, only a part of the tribes had been brought into the alliance," and some lawless provocations by a party of English marauders soon drove the Abenaquis again into their old French Alliance. "By August, 500 French and Indians were assembled, ready for incursions into the New England settlements. They divided into several bands and fell upon a number of places at the same time. Wells, Saco, and Casco were again among the doomed villages, but the fort at Casco was not taken, owing to the arrival of an armed vessel under Captain Southwick. About 150 persons were killed or captured in these attacks." In February, the town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, was destroyed, 47 of the inhabitants were killed and 112 carried away captive. "On the 30th of July, the town of Lancaster was assailed, and a few people were killed, seven buildings burned, and much property destroyed. These and other depredations of war-parties along the coasts filled New England with consternation. … It was … resolved to fit out an expedition for retaliation, and as usual the people of Acadia were selected to expiate the sins of the Indians and Canadians. Colonel Benjamin Church was put in command of 550 men, 14 transports, and 36 whale-boats, convoyed by three ships of war. Sailing from Boston in May, 1704," Church ravaged the lesser French settlements on the Acadian coast, but ventured no attack on Port Royal. "In 1705, 450 men under Subercase—soldiers, Canadian peasants, adventurers, and Indians, well armed, and with rations for twenty days, blankets and tents—set out to destroy the English settlements in Newfoundland, marching on snow-shoes. They took Petit Havre and St. John's, and devastated all the little settlements along the eastern coast, and the English trade was for the time completely broken up. Subercase was made Governor of Acadia in 1706. The following spring New England sent Colonel March to Port Royal with two regiments, but he returned without assaulting the fort. Governor Dudley forbade the troops to land when they came back to Boston, and ordered them to go again. Colonel March was ill, and Colonel Wainwright took command; but after a pretence of besieging the fort for eleven days he retired with small loss, the expedition having cost Massachusetts £2,200. In 1708 a council at Montreal decided to send a large number of Canadians and Indians to devastate New England. But after a long march through the almost impassable mountain region of northern New Hampshire, a murderous attack on Haverhill, in which 30 or 40 were killed, was the only result. … In 1709 a plan was formed in England for the capture of New France by a fleet and five regiments of British soldiers aided by the colonists. But a defeat in Portugal called away the ships destined for America, and a force gathered at Lake Champlain under Colonel Nicholson for a land attack was so reduced by sickness—said to have resulted from the poisoning of a spring by Indians—that they burned their canoes and retreated. The next year, Nicholson was furnished with six ships of war, thirty transports, and one British and four New England regiments for the capture of Port Royal. Subercase had only 260 men and an insufficient supply of provisions." He surrendered after a short bombardment, "and on the 16th of October the starving and ragged garrison marched out to be sent to France. For the last time the French flag was hauled down from the fort, and Port Royal was henceforth an English fortress, which was re-named Annapolis Royal, in honor of Queen Anne."

R. Johnson, History of the French War, chapter 8.

"With a change of masters came a change of names. Acadié was again called 'Nova Scotia'—the name bestowed upon it by James I. in 1621; and Port Royal, 'Annapolis.'"

_R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton, letter 8._

ALSO IN: P. H. Smith, Acadia, pages 108-111.

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1722-1725. Renewed war with the northeastern Indians.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

{2315}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744. King George's War (the Third Intercolonial War): Hostilities in Nova Scotia.

"The war that had prevailed for several years between Britain and Spain [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], inflicted upon the greater number of the British provinces of America no farther share of its evils than the burden of contributing to the expeditions of Admiral Vernon, and the waste of life by which his disastrous naval campaigns were signalized. Only South Carolina and Georgia had been exposed to actual attack and danger. But this year [1744], by an enlargement of the hostile relations of the parent state, the scene of war was extended to the more northern provinces. The French, though professing peace with Britain, had repeatedly given assistance to Spain; while the British king, as Elector of Hanover, had espoused the quarrel of the emperor of Germany with the French monarch; and after various mutual threats and demonstrations of hostility that consequently ensued between Britain and France, war [the War of the Austrian Succession] was now formally declared by these states against each other.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and after.

The French colonists in America, having been apprized of this event before it was known in New England, were tempted to improve the advantage of their prior intelligence by an instant and unexpected commencement of hostilities, which accordingly broke forth without notice or delay in the quarter of Nova Scotia. … On the island of Canso, adjoining the coast of Nova Scotia, the British had formed a settlement, which was resorted to by the fishermen of New England, and defended by a small fortification garrisoned by a detachment of troops from Annapolis. … Duquesnel, the governor of Cape Breton, on receiving intelligence of the declaration of war between the two parent states, conceived the hope of destroying the fishing establishments of the English by the suddenness and vigor of an unexpected attack. His first blow, which was aimed at Canso, proved successful (May 13, 1744). Duvivier, whom he despatched from his headquarters at Louisburg, with a few armed vessels and a force of 900 men, took unresisted possession of this island, burned the fort and houses, and made prisoners of the garrison and inhabitants. This success Duquesnel endeavoured to follow up by the conquest of Placentia in Newfoundland, and of Annapolis in Nova Scotia; but at both these places his forces were repulsed. In the attack of Annapolis, the French were joined by the Indians of Nova Scotia; but the prudent forecast of Shirley, the governor of Massachusetts, had induced the assembly of this province, some time before, to contribute a reinforcement of 200 men for the greater security of the garrison of Annapolis; and to the opportune arrival of the succour thus afforded the preservation of the place was ascribed. … The people of New England were stimulated to a pitch of resentment, apprehension, and martial energy, that very shortly produced an effort of which neither their friends nor their enemies had supposed them to be capable, and which excited the admiration of both Europe and America. … War was declared against the Indians of Nova Scotia, who had assisted in the attack upon Annapolis; all the frontier garrisons were reinforced; new forts were erected; and the materials of defence were enlarged by a seasonable gift of artillery from the king. Meanwhile, though the French were not prepared to prosecute the extensive plan of conquest which their first operations announced, their privateers actively waged a harassing naval warfare that greatly endamaged the commerce of New England. The British fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia were interrupted; the fishermen declared their intention of returning no more to their wonted stations on that coast; and so many merchant vessels were captured and carried into Louisburg in the course of this summer, that it was expected that in the following year no branch of maritime trade would be pursued by the New England merchants, except under the protection of convoy."

J. Grahame, History [Colonial] of the United States, book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: P. H. Smith, Acadia, pages 123-128.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745. King George's War. The taking of Louisburg.

"Louisburg, on which the French had spent much money [see CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745], was by far the strongest fort north of the Gulf of Mexico. But the prisoners of Canso, carried thither, and afterward dismissed on parole, reported the garrison to be weak and the works out of repair. So long as the French held this fortress, it was sure to be a source of annoyance to New England, but to wait for British aid to capture it would be tedious and uncertain, public attention in Great Britain being much engrossed by a threatened invasion. Under these circumstances, Shirley proposed to the General Court of Massachusetts the bold enterprise of a colonial expedition, of which Louisburg should be the object. After six days' deliberation and two additional messages from the governor, this proposal was adopted by a majority of one vote. A circular letter, asking aid and co-operation, was sent to all the colonies as far south as Pennsylvania. In answer to this application, urged by a special messenger from Massachusetts, the Pennsylvania Assembly … voted £4,000 of their currency to purchase provisions. The New Jersey Assembly … furnished … £2,000 toward the Louisburg expedition, but declined to raise any men. The New York Assembly, after a long debate, voted £3,000 of their currency; but this seemed to Clinton a niggardly grant, and he sent, besides, a quantity of provisions purchased by private subscription, and ten eighteen-pounders from the king's magazine. Connecticut voted 500 men, led by Roger Wolcott, afterward governor, and appointed, by stipulation of the Connecticut Assembly, second in command of the expedition. Rhode Island and New Hampshire each raised a regiment of 300 men; but the Rhode Island troops did not arrive till after Louisburg was taken. The chief burden of the enterprise, as was to be expected, fell on Massachusetts. In seven weeks an army of 3,250 men was enlisted, transports were pressed, and bills of credit were profusely issued to pay the expense. Ten armed vessels were provided by Massachusetts, and one by each of the other New England colonies. The command in chief was given to William Pepperell, a native of Maine, a wealthy merchant, who had inherited and augmented a large fortune acquired by his father in the fisheries; a popular, enterprising, sagacious man, noted for his universal good fortune, but unacquainted with military affairs; except as a militia officer. … The enterprise … assumed something of the character of an anti-Catholic crusade. One of the chaplains, a disciple of Whitfield, carried a hatchet, specially provided to hew down the images in the French churches. {2316} Eleven days after embarking at Boston [April, 1745], the Massachusetts armament assembled at Casco, to wait there the arrival of the Connecticut and Rhode Island quotas, and the melting of the ice by which Cape Breton was environed. The New Hampshire troops were already there; those from Connecticut came a few days after. Notice having been sent to England and the West Indies of the intended expedition, Captain Warren presently arrived with four ships of war, and, cruising before Louisburg, captured several vessels bound thither with supplies. Already, before his arrival, the New England cruisers had prevented the entry of a French thirty-gun ship. As soon as the ice permitted, the troops landed and commenced the siege, but not with much skill, for they had no engineers. … Five unsuccessful attacks were made, one after another, upon an island battery which protected the harbor. In that cold, foggy climate, the troops, very imperfectly provided with tents, suffered severely from sickness, and more than a third were unfit for duty. But the French garrison was feeble and mutinous, and when the commander found that his supplies had been captured, he relieved the embarrassment of the besiegers by offering to capitulate. The capitulation [June 17] included 650 regular soldiers, and near 1,300 effective inhabitants of the town, all of whom were to be shipped to France. The island of St. John's presently submitted on the same terms. The loss during the siege was less than 150, but among those reluctantly detained to garrison the conquered fortress ten times as many perished afterward by sickness. In the expedition of Vernon and this against Louisburg perished a large number of the remaining Indians of New England, persuaded to enlist as soldiers in the colonial regiments. Some dispute arose as to the relative merits of the land and naval forces, which had been joined during the siege by additional ships from England. Pepperell, however, was made a baronet, and both he and Shirley were commissioned as colonels in the British army. Warren was promoted to the rank of rear admiral. The capture of this strong fortress, effected in the face of many obstacles, shed, indeed, a momentary luster over one of the most unsuccessful wars in which Britain was ever engaged."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapter 25 (volume 2).

"As far as England was concerned, it [the taking of Louisburg] was the great event of the war of the Austrian succession. England had no other success in that war to compare with it. As things turned out, it is not too much to say that this exploit of New England gave peace to Europe."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5).

"Though it was the most brilliant success the English achieved during the war, English historians scarcely mention it."

R. Johnson, History of the French War, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: T. C. Haliburton, Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia, chapter 3 (volume 1).

_R. Brown, History of Cape Breton, letters 12-14._

_S. A. Drake, The Taking of Louisburg._

U. Parsons, Life of Sir William Pepperell, chapters 3-5.

_F. Parkman, The Capture of Louisbourg (Atlantic Monthly, March-May, 1891)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748. King George's War: The mortifying end. Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, and restoration of Louisburg to France.

"Elated by their success [at Louisburg], the Provincials now offered to undertake the conquest of Canada; but the Duke of Bedford, to whom Governor Shirley's plan had been submitted, disapproved of it, as exhibiting to the colonists too plainly their own strength. … He therefore advised to place the chief dependence on the fleet and army to be sent from England, and to look on the Americans as useful only when joined with others. Finally, the Whigs determined to send a powerful fleet to Quebec, at the same time that an army should attack Montreal, by the route of Lake Champlain; and so late as April, 1746, orders were issued to the several governors to levy troops without limitation, which, when assembled on the frontiers, the king would pay. From some unknown cause, the plan was abandoned as soon as formed. The general appointed to the chief command was ordered not to embark, but the instructions to enlist troops had been transmitted to America, and were acted on with alacrity. Massachusetts raised 3,500 men to co-operate with the fleet, which, however, they were doomed never to see. After being kept a long time in suspense, they were dispersed, in several places, to strengthen garrisons which were supposed to be too weak for the defenses assigned them. Upward of 3,000 men, belonging to other colonies, were assembled at Albany, undisciplined, without a commissariat, and under no control. After the season for active operations was allowed to pass away, they disbanded themselves, some with arms in their hands demanding pay of their governors, and others suing their captains. In addition to this disgraceful affair, the Provincials had the mortification to have a large detachment of their men cut off in Lower Horton, then known as Minas, situated nearly in the centre of Nova Scotia. The Canadian forces, which had traveled thither to co-operate with an immense fleet expected from France, determining to winter in that province, rendered it a subject of continued anxiety and expense to Massachusetts. Governor Shirley resolved, after again reinforcing the garrison at Annapolis, to drive them from the shores of Minas Basin, where they were seated; and in the winter of the year 1746, a body of troops was embarked at Boston for the former place. After the loss of a transport, and the greatest part of the soldiers on board, the troops arrived, and reembarked for Grand Pré in the district of Minas, in the latter end of December. … The issue was, that being cantoned at too great distances from each other, La Corne, a commander of the French, having intelligence of their situation, forced a march from Schiegnieto, through a most tempestuous snow-storm, and surprised them at midnight. After losing 160 of their men, in killed, wounded and prisoners, the party were obliged to capitulate, not, however, on dishonorable terms, and the French, in their turn, abandoned their post. On the 8th of May, 1749, peace was proclaimed at Boston [according to the terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 7, 1748], much to the mortification of the Provincials; Cape Breton was restored to France; and Louisburg, which had created so much dread, and inflicted such injuries on their commerce, was handed over to their inveterate enemies, to be rendered still stronger by additional fortifications. The French also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Michelon, on the south coast of Newfoundland, as stations for their fisheries." England reimbursed the colonies to the extent of £183,000 for the expenses of their vain conquest of Louisburg, and £135,000 for their losses in raising troops under the orders that were revoked.

T. C. Haliburton, Rule and Misrule of the English in America, book 3, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 19.

S. G. Drake, Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War, chapters 6-9.

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 5, chapter 10 (volume 5).

See, also, AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

{2317}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1750-1753. Dissensions among the colonies at the opening of the great French War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany. Franklin's Plan of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1755-1760. The last Intercolonial, or French and Indian War, and English conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760; NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755; OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755; CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1761. Harsh enforcement of revenue laws. The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764. Enforcement of the Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1766. The Stamp Act. Its effects and its repeal. The Stamp Act Congress. The Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765: and 1766.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston. The "Massacre," and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1785. The ending of Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781; 1769-1785; and 1774.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea. Committees of Correspondence instituted. The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act, and the Quebec Act. The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. The country in arms and Boston under siege. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

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

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1783. The War of the Revolution. Independence achieved.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL), to 1783.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1787-1789. Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

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

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1808. The Embargo and its effects.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1814. Federalist opposition to the war with England.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1814. The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1828. Change of front on the tariff question.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824; and 1828.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832. The rise of the Abolitionists.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865. The war for the Union.

See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL), and after.

----------NEW ENGLAND: End----------

NEW FOREST.

To create a new royal hunting ground in his English dominion, William the Conqueror ruthlessly demolished villages, manors, chapels, and parish churches throughout thirty miles of country, along the coast side of Hampshire, from the Avon on the west to Southampton Water on the east, and called this wilderness of his making, The New Forest. His son William Rufus was killed in it—which people thought to be a judgment. The New Forest still exists and embraces no less than 66,000 acres, extending over a district twenty miles by fifteen in area, of woodland, heath, bog and rough pasture.

J. C. Brown, Forests of England, part 1, chapter 2, D.

NEW FRANCE.

See CANADA.

NEW GRANADA.

See COLOMBIAN STATES.

----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: Start--------

NEW HAMPSHIRE: The aboriginal inhabitants. See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1623-1631. Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it. First colonies planted. The naming of the province.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679. The claims of Massachusetts asserted and defeated.

According to its terms, the Massachusetts patent embraced a territory extending northward three miles beyond the head-waters of the Merrimack, and covered, therefore, the greater part of Mason's New Hampshire grant, as well as that of Gorges in Maine. In 1641, when this fact had been ascertained, the General Court of Massachusetts "passed an order (with the consent of the settlers at Dover and Strawberry-bank, on the Piscataqua), 'That from thenceforth, the said people inhabiting there are and shall be accepted and reputed under the Government of the Massachusetts,' etc. Mason had died, and confusion ensued, so that the settlers were mostly glad of the transfer. A long controversy ensued between Mason's heirs and Massachusetts as to the right of jurisdiction. The history of New Hampshire and Maine at this period was much the same. In 1660, at the time of the Restoration, the heirs of Mason applied to the Attorney-General in England, who decided that they had a good title to New Hampshire. The Commissioners who came over in 1664 attempted to re-establish them; but as the settlers favored Massachusetts, she resumed her government when they left. Mason's heirs renewed their claim in 1675, and in 1679 it was solemnly decided against the claim of the Massachusetts Colony, although their grant technically included all lands extending to three miles north of the waters of the Merrimack river. John Cutt was the first President in New Hampshire, and thenceforward, to the American Revolution, New Hampshire was treated as a Royal province, the Governors and Lieutenant-Governors being appointed by the King, and the laws made by the people being subject to his revision."

C. W. Elliott, The New England History, volume 1, chapter 26.

ALSO IN: G. Barstow, History of New Hampshire, chapters 2-5.

J. Belknap, History of New Hampshire, volume 1, chapters 2-9.

N. Adams, Annals of Portsmouth, pages 28-64.

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

{2318}

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1675. Outbreak of the Taranteens.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1744-1748. King George's War and the taking of Louisburg.

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1749-1774. Boundary dispute with New York. The grants in Vermont, and the struggle of the "Green Mountain Boys" to defend them.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1755-1760. The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760; NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755; OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755; CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

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

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston. The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea. Committees of Correspondence instituted. The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act, and the Quebec Act. The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. The country in arms and Boston beleaguered. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776. The end of royal government. Adoption of a constitution. Declaration of Independence.

The New Hampshire Assembly, called by Governor Wentworth, came together June 12, 1775, in the midst of the excitements produced by news of Lexington and Ticonderoga. Meantime, a convention of the people had been called and was sitting at Exeter. Acting on a demand from the latter, the assembly proceeded first to expel from its body three members whom the governor had called by the king's writ from three new townships, and who were notorious royalists. "One of the expelled members, having censured this proceeding, was assaulted by the populace, and fled for shelter to the governor's house. The people demanded him, and, being refused, they pointed a gun at the governor's door; whereupon the offender was surrendered and carried to Exeter. The governor retired to the fort, and his house was pillaged. He afterwards went on board the Scarborough and sailed for Boston. He had adjourned the assembly to the 28th of September. But they met no more. In September, he issued a proclamation from the Isles of Shoals, adjourning them to April next. This was the closing act of his administration. It was the last receding step of royalty. It had subsisted in the province 95 years. The government of New Hampshire was henceforth to be a government of the people. … The convention which had assembled at Exeter was elected but for six months. Previous to their dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention, which should be a more full representation of the people. They sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of government. Having assumed the name of 'House of Representatives,' they adopted a constitution [January, 1776], and proceeded to choose twelve persons to constitute a distinct and a co-ordinate branch of the legislature, by the name of a Council." The constitution provided for no executive. "The two houses assumed to themselves the executive duty during the session, and they appointed a committee of safety to sit in the recess, varying in number from six to sixteen, vested with executive powers. The president of the council was president of the executive committee. … On the 11th of June, 1776, a committee was chosen by the assembly, and another by the council of New Hampshire, 'to make a draught of a declaration of the independence of the united colonies.' On the 15th, the committees of both houses reported a 'Declaration of Independence,' which was adopted unanimously, and a copy sent forthwith to their delegates in congress."

G. Barstow, History of New Hampshire, chapter 9.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776. The ending of Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776-1783. The War of Independence. Peace with England.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1783. Revision of the State constitution.

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1788. Ratification of the Federal constitution.

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1814. The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: End--------

----------NEW HAVEN: Start--------

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1638. The planting of the Colony and the founding of the City.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1639. The Fundamental Agreement.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1640-1655. The attempts at colonization on the Delaware.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1643. Progress and state of the colony. The New England Confederation.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

{2319}

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1660-1664. The protection of the Regicides.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1662-1664. Annexation to Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1666. The migration to Newark, N.J.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1779. Pillaged by Tryon's marauders.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

----------NEW HAVEN: End--------

NEW HOPE CHURCH, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

----------NEW JERSEY: Start--------

NEW JERSEY: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1610-1664. The Dutch in possession. The Patroon colony at Pavonia.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614; and 1621-1646.

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

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

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1634. Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1635. Territory assigned to Lord Mulgrave on the dissolution of the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655. The attempted colonization from New Haven, on the Delaware.

The London merchants who formed the leading colonists of New Haven, and who were the wealthiest among the pioneer settlers of New England, had schemes of commerce in their minds, as well as desires for religious freedom, when they founded their little republic at Quinnipiac. They began with no delay to establish a trade with Barbadoes and Virginia, as well as along their own coasts; and they were promptly on the watch for advantageous openings at which to plant a strong trading-post or two among the Indians. In the winter of 1638-39, one George Lamberton of New Haven, while trafficking Virginia-wards, discovered the lively fur trade already made active on Delaware Bay by the Dutch and Swedes [see DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640], and took a hand in it. His enterprising townsmen, when they heard his report, resolved to put themselves at once on some kind of firm footing in the country where this profitable trade could be reached. They formed a "Delaware Company," in which the Governor, the minister, and all the chiefs of the colony were joined, and late in the year 1640 they sent a vessel into Delaware Bay, commanded by Captain Turner, who was one of their number. Captain Turner "was instructed by the Delaware Company to view and purchase lands at the Delaware Bay, and not to meddle with aught that rightfully belonged to the Swedes or Dutch. … But New Haven's captain paid little heed to boundaries. He bought of the Indians nearly the whole southwestern coast of New Jersey, and also a tract of land at Passayunk, on the present site of Philadelphia, and opposite the Dutch fort Nassau. … On the 30th of August, 1641, there was a Town-Meeting at New Haven, which voted to itself authority over the region of the Delaware Bay. The acts of the Delaware Company were approved, and 'Those to whome the affaires of the towne is committed' were ordered to 'Dispose of all the affayres of Delaware Bay.' The first instalment of settlers had previously gone to the Bay. Trumbull says that nearly fifty families removed. As they went by New Amsterdam, Governor Kieft issued an unavailing protest, which was met, however, by fair words. The larger portion of the party settled in a plantation on Varkin's Kill (Ferkenskill, Hog Creek?), near what is now Salem, New Jersey. A fortified trading-house was built or occupied at Passayunk. This was the era of Sir Edmund Plowden's shadowy Palatinate of New Albion, and, if there is any truth in the curious 'Description,' there would seem to be some connection between this fort of the New Haven settlers and Plowden's alleged colony." The Dutch and the Swedes, notwithstanding their mutual jealousies, made common cause against these New England intruders, and succeeded in breaking up their settlements., The exact occurrences are obscurely known, but it is certain that the attempted colonization was a failure, and that, "slowly, through the winter and spring of 1643, the major part of [the settlers] … straggled home to New Haven. … The poverty and distress were not confined to the twoscore households who had risked their persons in the enterprise. The ill-starred effort had impoverished the highest personages in the town, and crippled New Haven's best financial strength. "Yet the scheme of settlement on the Delaware was not abandoned. While claims against the Dutch for damages and for redress of wrongs were vigorously pressed, the town still looked upon the purchased territory as its own, and was resolute in the intention to occupy it. In 1651 a new expedition of fifty persons set sail for the Delaware, but was stopped at Manhattan by Peter Stuyvesant, and sent back, vainly raging at the insolence of the Dutch. All New England shared the wrath of New Haven, but confederated New England was not willing to move in the matter unless New Haven would pay the consequent costs. New Haven seemed rather more than half disposed to take up arms against New Netherland on her own responsibility; but her small quarrel was soon merged in the greater war which broke out between Holland and England. When this occurred, "concerted action on the part of the New Englanders would have given New Holland to the Allies, and extended New Haven's limits to the Delaware, without any one to gainsay or resist. After the Commissioners [of the United Colonies] declared for war, Massachusetts refused to obey, adopted the role of a secessionist, and checked the whole proceeding. New Haven, with whom the proposed war was almost a matter of life and death, was justified in adverting to the conduct of Massachusetts as 'A provoaking sinn against God, and of a scandalous nature before men.' The mutinous schemes of Roger Ludlow and of some New Haven malcontents complicated the problem still more both for Connecticut and New Haven. Finally, just as an army of 800 men was ready [1654] to march upon New Amsterdam, tidings came of a European peace, and New Haven's last chance was gone. But the town did not lose hope." Plans for a new colony were slowly matured through 1654 and 1655, but "the enterprise was completely thwarted by a series of untoward events," the most decisive of which was the conquest of New Sweden by Stuyvesant in October, 1655. "But the dream of Delaware was not forgotten."

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."

B. J. Lossing, The Empire State, chapter 8.

"Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs, but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an opposition led by persons who held office under King James. They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a patriot."

R. Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic, chapter 3.

{2335}

"The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler. … And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice, aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a traitor."

W. Dunlap, History of the New Netherlands, volume 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: _C. F. Hoffman, The Administration of Jacob Leisler (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3)._

_Papers relating to Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration (O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2)._

_Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration (New York Historical Society Collection, 1868)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697. King William's War: The Schenectady massacre. Abortive expedition against Montreal. French plans of conquest.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697:

NEW YORK: A. D. 1690. The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1692. Bradford's press set up.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696. Count Frontenac's invasion of the Iroquois country.

See CANADA: A. D. 1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696-1749. Suppression of colonial manufactures.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711. Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal. Capture of Port Royal.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710; and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1710. Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson. Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.

See PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734. Conflicts of royal governors with the people. Zenger's trial. Vindication of the freedom of the press.

"In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego, and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the time when the ministry was warned that 'the American assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732, was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax, and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man, broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. … To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered: 'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent of the council or waiting for the approbation of the sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at the head of his profession in New York for sagacity, penetration, and application to business. All the central colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the press.'"

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last Revision) part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Grahame, History of the United States (Colonial), book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

_W. L. Stone, History of New York City, 2d period, chapter 2._

E. Lawrence, William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press (Memorial History of the City of New York, volume 2, chapter 7).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1725. The first Newspaper.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1726. How the Iroquois placed themselves under the protection of England.

"Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had received from England, and all the injuries that had been inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it. They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the King of England for help to regain their country from the French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a surrender of their country to England, to be protected for their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their territory to be subject to Great Britain."

W. Dunlap, History of New York, volume 1, page 289.

{2336}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1741. The pretended Negro Plot. Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.

In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes, to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and executed."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapter 25 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: Mrs. Lamb, History of the City of New York, volume 1, chapter 26.

G. W. Williams, History of the Negro Race in America, volume 1, chapter 13.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744. Treaty with the Six Nations at Albany.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

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

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1746-1754. The founding of King's College.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774. The struggle for Vermont. The disputed New Hampshire Grants, and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1755. The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George. Abortive expedition against Niagara. Braddock's defeat.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755; and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757. The French and Indian War: English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1758. The French and Indian War: Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga. Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758; and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1759. The French and Indian War: Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1760. The French and Indian War: Completed English conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764. Pontiac's War. Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act and its repeal. The Declaratory Act. The Stamp Act Congress.

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765. Patriotic self-denials. Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768. The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix. Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1766-1773. Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773, and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774. The Revolutionary spirit abroad. The conflict of parties. The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One, and the Committee of Sixty.

"In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston. … An 'association' was now circulated for signatures, engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or 'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee. Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January 20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April 15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook, followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy' landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by the ship Samson on the 12th. {2337} Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most effectual, and assuring them that their course would be heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had been the march of events that not till now did the merchants and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.' … A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added, Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response to another communication just received from Boston, by the famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions … not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances, but for the security of our common rights;' and that the advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane, and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys." This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately, at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the 'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."

G. Pellew, John Jay, chapter 2.

"The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was dissolved."

Mrs. M. J. Lamb, History of the City of New York, volume 1, page 768.

ALSO IN: I. Q. Leake, Life and Times of General John Lamb, chapter 6.

J. A. Stevens, The Second Non-importation Agreement (Memorial History of the City of New York, volume 2, chapter 11).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act, and the Quebec Act. The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April). Disadvantages experienced by the patriots. The first provincial Convention held.

"The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where there was an elective council and an annually elected assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of power around which the people might assemble and claim to be heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in store several days without them. While they were on their way to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and seized them, but before they could be concealed they were retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to appeal to the people. {2338} The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into consideration the election of delegates to a convention of representatives from such of the counties of the province as should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th [April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first provincial convention in New York—the first positive expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that province. They remained in session three days, and chose for delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd, Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris, Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such measures as shall be judged most effectual for the preservation and reestablishment of American rights and privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the adjournment."

B. J. Lossing, Life and Times of Philip Schuyler, volume 1, chapters 17-18.

ALSO IN: W. Dunlap, History of New York, volume 1, chapter 29.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May). The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. Action upon the news. Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga. Siege of Boston. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September). The Sons of Liberty take control of the city. The end of royal government. Flight of Governor Tryon.

"On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it, together with a quantity which had been deposited in the arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now became necessary to organize some provisional government for the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. … The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on their colleagues to present a placable address to Lieutenant-Governor Colden, explanatory of their appointment, and assuring him that they should use every effort to preserve the public peace; yet ominous precautions were taken to put the arms of the city in a serviceable condition, and to survey the neighboring grounds with a view to erecting fortifications. … On the 25th of June, Washington entered New York on his way from Mount Vernon to Cambridge to take command of the army assembled there. The Provincial Congress received him with a cautious address. Despite their patriotism, they still clung to the shadow of loyalty; fearing to go too far, they acted constantly under protest that they desired nothing more than to secure to themselves the rights of true-born British subjects. The next morning Washington quitted the city, escorted on his way by the provincial militia. Tryon [Governor Tryon, who had been absent, in England since the spring of 1774, leaving the government in the hands of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, and who now returned to resume it] had entered it the night before, and thus had been brought almost face to face with the rebel who was destined to work such a transformation in his majesty's colonies of America. The mayor and corporation received the returning governor with expressions of joy, and even the patriot party were glad of the change which relieved them from the government of Colden. … Meanwhile, the colony of New York had been ordered by the Continental Congress to contribute her quota of 3,000 men to the general defence, and four regiments were accordingly raised. … The city now presented a curious spectacle, as the seat of two governments, each issuing its own edicts, and denouncing those of the other as illegal authority. It was not long before the two powers came into collision." This was brought about by an order from the Provincial Congress, directing the removal of guns from the Battery. Shots were exchanged between the party executing this order and a boat from the ship of war "Asia"; whereupon the "Asia" cannonaded the town, riddling houses and wounding three citizens. "Hitherto, the governor had remained firm at his post; but finding his position daily growing more perilous, despite the pledges of the corporation for his personal safety, he determined to abandon the city, and took refuge on board the 'Asia.'"

Mary L. Booth, History of the City of New York, chapter 16.

ALSO IN: I. Q. Leake, Life and Times of General John Lamb, chapter 7.

{2339}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (January-August). Flight of Governor Tryon. New York City occupied by Washington. Battle of Long Island. Defeat of the American army.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (September-November). The struggle for the city. Washington's retreat. The British in possession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777. The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house Prisons. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777. The campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777. WASHINGTON'S RETREAT; and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777. Adoption of a Constitution and organization of a State government. Religious freedom established.

"After the Declaration of Independence, the several colonies proceeded to form State governments, by adopting constitutions. In that business New York moved early. On the 1st of August, 1776, a committee of the 'Convention of the Representatives of New York,' as the provisional government was called, sitting at White Plains, in Westchester County, were appointed to draw up and report a constitution. The committee consisted of the following named gentlemen: John Jay, John Sloss Hobart, William Smith, William Duer, Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston, John Broome, John Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, Jr., Henry Wisner, Sen., Samuel Townsend, Charles De Witt and Robert Yates. John Jay was the chairman, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the Constitution. The Convention was made migratory by the stirring events of the war during the ensuing autumn and winter. First they held their sessions at Harlem Heights; then at White Plains; afterward at Fishkill, in Dutchess County, and finally at Kingston, in Ulster County, where they continued from February till May, 1777. There undisturbed the committee on the Constitution pursued their labors, and on the 12th of March, 1777, reported a draft of that instrument. It was under consideration in the Convention for more than a month after that, and was finally adopted on the 20th of April. Under it a State government was established by an ordinance of the Convention, passed in May, and the first session of the Legislature was appointed to meet at Kingston in July." The election of State officers was held in June. Jay and others issued a circular recommending General Schuyler for Governor and General George Clinton for Lieutenant Governor. But Schuyler "declined the honor, because he considered the situation of affairs in his Department too critical to be neglected by dividing his duties. The elections were held in all the Counties excepting New York, Kings, Queens, and Suffolk, then occupied by the British, and Brigadier General George Clinton was elected Governor, which office he held, by successive elections, for eighteen years, and afterward for three years. Pierre Van Courtlandt, the President of the Senate, became Lieutenant Governor. Robert R. Livingston was appointed Chancellor; John Jay Chief Justice; Robert Yates and John Sloss Hobart judges of the Supreme Court, and Egbert Benson attorney-general. So it was that the great State of New York was organized and put into operation at a time when it was disturbed by formidable invasions on its northern, southern, and western frontiers."

B. J. Lossing, Life and Times of Philip Schuyler, volume 2, chapter 9.

The framers of this first constitution of the State of New York "proceeded at the outset to do away with the established church, repealing all such parts of the common law and all such statutes of the province 'as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers.' Then followed a section … which, it is believed, entitles New York to the honor of being the first organized government of the world to assert by constitutional provision the principle of perfect religious freedom. It reads as follows: 'And whereas, we are required by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all mankind.' Thomas Jefferson, to whom Virginia is chiefly indebted for her religious liberty [embodied in her Declaration of Rights, in 1776] derived his religious as well as his political ideas from the philosophers of France. But the men who framed this constitutional provision for New York, which has since spread over most of the United States, and lies at the base of American religious liberty, were not freethinkers, although they believed in freedom of thought. Their Dutch ancestors had practised religious toleration, they expanded toleration into liberty, and in this form transmitted to posterity the heritage which Holland had sent across the sea a century and a half before."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, volume 2, pages 251-252.

ALSO IN: W. Jay, Life of John Jay, chapter 3 (volume 1).

T. Roosevelt, Gouverneur Morris, chapter 3.

B. F. Butler, Outline of Constitutional History of New York (New York Historical Society Collections, series 2, volume 2).

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777. Opposition to the recognition of the State independence of Vermont.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777-1778. Burgoyne's invasion from Canada and his surrender. The Articles of Confederation. The alliance with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777(JULY-OCTOBER), to 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778. Fortifying West Point.

See WEST POINT.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778. The war on the Indian Border. Activity of Tories and Savages. The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER), and (JULY).

{2340}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778-1779. Washington's ceaseless guard upon the Hudson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1779. Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780. Arnold's attempted betrayal of West Point.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780-1783. The war in the South. The surrender of Cornwallis. Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1781. Western territorial claims and their cession to the United States.

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783. Flight of the Tories, or Loyalists.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783. Evacuation of New York City by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1784. Founding of the Bank of New York.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786. Rejection of proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799. Land-fee of Western New York ceded to Massachusetts. The Phelps and Gorham Purchase. The Holland Purchase. The founding of Buffalo.

The conflicting territorial claims of New York and Massachusetts, caused by the overlapping grants of the English crown, were not all settled by the cession of western claims to the United States which New York made in 1781 and Massachusetts in 1785 (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786). "Although the nominal amount in controversy, by these acts, was much diminished, it still left some 19,000 square miles of territory in dispute, but this controversy was finally settled by a convention of Commissioners appointed by the parties, held at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 16th day of December, 1786. According to the stipulations entered into by the convention, Massachusetts ceded to the state of New York all her claim to the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction of all the territory lying west of the present east line of the state of New York; and New York ceded to Massachusetts the pre-emption right or fee of the land subject to the title of the natives, of all that part of the state of New York lying west of a line beginning at a point in the north line of Pennsylvania, 82 miles west of the north-east corner of said state, and running from thence due north through Seneca lake to lake Ontario; excepting and reserving to the state of New York a strip of land east of and adjoining the eastern bank of Niagara river, one mile wide and extending its whole length. The land, the pre-emption right of which was thus ceded, amounted to about 6,000,000 of acres. In April, 1788, Massachusetts contracted to sell to Nathaniel Gorham of Charlestown, Middlesex county, and Oliver Phelps of Granville, Hampshire county, of said state, their pre-emption right to all the lands in Western New York, amounting to about 6,000,000 acres, for the sum of $1,000,000, to be paid in three annual instalments, for which a kind of scrip Massachusetts had issued, called consolidated securities, was to be received, which was then in market much below par. In July, 1788, Messrs. Gorham and Phelps purchased of the Indians by treaty, at a convention held at Buffalo, the Indian title to about 2,600,000 acres of the eastern part of their purchase from Massachusetts. This purchase of the Indians being bounded west by a line beginning at a point in the north line of the state of Pennsylvania, due south of the corner or point of land made by the confluence of the Kanahasgwaicon (Cannnseraga) creek with the waters of Genesee river; thence north on said meridian line to the corner or point at the confluence aforesaid; thence northwardly along the waters of said Genesee river to a point two miles north of Kanawageras (Cannewagus) village; thence running due west 12 miles; thence running northwardly, so as to be 12 miles distant from the westward bounds of said river, to the shore of lake Ontario. On the 21st day of November, 1788, the state of Massachusetts conveyed and forever quitclaimed to N. Gorham and O. Phelps, their heirs and assigns forever, all the right and title of said state to all that tract of country of which Messrs. Phelps and Gorham had extinguished the Indian title. This tract, and this only, has since been designated as the Phelps and Gorham Purchase. … So rapid were the sales of the proprietors that before the 18th day of November, 1790, they had disposed of about 50 townships [each six miles square], which were mostly sold by whole townships or large portions of townships, to sundry individuals and companies of farmers and others, formed for that purpose. On the 18th day of November, 1790, they sold the residue of their tract (reserving two townships only), amounting to upwards of a million and a quarter acres of land, to Robert Morris of Philadelphia, who soon sold the same to Sir William Pultney, an English gentleman. … This property, or such part of it as was unsold at the time of the decease of Sir William, together with other property which he purchased in his lifetime in its vicinity, is now [1849] called the Pultney Estate. … Messrs. Phelps and Gorham, who had paid about one third of the purchase money of the whole tract purchased of Massachusetts, in consequence of the rise of the value of Massachusetts consolidated stock (in which the payments for the land were to be received) from 20 per cent. to par, were unable further to comply with their engagements." After long negotiations they were permitted to relinquish to the state of Massachusetts all that western section of their purchase of which they had not acquired the Indian title, and this was resold in March, 1791, by Massachusetts, to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert Morris. Morris made several sales from the eastern portion of his purchase, to the state of Connecticut (investing its school fund) and to others, in large blocks known subsequently as the Ogden Tract, the Cragie Tract, the Connecticut Tract, etc. The remainder or most of it, covering the greater part of western New York, was disposed of to certain gentlemen in Holland, and came to be generally known as the Holland Purchase.

O. Turner, Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase, pages 325 and 396-424.

{2341}

"Much has been written and more has been said about the 'Holland Company.' When people wished to be especially precise, they called it the 'Holland Land Company.' … Yet there never was any such thing as the Holland Company or the Holland Land Company. Certain merchants and others of the city of Amsterdam placed funds in the hands of friends who were citizens of America to purchase several tracts of land in the United States, which, being aliens, the Hollanders could not hold in their own name at that time. One of these tracts, comprising what was afterwards known as the Holland Purchase, was bought from Robert Morris. … In the forepart of 1798 the legislature of New York authorized those aliens to hold land within the State, and in the latter part of that year the American trustees conveyed the Holland Purchase to the real owners." The great territory covered by the Purchase surrounded several Indian "Reservations"—large blocks of land, that is, which the aboriginal Seneca proprietors reserved for their own occupancy when they parted with their title to the rest, which they did at a council held in 1797. One of these Reservations embraced the site now occupied by the city of Buffalo. Joseph Ellicott, the agent of the Holland proprietors, quickly discerned its prospective importance, and made an arrangement with his Indian neighbors by which he secured possession of the ground at the foot of Lake Erie and the head of Niagara River, in exchange for another piece of land six miles away. Here, in 1799, Ellicott began the founding of a town which he called New Amsterdam, but which subsequently took the name of the small stream, Buffalo Creek, on which it grew up, and which, by deepening and enlargement, became its harbor.

C. Johnson, Centennial History of Erie Company, New York, chapter 13.

ALSO IN: O. Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps' and Gorham's Purchase, part 2.

O. Turner, Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase, pages 401-424.

_H. L. Osgood, The Title of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase (Rochester Historical Society Publications, volume 1)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1787-1788. The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution. The chief battle ground of the contest.

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789. Inauguration of President Washington in New York City.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789. The beginnings of Tammany.

See TAMMANY SOCIETY.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1790. Renunciation of claims to Vermont.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1799. Gradual emancipation of Slaves enacted.

During the session of the legislature in April, 1799, "emancipation was at last enacted. It was provided that all children born of slave parents after the ensuing 4th of July should be free, subject to apprenticeship, in the case of males till the age of 28, in the case of females till the age of 25, and the exportation of slaves was forbidden. By this process of gradual emancipation there was avoided that question of compensation which had been the secret of the failure of earlier bills. At that time the number of slaves was only 22,000, small in proportion to the total population of nearly a million. So the change was effected peacefully and without excitement."

G. Pellew, John Jay, page 328.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1805. The Free School Society in New York City.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1880.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1807. Fulton's first steamboat on the Hudson.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1812-1815. The war on the Canadian frontier.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (DECEMBER); 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER); 1814 (SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819. The Clintonians and Bucktails.

During the first term of De Witt Clinton as governor of the State, the feud in the Democratic Republican party, between his supporters and his opponents, which began in 1812 when he audaciously sought to attain the Presidency, against Madison, assumed a fixed and definite form. "Clinton's Republican adversaries were dubbed 'Bucktails,' from the ornaments worn on ceremonial occasions by the Tammany men, who had long been Clinton's enemies. The Bucktails and their successors were the 'regular' Republicans, or the Democrats as they were later called; and they kept their regularity until, long afterwards, the younger and greater Bucktail leader [Martin Van Buren], when venerable and laden with honors, became the titular head of the Barn-burner defection. The merits of the feud between Bucktails and Clintonians it is now difficult to find. Each accused the other of coquetting with the Federalists; and the accusation of one of them was nearly always true."

E. M. Shepard, Martin Van Buren, page 56.

ALSO IN: J. Schouler, History of the United States, volume 3, page 227.

J. D. Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York, volume 1, page 450.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825. Construction of the Erie Canal.

"History will assign to Gouverneur Morris the merit of first suggesting a direct and continuous communication from Lake Erie to the Hudson. In 1800, he announced this idea from the shore of the Niagara river to a friend in Europe. … The praise awarded to Gouverneur Morris must be qualified by the fact, that the scheme he conceived was that of a canal with a uniform declination, and without locks, from Lake Erie to the Hudson. Morris communicated his project to Simeon De Witt in 1803, by whom it was made known to James Geddes in 1804. It afterward became the subject of conversation between Mr. Geddes and Jesse Hawley, and this communication is supposed to have given rise to the series of essays written by Mr. Hawley, under the signature of 'Hercules,' in the 'Genesee Messenger,' continued from October, 1807, until March, 1808, which first brought the public mind into familiarity with the subject. These essays, written in a jail, were the grateful return, by a patriot, to a country which punished him with imprisonment for being unable to pay debts owed to another citizen, and displayed deep research, with singular vigor and comprehensiveness of thought, and traced with prophetic accuracy a large portion of the outline of the Erie canal. In 1807, Albert Gallatin, then secretary of the treasury, in pursuance of a recommendation made by Thomas Jefferson, president of the United States, reported a plan for appropriating all the surplus revenues of the general government to the construction of canals and turnpike roads; and it embraced in one grand and comprehensive view, nearly without exception, all the works which have since been executed or attempted by the several states in the Union. … {2342} In 1808, Joshua Forman, a representative in the assembly from Onondaga county, submitted his memorable resolution," referring to the recommendation made by President Jefferson to the federal congress, and directing that "'a joint committee be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of exploring and causing an accurate survey to be made of the most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and Lake Erie, to the end that Congress may be enabled to appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the accomplishment of that great national object.'" The committee was appointed, its report was favorable, and the survey was directed to be made. "There was then no civil engineer in the state. James Geddes, a land surveyor, who afterward became one of our most distinguished engineers, by the force of native genius and application in mature years, levelled and surveyed, under instructions from the surveyor-general," several routes to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie. "Mr. Geddes' report showed that a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson was practicable, and could be made without serious difficulty. In 1810, on motion of Jonas Platt, of the senate, who was distinguished throughout a pure and well-spent life by his zealous efforts to promote this great undertaking, Gouverneur Morris, De Witt Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, William North, Thomas Eddy, and Peter B. Porter, were appointed commissioners 'to explore the whole route for inland navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie.' Cadwallader D. Colden, a contemporary historian, himself one of the earliest and ablest advocates of the canals, awards to Thomas Eddy the merit of having suggested this motion to Mr. Platt, and to both these gentlemen that of engaging De Witt Clinton's support, he being at that time a member of the senate. … The commissioners in March, 1811, submitted their report written by Gouverneur Morris, in which they showed the practicability and advantages of a continuous canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and stated their estimate of the cost at $5,000,000. … On the presentation of this report, De Witt Clinton introduced a bill, which became a law on the 8th of April, 1811, under the title of 'An act to provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of this state.' … The act added Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton to the board of commissioners, and authorized them to consider all matters relating to such inland navigation, with powers to make application in behalf of the state to Congress, or to any state or territory, to cooperate and aid in the undertaking. … Two of the commissioners, Mr. Morris and Mr. Clinton, repaired to the federal capital, and submitted the subject to the consideration of the President (Mr. Madison) and of Congress. In 1812, the commissioners reported that, although it was uncertain whether the national government would do anything, it certainly would do nothing which would afford immediate aid to the enterprise. … The commissioners then submitted that, having offered the canal to the national government, and that offer having virtually been declined, the state was now at liberty to consult and pursue the maxims of policy, and these seemed to demand imperatively that the canal should be made by herself, and for her own account, as soon as the circumstances would permit. … On the 19th of June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the commissioners and authorizing them to borrow money and deposite it in the treasury, and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any measures to construct the canals. … From 1812 to 1815, the country suffered the calamities of war, and projects of internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic efforts required to maintain the national security and honor." But after peace had returned, the advocates of the enterprise prevailed with considerable difficulty over its opponents, and "ground was broken for the construction of the Erie canal on the 4th day of July, 1817, at Rome, with ceremonies marking the public estimation of that great event. De Witt Clinton, having just before been elected to the chief magistracy of the state, and being president of the board of canal commissioners, enjoyed the high satisfaction of attending, with his associates, on the auspicious occasion. … On the 26th of October, 1825, the Erie canal was in a navigable condition throughout its entire length, affording an uninterrupted passage from Lake Erie to tidewater in the Hudson. … This auspicious consummation was celebrated by a telegraphic discharge of cannon, commencing at Lake Erie [at Buffalo], and continued along the banks of the canal and of the Hudson, announcing to the city of New York the entrance on the bosom of the canal of the first barge [bearing Governor Clinton and his coadjutors] that was to arrive at the commercial emporium from the American Mediterraneans."

_W. H. Seward, Notes on New York (Works, volume 2), pages 88-117._

ALSO IN: D. Hosack, Memoir of De Witt Clinton, pages 82-119 and 245-504.

J. Renwick, Life of De Witt Clinton, chapters 10-19.

_C. D. Colden, Memoir: Celebration of the Completion of the New York Canals._

_M. S. Hawley, Origin of the Erie Canal._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1821. Revision of the Constitution.

"The Constitution did not meet the expectations of its framers. The cumbrous machinery by which it was sought to insure the control of the People, through the supremacy of the Assembly, had only resulted in fortifying power practically beyond their reach. The Council of Revision was objected to because it had exercised the veto power contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, which was in harmony with the traditions of the Colony from the earliest conflict with the executive power; and because the officers who thus interposed their objections to the will of the Legislature, holding office for good behavior (except the Governor), were beyond the reach of the People. It was seen that this power was a dangerous one, in a Council so constituted; but it was thought that it could be safely intrusted to the Governor alone, as he was directly responsible to the People. The Council of Appointment, although not vested with any judicial authority, and in fact disclaiming it, nevertheless at an early day summoned its appointees before it, for the purpose of hearing accusations against them, and proving their truth or falsity. At a later day, more summary proceedings were resorted to. The office thus became very unpopular. Nearly every civil, military, and judicial officer of the commonwealth was appointed by this Council. {2343} In 1821, 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their commissions from it, and this vast system of centralized power was naturally very obnoxious. The Legislature, in 1820, passed 'an act recommending a Convention of the People of this State,' which came up for action in the Council of Revision, on November 20th of the same year; present, Governor Clinton, Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Spencer, and Justices Yates and Woodworth, on which day the Council, by the casting vote of the Governor, adopted two objections to it; first, because it did not provide for taking the sense of the People on the question; and second, because it submitted the new Constitution to the People in toto, instead of by sections. These objections were referred to a select committee, Michael Ulshoeffer, chairman, who submitted their report January 9, 1821, in opposition to the opinion of the Council, which was adopted by the Assembly. The bill, however, failed to pass, not receiving a two-third vote. Immediately thereupon a committee was appointed to draft a new bill. The committee subsequently introduced a bill for submitting the question to the people, which passed both Houses; received the sanction of the Council of Revision on the 13th of March, and was subsequently amended, the amendments receiving the sanction of the Council on the third of April. The popular vote on holding the Convention was had in April, and resulted as follows: 'For Convention' 109,346. 'For No Convention' 34,901. The Convention assembled in Albany, August 28, and adjourned November 10, 1821. The Council of Revision was abolished, and its powers transferred to the Governor. The Council of Appointment was abolished without a dissenting voice. The principal department officers were directed to be appointed on an open separate nomination by the two Houses, and subsequent joint ballot. Of the remaining officers not made elective, the power of appointment was conferred upon the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In 1846, two hundred and eighty-nine offices were thus filled. The elective franchise was extended. The Constitution was adopted at an election held in February, 1822, by the following vote: Constitution—For, 74,732: Against, 41,402. … The People took to themselves a large portion of the power they had felt it necessary, in the exercise of a natural conservatism, to intrust to the Assembly. They had learned that an elective Governor and an elective Senate are equally their agents, and interests which they thought ought to be conserved, they intrusted to them, subject to their responsibility to the People. The entire Senate were substituted in the place of the members who chanced to be the favorites with a majority in the Assembly, as a Council to the Governor, and thus the People of all the State were given a voice in appointments. The Supreme Judicial Tribunal remained the same. The direct sovereignty of the People was thus rendered far more effective, and popular government took the place of parliamentary administration."

E. A. Werner, Civil List and Constitutional History of New York, 1887, pages 126-128.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1823. The rise of the Albany Regency.

"The adoption of the new constitution in 1822 placed the political power of the State in the hands of Mr. Van Buren, the recognized representative leader of the Democratic party. Governor Clinton, as the end of his term of service approached, became as powerless as he was in 1816. … William L. Marcy was then State Comptroller, Samuel L. Talcott, Attorney-General; Benjamin Knower, Treasurer; and Edwin Crosswell, editor of the 'Argus' and state printer. These gentlemen, with Mr. Van Buren as their chief, constituted the nucleus of what became the Albany Regency. After adding Silas Wright, Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, James Porter, Thomas W. Olcott, and Charles E. Dudley to their number, I do not believe that a stronger political combination ever existed at any state capital. … Their influence and power for nearly twenty years was almost as potential in national as in state politics."

T. Weed, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 11.

"Even to our own day, the Albany Regency has been a strong and generally a sagacious influence in its party. John A. Dix, Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond and Samuel J. Tilden long directed its policy, and from the chief seat in its councils the late secretary of the treasury, Daniel Manning, was chosen in 1885."

E. M. Shepard, Martin Van Buren, page 96.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832. Anti-Masonic excitement. The abduction of Morgan.

"The society of free-masons included a large number of the foremost citizens in all walks of life, and the belief existed that they used their secret ties to advance their ambitions. … This belief was used to create prejudice among those who were not members, and it added fuel to the fires of faction. At this juncture, September 11, 1826, William Morgan, of Batavia, a free-mason, who had announced his intention to print a pamphlet exposing the secrets of masonry, was arrested on a charge of larceny, made by the master of a masonic lodge, but found not guilty, and then arrested for debt, and imprisoned in jail at Canandaigua. He was taken secretly from that jail and conveyed to Fort Niagara, where he was kept until September, when he disappeared. The masons were charged with his abduction, and a body found in the Niagara River was produced as proof that he was drowned to put him out of the way. Thurlow Weed, then an editor in Rochester, was aggressive in charging that Morgan was murdered by the masons, and as late as 1882 he published an affidavit rehearsing a confession made to him by John Whitney, that the drowning was in fact perpetrated by himself and four other persons whom he named, after a conference in a masonic lodge. In 1827, Weed, who was active in identifying the drowned body, was charged with mutilating it, to make it resemble Morgan, and the imputation was often repeated; and the abduction and murder were in turn laid at the door of the anti-masons. The disappearance became the chief topic of partisan discussion. De Witt Clinton was one of the highest officers in the masonic order, and it was alleged that he commanded that Morgan's book should be 'suppressed at all hazards,' thus instigating the murder; but the slander was soon exposed. The state was flooded with volumes portraying masonry as a monstrous conspiracy, and the literature of the period was as harrowing as a series of sensational novels."

E. H. Roberts, New York, volume 2, chapter 33.

{2344}

"A party soon grew up in Western New York pledged to oppose the election of any Free Mason to public office. The Anti-Masonic Party acquired influence in other States, and began to claim rank as a national political party. On most points its principles were those of the National Republicans. But Clay, as well as Jackson, was a Free Mason, and consequently to be opposed by this party. … In 1832 it even nominated a Presidential ticket of its own, but, having no national principle of controlling importance, it soon after declined."

A. Johnston, History of American Politics, chapter 12, section 3, with foot-note.

ALSO IN: T. Weed, Autobiography, chapters 20-30, 36, and 40.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1827. The last of Slavery in the state.

"On the 28th of January, 1817, the governor sent a message to the legislature recommending the entire abolition of slavery in the State of New York, to take place on the fourth day of July, 1827. By an act passed some years before, all persons born of parents who were slaves after July 1799, were to be free; males at twenty-eight and females at twenty-five years of age. The present legislature adopted the recommendation of the governor. This great measure in behalf of human rights, which was to obliterate forever the black and foul stain of slavery from the escutcheon of our own favored state, was produced by the energetic action of Cadwallader D. Colden, Peter A. Jay, William Jay, Daniel D. Tompkins and other distinguished philanthropists, chiefly residing in the city of New York. The Society of Friends, who never slumber when the principles of benevolence and a just regard to equal rights call for their action, were zealously engaged in this great enterprise."

J. D. Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York, volume 1, chapter 22.

ALSO IN: E. H. Roberts, New York, volume 2, page 565.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837. The Loco-focos.

"The Van Buren party began to be called the Loco-focos, in derision of the fancied extravagance of their financial doctrines. The Loco-foco or Equal Rights party proper was originally a division of the Democrats, strongly anti-monopolist in their opinions, and especially hostile to banks,—not only government banks but all banks,—which enjoyed the privileges then long conferred by special and exclusive charters. In the fall of 1835 some of the Democratic candidates in New York were especially obnoxious to the anti-monopolists of the party. When the meeting to regularly confirm the nominations made in committee was called at Tammany Hall, the anti-monopolist Democrats sought to capture the meeting by a rush up the main stairs. The regulars, however, showed themselves worthy of their regularity by reaching the room up the back stairs. In a general scrimmage the gas was put out. The anti-monopolists, perhaps used to the devices to prevent meetings which might be hostile, were ready with candles and loco-foco matches. The hall was quickly illuminated; and the anti-monopolists claimed that they had defeated the nominations. The regulars were successful, however, at the election; and they and the Whigs dubbed the anti-monopolists the Loco-foco men. … The hatred which Van Buren after his message of September, 1837, received from the banks commended him to the Loco-focos; and in October, 1837, Tammany Hall witnessed their reconciliation with the regular Democrats upon a moderate declaration for equal rights."

E. M. Shepard, Martin Van Buren, pages 293-295.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1838. Passage of the Free Banking Act.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1839-1846. The Anti-rent disturbances.

See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1840-1841. The McLeod Case.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1845-1846. Schism in the Democratic party over Slavery extension. Hunkers and Barnburners.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1846. Constitutional revision.

During the twenty-five years of the existence of the constitution of 1821, "ten different proposals for amendments were submitted to the electors, who decided against choosing presidential electors by districts, but in favor of extending the franchise, in favor of electing mayors by the people, and in 1846 for no license except in the city of New York. The commonwealth grew not only in population, but in all the elements of progress and prosperity and power, and by the census of 1845 was shown to contain 2,604,495 inhabitants. Legislation had tended to the substitution of rights for privileges granted as favors. The tenure of land, especially under the claims of the patroons, had caused difficulties for which remedies were sought; and the large expenditures for internal improvements, involving heavy indebtedness, prompted demands for safe-guards for the creditor and the taxpayer. The judiciary system had confessedly become independent, and required radical reformation. When, therefore, in 1845, the electors were called upon to decide whether a convention should be held to amend the State constitution, 213,257 voted in the affirmative, against 33,860 in the negative. The convention met June 1, 1846, but soon adjourned until October 9, when it proceeded with its task. John Tracy of Chenango presided; and among the members were Ira Harris of Albany, George 'V. Patterson of Chautauqua, Michael Hoffman and Arphaxed Loomis of Herkimer, Samuel J. Tilden of New York, Samuel Nelson of Otsego, and others eminent at home and in State affairs. The convention dealt radically with the principles of government. The new constitution gave to the people the election of many officers before appointed at Albany. It provided for the election of members of both houses of the legislature by separate districts. Instead of the cumbrous court for the correction of errors, it established an independent court of appeals. It abolished the court of chancery and the circuit courts, and merged both into the supreme court, and defined the jurisdiction of county courts. All judges were to be elected by the people. Feudal tenures were abolished, and no leases on agricultural lands for a longer period than twelve years were to be valid, if any rent or service were reserved. The financial articles established sinking funds for both the canal and general fund debt, forbade the loan of the credit of the State, and limited rigidly the power of the legislature to create debts, except to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, and declared the school and literature funds inviolate. Provision was made for general laws for the formation of corporations. The constitution required the submission to the people once every twenty years of the question whether a convention shall be called or not."

E. H. Roberts, New York, volume 2, pages 567-569.

{2345}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848. The Free Soil movement. The Buffalo Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848. Legal Emancipation of Women.

See LAW, COMMON; A. D. 1839-1848.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848. Adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1861 (April). The speeding of the Seventh Regiment to the defense of Washington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1862-1886. The founding and growth of Cornell University.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1886.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1863. The Draft Riots in New York City.

"A new levy of 300,000 men was called for in April, 1863, with the alternative of a draft if the quotas were not filled by volunteering. The quota of the city of New York was not filled, and a draft was begun there on Saturday, the 11th of July. There had been premonitions of trouble when it was attempted to take the names and addresses of those subject to call, and in the tenement-house districts some of the marshals had narrowly escaped with their lives. On the morning when the draft was to begin, several of the most widely read Democratic journals contained editorials that appeared to be written for the very purpose of inciting a riot. They asserted that any draft at all was unconstitutional and despotic, and that in this case the quota demanded from the city was excessive, and denounced the war as a 'mere abolition crusade.' It is doubtful if there was any well-formed conspiracy, including any large number of persons, to get up a riot; but the excited state of the public mind, especially among the laboring population, inflammatory handbills displayed in the grog-shops, the presence of the dangerous classes, whose best opportunity for plunder was in time of riot, and the absence of the militia that had been called away to meet the invasion of Pennsylvania, all favored an outbreak. It was unfortunate that the draft was begun on Saturday, and the Sunday papers published long lists of the names that were drawn—an instance of the occasional mischievous results of journalistic enterprise. … When the draft was resumed on Monday, the serious work began. One provost-marshal's office was at the corner of Third Avenue and Forty-Sixth street. It was guarded by sixty policemen, and the wheel was set in motion at ten o'clock. The building was surrounded by a dense, angry crowd, who were freely cursing the draft, the police, the National Government, and 'the nigger.' The drawing had been in progress but a few minutes when there was a shout of 'stop the cars!' and at once the cars were stopped, the horses released, the conductors and passengers driven out, and a tumult created. Then a great human wave was set in motion, which bore down everything before it and rolled into the marshal's office, driving out at the back windows the officials and the policemen, whose clubs, though plied rapidly and knocking down a rioter at every blow, could not dispose of them as fast as they came on. The mob destroyed everything in the office, and then set the building on fire. The firemen came promptly, but were not permitted to throw any water upon the flames. At this moment Superintendent John A. Kennedy, of the police, approaching incautiously and unarmed, was recognized and set upon by the crowd, who gave him half a hundred blows with clubs and stones, and finally threw him face downward into a mud-puddle, with the intention of drowning him. When rescued, he was bruised beyond recognition, and was lifted into a wagon and carried to the police headquarters. The command of the force now devolved upon Commissioner Thomas C. Acton and Inspector Daniel Carpenter, whose management during three fearful days was worthy of the highest praise. Another marshal's office, where the draft was in progress, was at Broadway and Twenty-Ninth street, and here the mob burned the whole block of stores on Broadway between Twenty-Eighth and Twenty-Ninth streets. … In the afternoon a small police force held possession of a gun-factory in Second Avenue for four hours, and was then compelled to retire before the persistent attacks of the rioters, who hurled stones through the windows and beat in the doors. Toward evening a riotous procession passed down Broadway, with drums, banners, muskets, pistols, pitchforks, clubs, and boards inscribed 'No Draft!' Inspector Carpenter, at the head of two hundred policemen, marched up to meet it. His orders were, 'Take no prisoners, but strike quick and hard.' The mob was met at the corner of Amity (or West Third) street. The police charged at once in a compact body, Carpenter knocking down the foremost rioter with a blow that cracked his skull, and in a few moments the mob scattered and fled, leaving Broadway strewn with their wounded and dying. From this time, the police were victorious in every encounter. During the next two days there was almost constant rioting, mobs appearing at various points, both up-town and down-town. The rioters set upon every negro that appeared—whether man, woman, or child—and succeeded in murdering eleven of them. … This phase of the outbreak found its worst expression in the sacking and burning of the Colored Orphan Asylum, at Fifth Avenue and Forty-Fourth street. The two hundred helpless children were with great difficulty taken away by the rear doors while the mob were battering at the front. … One of the saddest incidents of the riot was the murder of Colonel Henry J. O'Brien of the 11th New York Volunteers, whose men had dispersed one mob with a deadly volley. An hour or two later the Colonel returned to the spot alone, when he was set upon and beaten and mangled and tortured horribly for several hours, being at last killed by some frenzied women. … Three days of this vigorous work by the police and the soldiers brought the disturbance to an end. About fifty policemen had been injured, three of whom died; and the whole number of lives destroyed by the rioters was eighteen. The exact number of rioters killed is unknown, but it was more than 1,200. The mobs burned about 50 buildings, destroying altogether between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 worth of property. Governor Seymour incurred odium by a speech to the rioters, in which he addressed them as his friends, and promised to have the draft stopped; and by his communications to the President, in which he complained of the draft, and asked to have it suspended till the question of its constitutionality could be tested in the courts."

R. Johnson, Short History of the War of Secession, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 7, chapter 1.

H. Greeley, The American Conflict, volume 2, chapter 21.

_D. M. Barnes, The Draft Riots in New York._

{2346}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871. The Tweed Ring.

Between 1863 and 1871 the city of New York, and, to a considerable extent, the state at large, fell under the control and into the power of a combination of corrupt politicians commonly known as the Tweed Ring. Its chief was one William Marcy Tweed, of Scotch parentage, who first appeared in public life as an alderman of the city, in 1850. Working himself upward, in the Democratic party, to which he adhered, he attained in 1863 the powerful dignity of Grand Sachem of the Tammany Society and chairman or "Boss" of the general committee of Tammany Hall. "At this time, however, the Tammany 'Ring,' as it afterwards was called, was not completely formed, and Tammany Hall, though by far the most important political organization in the city, was not absolute even in the Democratic party. It had a bitter enemy in Mozart Hall, a political organization led by Fernando Wood, a former mayor of the city. The claims of Mozart Hall were satisfied in this same year, 1863, by granting to its leader the Democratic nomination to Congress. … Soon afterwards Tweed was appointed deputy-commissioner of streets. The 'Ring' was now fast consolidating. The enormous patronage possessed by its members enabled them to control almost all the nominations of the Democratic party to positions in the city. They provided their adherents with places in the city government, and when the supply of places became inadequate, they enlarged the city pay-roll to create new places. By means of the political influence they exerted over the Democratic party in the State, they packed the State legislature with their followers, and placed upon the bench judges on whom they could rely. … In 1865 the Ring obtained control of the mayoralty. Its candidate, John T. Hoffman, was a man of much higher character than his supporters and associates. He was personally honest, but his ambition blinded him to the acts of his political friends. … In 1868 … Hoffman was nominated for governor and was elected. His election was secured by the grossest and most extensive frauds ever perpetrated in the city, e. g. illegal naturalization of foreigners, false registration, repeating of votes, and unfair counting. The mayoralty, left vacant by the promotion of Hoffman, was filled by the election of Hall [A. Oakey Hall], who took his seat on the 1st day of January 1869. As Samuel J. Tilden said, by this election 'the Ring became completely organized and matured.' It controlled the common council of the city and the legislature of the State, and its nominee sat in the gubernatorial chair. Hall was mayor; Sweeny [Peter B. Sweeny, 'the great schemer of the Ring'] was city chamberlain or treasurer of both city and county; Tweed was practically supreme in the street department; Connolly [Richard B.] was city comptroller, and thus had charge of the city finances; the city judiciary was in sympathy with these men." But great as were the power and the opportunities of the Ring, it obtained still more of both through its well-paid creatures in the State legislature, by amendments of the city charter and by acts which gave Tweed and his partners free swing in debt-making for the city. In 1871, the last year of the existence of the Ring, it had more than $48,000,000 of money at its disposal. Its methods of fraud were varied and numerous. "But all the other enterprises of the Ring dwindle into insignificance when compared with the colossal frauds that were committed in the building of the new court-house for the county. When this undertaking was begun, it was stipulated that its total cost should not exceed $250,000; but before the Ring was broken up, upwards of $8,000,000 had been expended, and the work was not completed. … Whenever a bill was brought in by one of the contractors, he was directed to increase largely the total of his charge. … A warrant was then drawn for the amount of the bill as raised; the contractor was paid, perhaps the amount of his original, bill, perhaps a little more; and the difference between the original and the raised bills was divided between the members of the Ring. It is said that about 65 per cent. of the bills actually paid by the county represented fraudulent addition of this sort." The beginning of the end of the reign of the Ring came in July, 1871, when copies of some of the fraudulent accounts, made by a clerk in the auditor's office, came into the possession of the New York Times and were published. "The result of these exposures was a meeting of citizens early in September. … It was followed by the formation of a sort of peaceable vigilance committee, under the imposing title of the 'Committee of Seventy.' This committee, together with Samuel J. Tilden (long a leading Democratic politician, and afterwards candidate for the presidency of the United States), went to work at once, and with great energy, to obtain actual proof of the frauds described by the 'Times.' It was owing mainly to the tireless endeavours of Mr. Tilden … that this work was successful, and that prosecutions were brought against several members of the Ring." The Tammany leaders attempted to make a scapegoat of Connolly; but the latter came to terms with Mr. Tilden, and virtually turned over his office to Mr. Andrew H. Green, of the Committee of Seventy, appointing him deputy-comptroller, with full powers. "This move was a tremendous step forward for the prosecution. The possession of the comptroller's office gave access to papers which furnished almost all the evidence afterwards used in the crusade against the Ring." At the autumn election of 1871 there was a splendid rally of the better citizens, in the city and throughout the state, and the political power of the Ring was broken. "None of the leading actors in the disgraceful drama failed to pay in some measure the penalty of his deeds. Tweed, after a chequered experience in eluding the grasp of justice, died in jail. Connolly passed the remainder of his life in exile. Sweeny left the country and long remained abroad. … Hall was tried and obtained a favourable verdict, but he has chosen to live out of America. Of the judges whose corrupt decisions so greatly aided the Ring, Barnard and M'Cunn were impeached and removed from the bench, while Cardozo resigned his position in time to avoid impeachment. The following figures will give an approximate idea of the amount the Ring cost the city of New York. In 1860, before Tweed came into power, the debt of the city was reported as amounting only to $20,000,000 while the tax rate was about 1.60 per cent. on the assessed valuation of the property in the city liable to taxation. {2347} In the middle of the year 1871, the total debt of the city and the county—which were coterminous, and for all practical purposes the same—amounted to $100,955,333.33, and the tax rate had risen to over 2 per cent. During the last two years and a half of the government of the Ring the debt increased at the rate of $28,652,000 a year."

_F. J. Goodnow, The Tweed Ring in New York City (chapter 88 of Bryce's "American Commonwealth," volume 2)._

ALSO IN: _S. J. Tilden, The New York City "Ring": its Origin, Maturity and Fall._

_C. F. Wingate, An episode in Municipal Government (N. A. Rev., Oct. 1874, January and July, 1875, October. 1876)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1867. The Public Schools made entirely free.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1867-1882. Amendments of the Constitution.

The constitution of 1846 having provided for its own revision at the end of twenty years, if so willed by the people, the calling of a constitutional convention was approved by popular vote in 1866, and the convention of elected delegates assembled June 4, in the following year. Its final adjournment was not reached until February 28, 1868. The constitution proposed by the convention was submitted to the people in 1869, and rejected, with the exception of the judiciary article, which reorganized the Court of Appeals, and provided for a temporary Commission of Appeals, to determine the cases pending in the Court, where business in arrears had accumulated to a serious extent. The rejection of the constitution framed in 1867 led, in 1872, to the creation by the governor and legislature of a Commission for the revision of the constitution, which met at Albany, December 4, 1872, and adjourned March 15, 1873. Several amendments proposed by the Commission were submitted to popular vote in 1874 and 1876, and were adopted. By the more important of these amendments, colored citizens were admitted to the franchise without property qualifications; a strong, specific enactment for the prevention and punishment of bribery and corruption at elections was embodied in the constitution itself; some changes were made in the provisions for districting the state, after each census, and the pay of members of the legislature was increased to $1,500 per annum; the power of the legislature to pass private bills was limited; the term of the governor was extended from two years to three; the governor was empowered to veto specific items in bills which appropriate money, approving the remainder; the governor was allowed thirty days for the consideration of bills left in his hands at the adjournment of the legislature, which bills become law only upon his approval within that time; a superintendent of public works was created to take the place of the Canal Commissioners previously existing, and a superintendent of state prisons to take the place of the three inspectors of state prisons; a selection of judges from the bench of the Supreme Court of the state to act as Associate Judges of the Court of Appeals was authorized; the loaning or granting of the credit or money of the state, or that of any county, city, town, or village to any association, corporation, or private undertaking was forbidden; corrupt conduct in office was declared to be felony. By an amendment of the constitution submitted by the legislature to the people in 1882, the canals of the state were made entirely free of tolls.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1869. Black Friday.

"During the war gold had swollen in value to 285, when the promise of the nation to pay a dollar on demand was only worth thirty-five cents. Thence it had gradually sunk. … All our purchases from foreign nations, all duties on those purchases, and all sales of domestic produce to other nations are payable in gold. There is therefore a large and legitimate business in the purchase and sale of gold, especially in New York, the financial centre of the nation. But a much larger business of a gambling nature had gradually grown up around that which was legitimate. … These gambling operations were based on the rise and fall of gold, and these in turn depended on successful or unsuccessful battles, or on events in foreign nations that could be neither foreseen nor guarded against. The transactions were therefore essentially gambling. … So large was the amount of this speculative business, gathering up all the gold-betting of the nation in a single room, that it more than equalled the legitimate purchase and sale of gold. There were large and wealthy firms who made this their chief business; and prominent among them was the firm of Smith, Gould, Martin & Co., four gentlemen under one partnership name, all wealthy and all accustomed to this business for years. Their joint wealth and business skill made them a power in Wall street. The leading mind of the firm, though not the first named, was Mr. Jay Gould, President of the Erie Railway, joint owner with Colonel James Fisk Jr., of two lines of steamboats, and largely interested in a number of railroads and other valuable properties. Mr. Gould looked upon gold, railroads, and steamboats as the gilded dice wherewith to gamble. … During the spring of 1869 he was a buyer of gold. There was perhaps fifteen millions of that rare currency in New York outside the Sub-Treasury; and he had bought half that amount, paying therefor a bonus of a little more than two millions of dollars. As fast as he had purchased the precious metal he had loaned it out to those who needed it for the payment of duties, and who hoped to repurchase it at a lower rate. And so, though the owner of seven millions, he had none of it in hand; he merely possessed the written acknowledgment of certain leading merchants and brokers that they owed him that amount of specie, which they would repay with interest on demand. Having this amount obtainable at any moment, Mr. Gould had the mercantile community at his mercy. But there was some hundred millions of gold in the Treasury, more or less, and the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury might at any time throw it on the market. On this point it was very desirable to ascertain the opinion of President Grant; more desirable to have constant access to his private ear." In various ways, argumentative influences were brought to bear on President Grant and the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Boutwell, to persuade them that it was desirable for the country, while the crops were being moved, to hold up the price of gold. One important channel for such influences was supplied by the President's brother-in-law, a retired New York merchant, named Corbin, who was drawn into the speculation and given a share in Gould's gold purchases. {2348} By strenuous exertions, Gould and his associates pushed up the price till "in May it stood at 144 7/8; but as soon as they ceased to buy, the price began to recede until in the latter part of June it again stood at 136. The others were then frightened and sold out. 'All these other fellows deserted me like rats from a ship,' said Gould. But for him to sell out then would involve a heavy loss, and he preferred a gain. He therefore called upon his friend and partner Fisk to enter the financial arena. It is but justice to Mr. Fisk to say that for some time he declined; he clearly saw that the whole tendency of gold was downward. But when Gould made the proposition more palatable by suggesting corruption, Fisk immediately swallowed the bait. … He … entered the market and purchased twelve millions. There is an old adage that there is honor among thieves. This appears not to be true on the Gold Exchange. All Mr. Gould's statements to his own partner were false, except those relating to Corbin and Butterfield. And Mr. Corbin did his best. He not only talked and wrote to the President himself; not only wrote for the New York 'Times,' but when General Grant visited him in New York, he sent Gould to see him so often that the President, unaware of the financial trap set for him, rebuked the door servant for giving Mr. Gould such ready access. But it is worthy of note that neither Corbin, Gould, nor Fisk ever spoke to the President of their personal interest in the matter. They were only patriots urging a certain course of conduct for the good of the country. These speculations as to the advantage to the country of a higher price of gold seem to have had some effect on the Presidential mind; for early in September he wrote to Mr. Boutwell, then at his Massachusetts home, giving his opinion of the financial condition of the country, and suggesting that it would not be wise to lower the price of gold by sales from the Treasury while the crops were moving to the seaboard. Mr. Boutwell therefore telegraphed to the Assistant Secretary at Washington only to sell gold sufficient to buy bonds for the sinking fund. Through Mr. Corbin or in some other way this letter came to the knowledge of the conspirators; for they at once began to purchase and the price began to rise. … On the 13th of September, gold, swelling and falling like the tide, stood at 135½. The clique then commenced their largest purchases, and within nine days had bought enough to hold sixty-six millions—nearly every cent of it fictitious, and only included in promises to pay. On the evening of Wednesday, September 22, the price was 140½; but it had taken the purchase of thirty or forty millions to put it up that five cents. Could it be forced five cents higher, and all sold, the profits would be over ten millions of dollars! It was a stake worth playing for. But the whole mercantile community was opposed to them; bountiful harvests were strong arguments against them; and more than all else, there stood the Sub-Treasury of the United States, with its hundred millions of dollars in its vaults, ready at any time to cast its plethora of wealth on their unfortunate heads. … Corbin, while assuring Gould that there was no danger of any Government sale, and yet himself greatly in trepidation, addressed a letter to General Grant urging him not to interfere with the warfare then raging between the bulls and the bears, nor to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to do so. … The letter would probably have had some effect, but unfortunately the ring overdid their business in the way in which they sent it." The letter was conveyed by a private messenger. The messenger, "Mr. Chapin, delivered his letter, asked General Grant if there was any reply, and being told there was none, started for his home, first telegraphing to his employer, 'Letter delivered all right.' It was a most unfortunate telegraphic message he sent back. He swears that his meaning was that the letter was delivered all right; and so the despatch reads. But the gold gamblers, blinded by the greatness of the stake at risk, interpreted the 'all right' of the message as an answer to the contents of Mr. Corbin's letter—that the President thought the letter all right; and on the strength of that reading Fisk rushed into the market and made numerous purchases of gold. But that very letter, which was intended to be their governmental safeguard, led to their ruin. Carried by special messenger for a day and a half, its urgency that the Administration should sell no gold, coupled with frequent assertions in the newspapers that Mr. Corbin was a great bull in gold, excited General Grant's suspicions. He feared that Corbin was not actuated by patriotic motives alone in this secret correspondence. At the President's suggestion, therefore, Mrs. Grant wrote to her sister, Mrs. Corbin, telling her that rumors had reached them that Mr. Corbin was connected with speculators in New York, and that she hoped if this was so he would at once disengage himself from them; that the President was much distressed at such rumors. On the receipt of this letter, Mr. Corbin was greatly excited." Corbin showed the letter to Gould, and got himself let out of the game, so that he might be able to say to President Grant that he had no interest in gold; but Fisk was not told of the President's suspicions. "On the evening of Wednesday, September 21, it was determined to close the corner within two days." A desperate attack on the market began next morning. Gold opened that day at 39½; it closed at 44. The next day was "Friday, September 24, commonly called Black Friday, either from the black mark it caused on the characters of dealers in gold, or, as is more probable, from the ruin it brought to both sides. The Gold Room was crowded for two hours before the time of business. … Fisk was there, gloating over the prospect of great gains from others' ruin. His brokers were there, noisy and betting on the rapid rise of gold and the success of the corner. All alike were greatly excited, palpitating between hope and fear, and not knowing what an hour might bring forth. … Gold closed on Thursday at 144; Speyers [principal broker of the conspirators] commenced his work on Friday by offering 145, one per cent. higher than the last purchase. Receiving no response, he offered to buy at 146, 147, 148, and 149 respectively, but without takers. Then 150 was offered, and half a million was sold him by Mr. James Brown, who had quietly organized a band of prominent merchants who were determined to meet the gold gamblers on their own ground. … Amid the most tremendous confusion the voices of the excited brokers could be heard slowly bidding up the value of their artificial metal. {2349} Higher and higher rose the tide of speculation; from 156 to 159 there was no offer whatever; amid deep silence Speyers called out, 'Any part of five millions for 160.' 'One million taken at 160,' was the quiet response of James Brown. Further offers were made by the brokers of the clique all the way from 160 to 163½. But Mr. Brown preferred to grapple the enemy by the throat, and he sold Speyers five millions more, making seven millions of gold sold that hour for which Speyers agreed to pay eleven millions in currency. Such figures almost stagger one to read of them! But Speyers continued to buy till before noon he had purchased nearly sixty millions. … As the price rose cent by cent, men's hearts were moved within them as the trees are shaken by the swelling of the wind. But when the first million was taken at 160 a great load was removed, and when the second million was sold there was such a burst of gladness, such a roar of multitudinous voices as that room, tumultuous as it had always been, never heard before. Everybody instantly began to sell, desiring to get rid of all their gold before it had tumbled too deep. And just as the precious metal was beginning to flow over the precipice, the news was flashed into the room that Government had telegraphed to sell four millions. Instantly the end was reached; gold fell to 140, and then down, down, down, to 133. There were no purchasers at any price. … The gold ring had that day bought sixty millions of gold, paying or rather agreeing to pay therefor ninety-six millions of dollars in currency!" But Gould, Fisk & Co., who owned several venal New York judges, placed injunctions and other legal obstacles in the way of a settlement of claims against themselves. "Of course these judicious and judicial orders put an end to all business except that which was favorable to Fisk and Gould. They continued to settle with all parties who owed them money; they were judicially enjoined from settling with those to whom, if their own brokers may be believed, they were indebted, and they have not yet settled with them. … As the settlements between the brokers employed by the ring and their victims were all made in private, there is no means of knowing the total result. But it is the opinion of Mr. James B. Hodskin, Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Exchange, and therefore better acquainted with its business than anyone else, that the two days' profits of the clique from the operations they acknowledged and settled for were not less than twelve millions of dollars; and that the losses on those transactions which they refused to acknowledge were not less than twenty millions. The New York 'Tribune' a day or two afterward put the gains of the clique at eleven million dollars. Some months after 'Black Friday' had passed away, Congress ordered an investigation into its causes. … For two or three days the whole business of New York stood still awaiting the result of the corner. … In good-will with all the world, with grand harvests, with full markets on both sides the Atlantic, came a panic that affected all business. Foreign trade came to a stand-still. The East would not send to Europe: the West could not ship to New York. Young men saw millions of dollars made in a few days by dishonesty; they beheld larger profits result from fraud than from long lives of honesty. Old men saw their best-laid plans frustrated by the operations of gamblers. Our national credit was affected by it. Europe was told that our principal places of business were nests of gamblers, and that it was possible for a small clique, aided by our banking institutions, to get possession of all the gold there was in the land; and that when one firm had gone through business transactions to the amount of over one hundred millions of dollars, the courts of the United States would compel the completion of those bargains which resulted in a profit, while those that ended in a loss were forbidden. For two or three months the sale of bonds in Europe was affected by the transactions of that day; and not until the present generation of business men has passed away will the evil influence of Black Friday be entirely lost."

_W. R. Hooper, Black Friday (The Galaxy, December, 1871)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1875-1881. Stalwarts and Half-breeds.

See STALWARTS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1881. Adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1892. Restored Tammany government in the City.

The Tammany organization was greatly discredited and crippled for a time by the exposure and overthrow of Tweed and his "ring," in 1871; but after a few years, under the chieftainship of John Kelly and Richard Croker, successive "grand sachems," it recovered its control of the city government so completely that, in 1892, Dr. Albert Shaw was justified in describing the latter as follows: "There is in New York no official body that corresponds with the London Council. The New York Board of Aldermen, plus the Mayor, plus the Commissioners who are the appointive heads of a number of the working departments such as the Excise, Park, Health and Police departments, plus the District Attorney, the Sheriff, the Coroners, and other officials pertaining to the county of New York as distinct from the city of New York, plus a few of the head Tammany bosses and the local Tammany bosses of the twenty-four Assembly Districts—all these men and a few other officials and bosses, taken together, would make up a body of men of about the same numerical strength as the London Council; and these are the men who now dominate the official life of the great community of nearly eighteen hundred thousand souls. In London the 137 councillors fight out every municipal question in perfectly open session upon its actual merits before the eyes of all London, and of the whole British empire. In New York, the governing group discusses nothing openly. The Board of Aldermen is an obscure body of twenty-five members, with limited power except for mischief, its members being almost to a man high Tammany politicians who are either engaged directly in the liquor business or are in one way or another connected with that interest. So far as there is any meeting in which the rulers of New York discuss the public affairs of the community, such meetings are held in the Tammany wigwam in Fourteenth Street. But Tammany is not an organization which really concerns itself with any aspects of public questions, either local or general, excepting the 'spoils' aspect. It is organized upon what is a military rather than a political basis, and its machinery extends through all the assembly districts and voting precincts of New York, controlling enough votes to hold and wield the balance of power, and thus to keep Tammany in the possession of the offices. {2350} Its local hold is maintained by the dispensing of a vast amount of patronage. The laborers on public works, the members of the police force and the fire brigades, the employees of the Sanitary Department, of the Excise Department, of the Street Cleaning and Repair Department and of the Water and Dock and Park Departments, the teachers in the public schools and the nurses in the public hospitals, all are made to feel that their livelihood depends on the favor of the Tammany bosses; and they must not only be faithful to Tammany themselves, but all their friends and relatives to the remotest collateral degree must also be kept subservient to the Tammany domination. The following characterization of Tammany leadership and method is from the New York Evening Post. … 'None of the members occupy themselves with any legislation, except such as creates salaried offices and contracts in this city, to be got hold of either by capture at the polls or "deals" with the Republican politicians here or in Albany. When such legislation has been successful, the only thing in connection with it which Tammany leaders consider is how the salaries shall be divided and what "assessments" the places or contracts can stand. If any decent outsider could make his way into the inner conferences at which these questions are settled, he would hear not the grave discussion of the public interests, how to keep streets clean, or how to repave them, or how to light them or police them, or how to supply the city with water, but stories of drunken or amorous adventure, larded freely with curious and original oaths, ridicule of reformers and "silk-stockinged" people generally, abuse of "kickers," and examination of the claims of gamblers, liquor-dealers, and pugilists to more money out of the public treasury. In fact, as we have had of late frequent occasion to observe, the society is simply an organization of clever adventurers, most of them in some degree criminal, for the control of the ignorant and vicious vote of the city in an attack on the property of the tax-payers. There is not a particle of politics in the concern any more than in any combination of Western brigands to "hold up" a railroad train and get at the express packages. Its sole object is plunder in any form which will not attract the immediate notice of the police.'"

_A. Shaw, Municipal Problems of New York and London (Review of Reviews, April 1892)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1894. Constitutional Convention.

A bill passed by the legislature of 1892, calling a convention to revise the constitution of the State, provided for the election of 128 delegates by Assembly districts, and 32 at large, but added 9 more whom the Governor should appoint, 3 to represent labor interests, 3 woman-suffrage claims, and 3 the advocates of prohibition. By the legislature of 1893 this act was set aside and a new enactment adopted, making the total number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention 165, all elective, and apportioning five to each senatorial district. The convention assembled at Albany, May 9, 1894. Its labors are unfinished at the time this volume goes to press. Questions of reform in municipal government have claimed the greatest attention.

----------NEW YORK: End----------

NEW YORK SOCIETY LIBRARY.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

----------NEW ZEALAND: Start--------

NEW ZEALAND: The aborigines.

"The traditions of these people [the Maoris] lead to the conclusion that they first came to New Zealand about 600 years ago, from some of the islands between Samoa and Tahiti; but some ethnologists put the migration as far back as 3,000 years. Their language is a dialect of the Polynesian, most resembling that of Rarotonga, but their physical characters vary greatly. Some are fair, with straight hair, and with the best type of Polynesian features; others are dusky brown, with curly or almost frizzly hair, and with the' long and broad arched nose of the Papuan; while others have the coarse thick features of the lower Melanesian races. Now these variations of type cannot be explained unless we suppose the Maoris to have found in the islands an indigenous Melanesian people, of whom they exterminated the men, but took the better-looking of the women for wives; and as their traditions decidedly state that they did find such a race when they first arrived at New Zealand, there seems no reason whatever for rejecting these traditions, which accord with actual physical facts, just as the tradition of a migration from 'Hawaiki,' a Polynesian island, accords with linguistic facts."

Hellwald-Wallace, Australasia (Stanford's Compendium, new issue, 1893), chapter 14, section 9 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _E. Shortland, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders._

_J. S. Polack, Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders._

_Lady Martin, Our Maoris._

W. D. Hay, Brighter Britain, volume 2, chapters 3-5.

See, also, MALAYAN RACE.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856. Discovery. Colonization. Early dealings with Natives. Constitutional organization.

"The honour of the actual discovery of New Zealand must be accorded to the Dutch Navigator, Tasman, who visited it in 1642, discovering Van Dieman's Land during the same voyage. As, however, he does not appear to have landed, the knowledge of the country derived by Europeans from his account of it must have been of very limited extent. … It was our own countryman, Captain Cook, to whom we are so largely indebted for what we now know of the geography of the Pacific, who made us acquainted with the nature of the country and the character of its inhabitants. The aborigines were evidently of a much higher type than those of the Australian continent. They are a branch of the Polynesian race, and according to their own traditions came about 600 years ago from 'Hawaiki,' which ethnologists interpret to mean either Hawaii (the Sandwich Islands), or Savaii in the Samoa group. They are divided into some twenty clans, analogous to those of the Scottish Highlands. Cook's first visit was paid in 1769, but he touched at the islands on several occasions during his subsequent voyages, and succeeded in making, before his final departure, a more or less complete exploration of its coasts. The aborigines were divided into numerous tribes, which were engaged in almost constant wars one with another. … As has been the case in so many distant lands, the first true pioneers of civilization were the missionaries. {2351} In 1814, thirty-seven years after Captain Cook's last visit to New Zealand, a few representatives of the English Church Missionary Society landed in the North Island, less with the intention of colonising than with the hope of converting the natives to Christianity. The first practical steps in the direction of settlement were taken by the New Zealand Land Company, composed of a very strong and influential body of gentlemen headed by Lord Durham, and having much the same ideas as those which actuated the South Australian Colonisation Society. The proposal to found a new Colony was at first bitterly opposed by the Government of the day, but in consequence of the energetic action of the Company, who sent out agents with large funds to purchase land of the natives, the Government ultimately gave way, and despatched as Consul Captain Hobson, who arrived in January 1840. One of his first steps on assuming office was to call a meeting of the natives and explain to them the object of his mission, with the view of entering into a treaty for placing the sovereignty of their island in Her Majesty the Queen. He was not at first successful, the natives fearing that if they acceded to the proposal, their land would be taken from them; but being reassured on this point, the majority of the chiefs ultimately signed the treaty in February of the same year. By the terms of this treaty, called the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs, in return for their acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Queen of England, were guaranteed for themselves and their people the exclusive possession of their lands so long as they wished to retain them, and they, on their side, accorded to the Crown the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as might, from time to time, come into the market. It will thus be seen that the acquisition of land in New Zealand by European settlers was effected in a manner entirely different from that which obtained in other colonies; for, although the right of pre-emption by the Crown was subsequently waived, no land could be obtained from natives unless they were perfectly willing to part with it. It is true that lands have in some instances been confiscated as a punishment for native insurrections, but, with this exception, all lands have passed from natives to Europeans by the ordinary processes of bargain and sale. Captain Hobson's next action was to place himself in communication with the New Zealand Company's agents, and ascertain what they were doing in the way of colonisation. He found that besides acquiring various blocks of land in the North and South Islands, they had formed a permanent settlement at Wellington, at which they were organising a system of government incompatible with the Queen's authority, which he therefore promptly suppressed. … In June of 1840 the settlement was made a colony by Charter under the Great Seal, Captain Hobson naturally becoming the first Governor. This eminent public servant died at his post in September 1842, being succeeded by Captain R. Fitzroy, who, however, did not reach the Colony till a year afterwards. In the interval occurred that lamentable incident, the massacre of white settlers by the natives at Wairu, in the South Island. Shortly after this the Company made strenuous efforts to obtain a share in the Executive Government, but this was twice disallowed by the Home authorities. Captain Fitzroy's term of office was in all respects a stormy one, the native chiefs rising in rebellion, open and covert, against the terms of the Waitangi treaty. With only 150 soldiers, and destitute of any military facilities, this governor deemed it prudent to come to a compromise with the rebels, fearing the effect upon the minds of the natives generally of the certain defeat which he must sustain in active warfare. Receiving, however, reinforcements from Sidney, Captain Fitzroy took the field, sustaining in his first expedition a decided defeat. Two other expeditions followed this, and at length the success of the British arms was assured, Captain Fitzroy suffering from the irony of fate, since, having been neglected in his peril, he was recalled in the moment of victory. Captain (afterwards Sir George) Grey succeeded to the Governorship in November 1845; having the good fortune to be surrounded by ministers of exceptional ability, and arriving in the Colony at a fortunate turn in its affairs, he takes his place among the successful Governors of New Zealand. Colonel Gore Browne—after an interregnum of nearly two years—succeeded to power, and during his viceroyalty in 1853, responsible government, which, however, did not provide for ministerial responsibility, was inaugurated. … The Home Government shortly afterwards (May 1856) … established responsible government in its fullest form, but unfortunately without any special provisions for the representation of the native races. … Up to 1847 New Zealand remained a Crown Colony, the Government being administered by a Governor appointed by the Crown, an Executive Council, and a Legislative Council. Under this system, the Governor had very large powers, since the only control over him was that exercised by the Home Government. The Executive Council consisted of the Governor and three official members, while the Legislative Council was made up of the Executive Council and three non-official members nominated by the Governor. At that time Auckland was the seat of Government, which has since been moved to Wellington. In 1852, before the expiration of the period over which the provisional charter granted in 1847 was to extend, the Imperial Parliament granted a new constitution to New Zealand (15 & 16 Vic. cap. 72), and in the following year it came into force and is still [1886] operative. The Legislature, under this Constitution, consists of a Governor, a Legislative Council, composed of life members nominated by the Crown, and a House of Representatives elected by the people, under a franchise which practically amounts to household suffrage."

Her Majesty's Colonies (Colonial and Ind. Exhibition, 1886), pages 245-248.

ALSO IN: G. W. Rusden, History of New Zealand, volume 1.

_G. Tregarthen, Story of Australasia._

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883. Land questions with the Natives. The King movement. The Maori War.

"In the course of years, as it was evident to the natives that the Europeans were the coming power in the land, suspicion and distrust were excited, and at last the tocsin sounded. … It was considered that a head was needed to initiate a form of Government among the tribes to resist the encroachments daily made by the Europeans, and which seemed to threaten the national extinction of the native race. The first to endeavour to bring about a new order of things was a native chief named Matene Te Whiwi, of Otaki. {2352} In 1853 he marched to Taupo and Rotorua, accompanied by a number of followers, to obtain the consent of the different tribes to the election of a king over the central parts of the island, which were still exclusively Maori territory, and to organize a form of government to protect the interests of the native race. Matene … met with little success. … The agitation, however, did not stop, the fire once kindled rapidly spread, ardent followers of the new idea sprang up, and their numbers soon increased, until finally, in 1854, a tribal gathering was convened at Manawapou. … After many points had been discussed, a resolution was come to among the assembled tribes that no more land should be sold to Europeans. A solemn league was entered into by an present for the preservation of the native territory, and a tomahawk was passed round as a pledge that all would agree to put the individual to death who should break it. In 1854 another bold stand was made, and Te Heuheu, who exercised a powerful sway over the tribes of the interior, summoned a native council at Taupo, when the King movement began in earnest. It was there decided that the sacred mountain of Tongariro should be the centre of a district in which no land was to be sold to the government, and that the districts of Hauraki, Waikato, Kawhia, Mokau, Taranaki, Whanganui, Rangitikei, and Titiokura, should form the outlying portions of the boundary; that no roads should be made by the Europeans within the area, and that a king should be elected to reign over the Maoris. In 1857 Kingite meetings were held, … at which it was agreed that Potatau Te Wherowhero, the most powerful chief of Waikato, should be elected king, under the title of Potatau the First, and finally, in June, 1858, his flag was formally hoisted at Ngaruawahia. Potatau, who was far advanced in life when raised to this high office, soon departed from the scene, and was succeeded by his son Matutaera Te Wherowhero, under the title of Potatau the Second. The events of the New Zealand war need not here be recited, but it may be easily imagined that during the continuance of the fighting the extensive area of country ruled over by the Maori monarch was kept clear of Europeans. But in 1863 and 1864 General Cameron, at the head of about 20,000 troops, composed of Imperial and Colonial forces, invaded the Waikato district, and drove the natives southward and westward, till his advanced corps were at Alexandra and Cambridge. Then followed the Waikato confiscation of Maori lands and the military settlements. The King territory was further broken into by the confiscations at Taranaki and the East Coast. … Since the termination of the lamentable war between the two races, the King natives have, on all occasions, jealously preserved their hostile spirit to Europeans. … The New Zealand war concluded, or rather died out, in 1865, when the confiscated line was drawn, the military settlements formed, and the King natives isolated themselves from the Europeans. For ten years it may be said that no attempt was mane to negotiate with them. They were not in a humour to be dealt with. About 1874 and 1875, however, it became evident that something would have to be done. The colony had greatly advanced in population, and a system of public works had been inaugurated, which made it intolerable that large centres of population should be cut off from each other by vast spaces of country which Europeans were not allowed even to traverse." Then began a series of negotiations, which, up to 1883, had borne no fruit.

_J. H. Kerry-Nicholls, The King Country, introduction._

ALSO IN: _G. W. Rusden, History of New Zealand._

_Colonel Sir J. E. Alexander, Incidents of the Maori War._

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1887-1893. Maori representation. Women Suffrage.

An act passed in 1887 created four districts in each of which the Maoris elect a member of the House of Representatives. Every adult Maori has a vote in this election. By an act passed in 1893 the elective franchise was extended to women.

----------NEW ZEALAND: End----------

NEWAB-WUZEER, OR NAWAB-VIZIER, of Oude.

See OUDE; also NABOB.

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY: The founding of the city by migration from New Haven (1666-1667).

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEWBERN, North Carolina: Capture by the national forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NEWBURGH, Washington's headquarters at.

"At the close of 1780, the army was cantoned at three points: at Morristown and at Pompton, in New Jersey, and at Phillipstown, in the Hudson Highlands. Washington established his head-quarters at New Windsor in December, 1780, where he remained until June, 1781, when the French, who had quartered during the winter at Newport and Lebanon, formed a junction with the Americans on the Hudson. In April, 1782, he established his head-quarters at Newburgh, two miles above the village of New Windsor, where he continued most of the time until November, 1783, when the Continental army was disbanded."

B. J. Lossing, Field-book of the Revolution, volume 1, page 671.

NEWBURGH ADDRESSES, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.

NEWBURN, Battles of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

NEWBURY, First Battles of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEWBURY, Second Battle.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, Origin of.

See PONS ÆLII.

NEWCOMEN, and the invention of the steam engine.

See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

----------NEWFOUNDLAND: Start--------

NEWFOUNDLAND: Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1000. Supposed identity with the Helluland of Norse Sagas.

See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1498. Discovery by Sebastian Cabot.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1500. Visited by Cortereal, the Portuguese explorer.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578. The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fisheries.

"It is a very curious circumstance, that the country in which the Cabots started their idea for a navigation to the north-west, and in which they at first proclaimed their discovery of the rich fishing-banks near their New-found-Isles, did not at once profit by it so much as their neighbors, the French and the Portuguese. … {2353} During the first half of the 16th century we hear little of English fishing and commercial expeditions to the great banks; although they had a branch of commerce and fishery with Iceland. … 'It was not until the year 1548 that the English government passed the first act for the encouragement of the fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, after which they became active competitors in this profitable occupation.'" In Portugal, Cortereal's discovery had revealed "the wealth to be derived from the fish, particularly cod-fish, which abounded on that coast. The fishermen of Portugal and of the Western Islands, when this news was spread among them, made preparations for profiting by it, and soon extended their fishing excursions to the other side of the ocean. According to the statement of a Portuguese author, very soon after the discoveries by the Cortereals, a Portuguese Fishing Company was formed in the harbors of Vianna, Aveiro and Terceira, for the purpose of colonizing Newfoundland and making establishments upon it. Nay, already, in 1506, three years after the return of the last searching expedition for the Cortereals, Emanuel gave order, 'that the fishermen of Portugal, at their return from Newfoundland, should pay a tenth part of their profits at his custom-houses.' It is certain, therefore, that the Portuguese fishermen must, previous to that time, have been engaged in a profitable business. And this is confirmed by the circumstance that they originated the name of 'tierra de Bacalhas' [or Bacalhao] (the Stockfish-country) and gave currency to it; though the word, like the cod-fishery itself, appears to be of Germanic origin. …. The nations who followed them in the fishing business imitated their example, and adopted the name 'country of the Bacalhas' (or, in the Spanish form, Baccallaos), though sometimes interchanging it with names of their own invention, as the 'Newfoundland: 'Terre neuve,' etc. … They [the Portuguese] continued their expeditions to Newfoundland and its neighborhood for a long time. They were often seen there by later English and other visitors during the course of the 16th century; for instance, according to Herrera, in 1519; again by the English in 1527; and again by Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1583. … The Portuguese engaged in this fishery as early as 1501, according to good authorities, and perhaps under the charter of Henry VII. In 1578, they had 50 ships employed in that trade, and England as many more, and France 150. … The inhabitants of the little harbors of Normandy and Brittany, the great peninsulas of France, … were also among the first who profited by the discoveries of the Cabots and Cortereals, and who followed in the wake of the Portuguese fishermen toward the north-west cod-fish country. … The first voyages of the Bretons of St. Malo and the Normans of Dieppe to Newfoundland, are said to have occurred as early as 1504. … They probably visited places of which the Portuguese had not taken possession; and we therefore find them at the south of Newfoundland, and especially at the island of Cape Breton, to which they gave the name, still retained,—the oldest French name on the American north-east coast. … The Spaniards, and more particularly the mariners and fishermen of Biscay, have pretended, like those of Brittany and Normandy, that they and their ancestors, from time immemorial, had sailed to Newfoundland; and, even before Columbus, had established their fisheries there. But the Spanish historian Navarette, in more modern times, does not sustain this pretension of his countrymen. … We may come to the conclusion that, if the fisheries of the Spanish Basques on the Banks of Newfoundland and in the vicinity, did not begin with the voyage of Gomez [in 1525], they received from it a new impulse. … From this time, for more than a century, they [the Basques] appeared in these waters every year with a large fleet, and took their place upon the banks as equals by the side of the Bretons, Normans, and Basques of France, until the middle of the 17th century, when rival nations dispossessed them of their privileges."

J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine (Maine Historical Society Collections, series 2, volume 1), chapters 6 and 8, with foot-note.

ALSO IN: R. Brown, History of Cape Breton, chapters 1-2.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1534. Visited by Jacques Cartier.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1583. Formal possession taken for England by Sir Humphrey Gilbert.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655. Early English attempts at colonization. The grants to Lord Baltimore and Sir David Kirke.

"For 27 years after the failure of the Gilbert expedition no fresh attempt was made to establish a colony in the island. During this interval fishermen of various nationalities continued to frequent its shores. … The French were actively engaged in the prosecution of the fisheries in the neighboring seas. Their success in this direction strengthened their desire to gain possession of Newfoundland. Hence it is that in the history of the country France has always been an important factor. Having from time to time held possession of various points of the land, England's persistent rival in these latitudes has given names to many towns, villages, creeks, and harbors. To this day Newfoundland has not completely shaken off French influence. … In 1610 another attempt was made to plant a colony of Englishmen in Newfoundland. John Guy, a merchant, and afterwards mayor of Bristol, published in 1609 a pamphlet on the advantages which would result to England from the establishment of a colony in the island. This publication made such a deep impression on the public mind that a company was formed to carry out the enterprise it suggested. The most illustrious name on the roll was that of Lord Bacon. … The importance of Newfoundland as a site for an English colony did not escape the wide-ranging eye of Bacon. He pronounced its fisheries 'more valuable than all the mines of Peru,' a judgment which time has amply verified. … To this company James I., by letters patent dated April, 1610, made a grant of all the part of Newfoundland which lies between Cape Bonavista in the north and Cape St. Mary. Mr. Guy was appointed governor, and with a number of colonists he landed at Mosquito Harbor, on the north side of Conception Bay, where he proceeded to erect huts. … We have no authentic account of the progress of this settlement, begun under such favourable auspices, but it proved unsuccessful from some unexplained cause. Guy and a number of the settlers returned to England, the rest remaining to settle elsewhere in the New World. {2354} Five years afterwards, in 1615, Captain Richard Whitbourne, mariner, of Exmouth, Devonshire, received a commission from the Admiralty of England to proceed to Newfoundland for the purpose of establishing order among the fishing population and remedying certain abuses which had grown up. … It was shown that there were upwards of 250 English vessels, having a tonnage of 1,500 tons, engaged in the fisheries along the coast. Fixed habitations extended at intervals along the shore from St. John's to Cape Race. … Having done what he could during the active part of his life to promote its interests, on his return to England, in his advanced years, he [Whitbourne] wrote an account of the country, entitled 'A Discourse and Discovery of Newfoundland.' … His book made a great impression at the time. … So highly did King James think of the volume that he ordered a copy to be sent to every parish in the kingdom. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued a letter recommending it, with the view of encouraging emigration to Newfoundland. … A year after the departure of Whitbourne, in 1623, by far the most skilfully-organized effort to carry out the settlement of Newfoundland was made, under the guidance of Sir George Calvert, afterwards Lord Baltimore. … When Secretary of State he obtained a patent conveying to him the lordship of the whole southern peninsula of Newfoundland, together with all the islands lying within ten leagues of the eastern shores, as well as the right of fishing in the surrounding waters, all English subjects having, as before, free liberty of fishing. Being a Roman Catholic, Lord Baltimore had in view to provide an asylum for his co-religionists who were sufferers from the intolerant spirit of the times. The immense tract thus granted to him extended from Trinity Bay to Placentia, and was named by him Avalon, from the ancient name of Glastonbury, where, it is believed, Christianity was first preached in Britain. … Lord Baltimore called his Newfoundland province Avalon and his first settlement Verulam. The latter name, in course of time, became corrupted into Ferulam, and then into the modern Ferryland. At this spot, on the eastern coast of Newfoundland, about 40 miles north of Cape Race, Lord Baltimore planted his colony, and built a noble mansion, in which he resided with his family during many years." But after expending some £30,000 upon the establishment of his colony, Lord Baltimore abandoned it, on account of the poor quality of the soil and its exposure to the attacks of the French. Not long afterwards he obtained his Maryland grant [see MARYLAND: A. D. 1632] and resumed the enterprise under more favorable conditions. "Soon after the departure of Lord Baltimore, Viscount Falkland, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, hoping to permanently increase the scanty population of Newfoundland, sent out a number of emigrants from that country. At a later date, these were so largely reinforced by settlers from Ireland that the Celtic part of the population at this day is not far short of equality in numbers with the Saxon portion. In 1638, Sir David Kirke, one of Britain's bravest sea-captains, arrived in Newfoundland and took up his abode at Ferryland, where Lord Baltimore had lived. Sir David was armed with the powers of a Count Palatine over the island, having obtained from Charles I. a grant of the whole." This was by way of reward for his exploit in taking Quebec

See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

Kirke "governed wisely and used every effort to promote the colonization of the country. His settlement prospered greatly. The Civil War, however, broke out in England, and, Kirke being a staunch loyalist, all his possessions in Newfoundland were confiscated by the victorious Commonwealth. By the aid of Claypole, Cromwell's son-in-law, Kirke eventually got the sequestration removed, and, returning to Ferryland, died there in 1655, at the age of 56. At this time Newfoundland contained a population of 350 families, or nearly 2,000 inhabitants, distributed in 15 small settlements along the eastern coast."

J. Hatton and M. Harvey, Newfoundland, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: H. Kirke, The First English Conquest of Canada, chapters 3-4.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688. The French gain their footing.

"With the possession of Cape Breton, Acadia, and the vast regions stretching from the gulf of the River St. Lawrence, and the mighty lakes, Newfoundland obtained a new value in the estimation of the government of France, as it formed one side of the narrow entrance to its transatlantic dependencies: consequently the pursuit of the fishery by its seamen was encouraged, and every opportunity was improved to gain a footing in the country itself. This encroaching tendency could not, however, be manifested without a protest on the part of the somewhat sluggish English, both by private individuals and by the government. Charles I. … imposed a tribute of five per cent. on the produce taken by foreigners in this fishery, to which exaction the French, as well as others, were forced to submit. During the distracted time of the Commonwealth, it does not appear that the struggling government at home found leisure to attend to these distant affairs, though the tribute continued to be levied. The Restoration brought to England a sovereign who owed much to the monarch of France, to whom he was therefore attached by the ties of gratitude, and by the desire to find a counterpoise to the refractory disposition of which he was in continual apprehension among his own subjects. It was not until 1675 that Louis XIV. prevailed on Charles to give up the duty of five per cent., and by that time the French had obtained a solid footing on the southern coast of Newfoundland, so that, with Cape Breton in their possession, they commanded both sides of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Over a territory of some 200 miles in extent, belonging to the British sovereignty, they had built up imperceptibly an almost undisputed dominion. At Placentia, situated in the bay of that name, a strong fort was erected, sustained by other forts standing at intervals along the shore, and at the same place a royal government was established. How real was the authority assumed, and how completely was the English sovereignty ignored, needs no better proof than is furnished in an ordinance issued by Louis in the year 1681, concerning the marine of France. In this state paper, Newfoundland is reckoned as situate in those seas which are free and common to all French subjects, provided that they take a license from the admiral for every voyage. … {2355} Thus that period which is regarded as among the most humiliating in the annals of our nation,—when the king was a pensioner of France, and his ministers received bribes from the same quarter, witnessed the partial sliding under this alien power of the most ancient of the colonial possessions of the Crown. Not less than half of the inhabited coast of Newfoundland was thus taken under that despotic rule, which, while swaying the councils of England to the furtherance of its ambitious designs, was labouring for the subjugation of the European continent. The revolution of 1688 broke the spell of this encroaching autocracy."

C. Pedley, History of Newfoundland, chapter 2.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697. French success in the war with England. The Treaty of Ryswick and its unsatisfactory terms.

"On the accession of William III. to the throne of England hostilities broke out between the rival nations. In William's declaration of war against the French, Newfoundland holds a prominent place among the alleged causes which led to the rupture of pacific relations. The grievance was tersely set forth in the royal manifesto: 'It was not long since the French took license from the Governor of Newfoundland to fish upon that coast, and paid a tribute for such licenses as an acknowledgement of the sole right of the Crown of England to that island; but of late the encroachments of the French, and His Majesty's subjects trading and fishing there, had been more like the invasions of an enemy than becoming friends, who enjoyed the advantages of that trade only by permission.' Newfoundland now became the scene of military skirmishes, naval battles, and sieges by land and water." In 1692 the English made an unsuccessful attack on Placentia. In 1694, a French fleet, under the Chevalier Nesmond, intended for an attack upon Boston and New York, stopped at Newfoundland on the way and made a descent on the harbor and town of St. John's. Nesmond "was repulsed, and instead of going on to Boston he returned to France. A more determined effort at conquest was made later in the same year. The new expedition was under the command of Iberville and Brouillan, the former being at the head of a Canadian force. The garrison of St. John's was weak in numbers, and, in want of military stores, could only make a feeble resistance; capitulating on easy terms, the troops were shipped to England. The fort and town were burned to the ground, and the victors next proceeded to destroy all the other adjacent English settlements; Carbonear and Bonavista alone proved too strong for them. The English Government at once commenced dispositions for dislodging the invaders; but before anything was attempted the treaty of Ryswick was signed, in 1697. This treaty proved most unfortunate for Newfoundland. It revived in the island the same state of division between France and England which had existed at the beginning of the war. The enemy retired from St. John's and the other settlements which they had forcibly occupied. Their claims upon Placentia and all the other positions on the south-west coast were, however, confirmed. The British inhabitants of Newfoundland were, therefore, once more left open to French attacks, should hostilities be again renewed between the rival powers."

J. Hatton and M. Harvey, Newfoundland, part 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV., chapter 18.

W. Kingsford, History of Canada, book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1705. English settlements destroyed by the French.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713. Relinquished to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht. French fishing rights reserved.

In the 12th and 13th articles of the Treaty signed at Utrecht, April 11, 1713, which terminated the War of the Spanish Succession (commonly known in American history as Queen Anne's War) it was stipulated that "All Nova Scotia or Acadié, with its ancient boundaries, as also the city of Port Royal, now called Annapolis Royal, … the island of Newfoundland, with the adjacent islands, … the town and fortress of Placentia, and whatever other places in the island are in possession of the French, shall from this time forward belong of right wholly to Great Britain. … That the subjects of France should be allowed to catch fish and dry them on that part of the island of Newfoundland which stretches from Cape Bonavista to the northern point of the island, and from thence down the western side as far as Point Riché; but that no fortifications or any buildings should be erected there, besides Stages made of Boards, and Huts necessary and usual for drying fish. … But the island of Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the mouth of the river of St. Lawrence and in the gulf of the same name, shall hereafter belong of Right to the King of France, who shall have liberty to fortify any place or places there."

R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton, letter 9.

ALSO IN: J. Hatton and M. Harvey, Newfoundland, part 1, chapters 3-4; and part 3, chapter 7.

See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1744. Attack on Placentia by the French.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1748. The islands of St. Pierre and Michelon ceded to France.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D: 1745-1748.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1763. Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris, with rights of fishing reserved to France.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES; also FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1778. French fishery rights on the banks recognized in the Franco-American Treaty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1783. American fishing rights conceded in the Treaty of Peace with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1818. Fisheries Treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1854-1866. Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1871. The Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1877. The Halifax Fishery award. Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington. Renewed fishery disputes.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

----------NEWFOUNDLAND: End----------

NEWNHAM HALL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1883.

NEWPORT, England, The Treaty at.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

{2356}

----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: Start--------

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1524. Visited by Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1639. The first settlement.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1778. Held by the British. Failure of French-American attack.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: End--------

NEWSPAPERS.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650, and after.

NEWTON BUTLER, Battle of (1689).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

NEWTONIA, Battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS); and 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

NEY, Marshal, Campaigns and execution of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER), 1806-1807, 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE); SPAIN: A. D. 1809; RUSSIA: A. D. 1812; GERMANY: A. D. 1813; FRANCE: A. D. 1815, and 1815-1830.

NEZ PERCÉS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

----------NIAGARA: Start--------

NIAGARA: The name and its original applications.

"Colden wrote it [the name] 'O-ni-ag-a-ra,' in 1741, and he must have received it from the Mohawks or Oneidas. It was the name of a Seneca village at the mouth of the Niagara river; located as early as 1650, near the site of Youngstown. It was also the place where the Marquis de Nonville constructed a fort in 1687, the building of which brought this locality under the particular notice of the English. The name of this Indian village in the dialect of the Senecas was 'Ne-ah'-gä,' in Tuscarora 'O-ne-ä'-kars,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-ah'-gä,' in Oneida 'O-ne-ah'-gäle,' and in Mohawk 'O-ne-a'-gä-rä.' These names are but the same word under dialectical changes. It is clear that Niagara was derived from some one of them, and thus came direct from the Iroquois language. The signification of the word is lost, unless it is derived, as some of the present Iroquois suppose, from the word which signifies 'neck,' in Seneca 'O-ne-ah'-ä,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-yä'-ä' and in Oneida 'O-ne-arle.' The name of this Indian village was bestowed by the Iroquois upon Youngstown; upon the river Niagara, from the falls to the Lake; and upon Lake Ontario."

L. H. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, book 3, chapter 3.

"It [the name Niagara] is the oldest of all the local geographical terms which have come down to us from the aborigines. It was not at first thus written by the English, for with them it passed through almost every possible alphabetical variation before its present orthography was established. We find its germ in the 'On-gui-aah-ra' of the Neutral Nation, as given by Father L'Allemant in a letter dated in 1641, at the mission station of Sainte Marie, on Lake Huron. … The name of the river next occurs on Sanson's map of Canada, published in Paris in 1656, where it is spelled 'Ongiara.' Its first appearance as Niagara is on Coronelli's map, published in Paris in 1688. From that time to the present, the French have been consistent in their orthography, the numerous variations alluded to occurring only among English writers. The word was probably derived from the Mohawks, through whom the French had their first intercourse with the Iroquois. The Mohawks pronounced it Nyah,-ga-rah', with the primary accent on the first syllable; and the secondary on the last. … The corresponding Seneca name, Nyah'-gaah, was always confined by the Iroquois to the section of the river below the Falls, and to Lake Ontario. That portion of the river above the Falls being sometimes called Gni-gwaah-geh, one of their names for Lake Erie."

_O. H. Marshall, The Niagara Frontier (Historical Writings, page 283)._

NIAGARA: A. D. 1687-1688. Fort constructed by De Nonville and destroyed a year later.

"We arrived there [at Niagara] on the morning of the 30th [of July, 1687]. We immediately set about choosing a place, and collecting stakes for the construction of the Fort which I had resolved to build at the extremity of a tongue of land, between the river Niagara and Lake Ontario, on the Iroquois side. On the 31st of July and 1st of August we continued this work, which was the more difficult from there being no wood on the place suitable for making palisades, and from its being necessary to draw them up the height. We performed this labor so diligently that the fort was in a state of defence on the last mentioned day. … The 2d day of August, the militia having performed their allotted task, and the fort being in a condition of defence in case of assault, they set out at noon, in order to reach the end of the lake on their return to their own country. On the morning of the 3d, being the next day, I embarked for the purpose of joining the militia, leaving the regular troops under the direction of M. de Vaudreuil to finish what was the most essential, and to render the fort not only capable of defence, but also of being occupied by a detachment of 100 soldiers, which are to winter there under the command of M. Troyes."

_Marquis de Nonville, Journal of Expedition against the Senecas (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173)._

"De Nonville's journal removes the doubt which has been entertained as to the location of this fortress, some having supposed it to have been first built at Lewiston. … It occupied the site of the present fort on the angle formed by the junction of the Niagara with Lake Ontario. … De Nonville left De Troyes with provisions and munitions for eight months. A sickness soon after broke out in the garrison, by which they nearly all perished, including their commander. … They were so closely besieged by the Iroquois that they were unable to supply themselves with fresh provisions. The fortress was soon after abandoned and destroyed [1688], much to the regret of De Nonville."

_Marquis de Nonville, Journal of Expedition against the Senecas (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173). Foot-notes_

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV., pages 155 and 166.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1725-1726. The stone fort built. How the French gained their footing. Joncaire's wigwam.

Captain Joncaire "had been taken prisoner when quite young by the Iroquois, and adopted into one of their tribes. This was the making of his fortune. He had grown up among them, acquired their language, adapted himself to their habits, and was considered by them as one of themselves. On returning to civilized life he became a prime instrument in the hands of the Canadian government, for managing and cajoling the Indians. … When the French wanted to get a commanding site for a post on the Iroquois lands, near Niagara, Joncaire was the man to manage it. {2357} He craved a situation where he might put up a wigwam, and dwell among his Iroquois brethren. It was granted, of course, 'for was he not a son of the tribe—was he not one of themselves?' By degrees his wigwam grew into an important trading post; ultimately it became Fort Niagara."

W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 5.

"In 1725 the Fort of Niagara was commenced by Chaussegross de Léry, on the spot where the wooden structure of de Denonville formerly stood; it was built of stone and completed in 1726."

W. Kingsford, History of Canada, volume 2, page 516.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1755. Abortive expedition against the fort, by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1756. The fort rebuilt by Pouchot.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1759. The fort taken by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1763. The ambuscade and massacre at Devil's Hole.

See DEVIL'S HOLE.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1764. Sir William Johnson's treaty with the Indians. Cession of the Four Mile Strip' along both banks of the river.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1783. Retention of the Fort by Great Britain after peace with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1796. Surrender of the fort by Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1813. Surprise and capture of the fort by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

----------NIAGARA: End--------

NIAGARA, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

NIAGARA FRONTIER: A. D. 1812-1814. The War. Queenstown. Buffalo. Chippewa. Lundy's Lane. Fort Erie.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (DECEMBER); 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

NIAGARA PEACE MISSION, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

NIAGARA RIVER, Navigated by La Salle (1679).

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

NIBELUNGEN LIED, The.

"Of the bequests made to us of the [German] Popular Poetry of the time of the Hohenstauffen, by far the most important, in fact the most important literary memorial of any kind, is the epic of between nine and ten thousand lines known as the Nibelungen Lied. The manuscripts which have preserved for us the poem come from about the year 1200. For full a thousand years before that, however, many of the lays from which it was composed had been in existence; some indeed proceed from a still remoter antiquity, sung by primitive minstrels when the Germans were at their wildest, untouched by Christianity or civilization. These lays had been handed down orally, until at length a poet of genius elaborated them and intrusted them to parchment."

J. K. Hosmer, Short History of German Literature, part 1, chapter 1.

"In the year 1757, the Swiss Professor Bodmer printed an ancient poetical manuscript, under the title of Chriemhilden Rache und die Kluge (Chriemhilde's Revenge, and the Lament); which may be considered as the first of a series, or stream of publications and speculations still rolling on, with increased current, to the present day. … Some fifteen years after Bodmer's publication, which, for the rest, is not celebrated as an editorial feat, one C. H. Müller undertook a Collection of German Poems from the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries; wherein, among other articles, he reprinted Bodmer's Chriemhilde and Klage, with a highly remarkable addition prefixed to the former, essential indeed to the right understanding of it; and the whole now stood before the world as one Poem, under the name of the Nibelungen Lied, or Lay of the Nibelungen. It has since been ascertained that the Klage is a foreign inferior appendage; at best related only as epilogue to the main work: meanwhile out of this Nibelungen, such as it was, there soon proceeded new inquiries and kindred enterprises. For much as the Poem, in the shape it here bore, was defaced and marred, it failed not to attract observation: to all open-minded lovers of poetry, especially where a strong patriotic feeling existed, the singular antique Nibelungen was an interesting appearance. Johannes Müller, in his famous Swiss History, spoke of it in warm terms: subsequently, August Wilhelm Schlegel, through the medium of the Deutsche Museum, succeeded in awakening something like a universal popular feeling on the subject; and, as a natural consequence, a whole host of Editors and Critics, of deep and of shallow endeavour, whose labours we yet see in progress. The Nibelungen has now been investigated, translated, collated, commented upon, with more or less result, to almost boundless lengths. … Apart from its antiquarian value, and not only as by far the finest monument of old German art; but intrinsically, and as a mere detached composition, this Nibelungen has an excellence that cannot but surprise us. With little preparation, any reader of poetry, even in these days, might find it interesting. It is not without a certain Unity of interest and purport, an internal coherence and completeness; it is a Whole, and some spirit of Music informs it: these are the highest characteristics of a true Poem. Considering farther what intellectual environment we now find it in, it is doubly to be prized and wondered at; for it differs from those Hero-books, as molten or carved metal does from rude agglomerated ore; almost as some Shakspeare from his fellow Dramatist, whose Tamburlaines and Island Princesses, themselves not destitute of merit, first show us clearly in what pure loftiness and loneliness the Hamlets and Tempests reign. The unknown Singer of the Nibelungen, though no Shakspeare, must have had a deep poetic soul; wherein things discontinuous and inanimate shaped themselves together into life, and the Universe with its wondrous purport stood significantly imaged; overarching, as with heavenly firmaments and eternal harmonies, the little scene where men strut and fret their hour, His Poem, unlike so many old and new pretenders to that name, has a basis and organic structure, a beginning, middle and end; there is one great principle and idea set forth in it, round which all its multifarious parts combine in living union. … With an instinctive art, far different from acquired artifice, this Poet of the Nibelungen, working in the same province with his contemporaries of the Heldenbuch [Hero-book] on the same material of tradition, has, in a wonderful degree, possessed himself of what these could only strive after; and with his 'clear feeling of fictitious truth,' avoid as false the errors and monstrous perplexities in which they vainly struggled. {2358} He is of another species than they; in language, in purity and depth of feeling, in fineness of invention, stands quite apart from them.' The language of the Heldenbuch … was a feeble half-articulate child's-speech, the metre nothing better than a miserable doggerel; whereas here in the old Frankish (Oberdeutsch) dialect of the Nibelungen, we have a clear decisive utterance, and in a real system of verse not without essential regularity, great liveliness, and now and then even harmony of rhythm. … No less striking than the verse and language is the quality of the invention manifested here. Of the Fable, or narrative material of the Nibelungen we should say that it had high, almost the highest merit; so daintily yet firmly is it put together; with such felicitous selection of the beautiful, the essential, and no less felicitous rejection of whatever was unbeautiful or even extraneous. The reader is no longer afflicted with that chaotic brood of Fire-drakes, Giants, and malicious turbaned Turks, so fatally rife in the Heldenbuch: all this is swept away, or only hovers in faint shadows afar off; and free field is open for legitimate perennial interests. Yet neither is the Nibelungen without its wonders; for it is poetry and not prose; here too, a supernatural world encompasses the natural, and, though at rare intervals and in calm manner, reveals itself there. … The whole story of the Nibelungen is fateful, mysterious, guided on by unseen influences; yet the actual marvels are few, and done in the far distance; those Dwarfs, and Cloaks of Darkness, and charmed Treasure-caves, are heard of rather than beheld, the tidings of them seem to issue from unknown space. Vain were it to inquire where that Nibelungen-land specially is: its very name is Nebel-land or Nift-land, the land of Darkness, of Invisibility. The 'Nibelungen Heroes' that muster in thousands and tens of thousands, though they march to the Rhine or Danube, and we see their strong limbs and shining armour, we could almost fancy to be children of the air."

_T. Carlyle, The Nibelungen Lied (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 3)._

"The traditions of German heroic poetry extend over more than 300 years, and are drawn from various German tribes. King Ostrogotha reigned over the Goths about the year 250, and was the contemporary of the emperors Philip and Decius. Ermanaric governed the Ostrogoths about 100 years later, and was a very warlike king, ruling over a large extent of territory. The invasion of the Huns drove him to despair, and he fell by his own hand before the year 374. Soon after the year 400 the Burgundians founded a mighty empire in the most fertile part of the Upper Rhine, where Cæsar had already fought with the Germans, near Spiers, Worms, and Mayence. The Roman Aëtius, who ruled Gaul with the aid of his Hun allies, defeated the Burgundians by means of these barbarians in a terrible battle about the year 437; 20,000 men fell, amongst them their king Gundicarius (Gunther). The Burgundians seemed to be annihilated, and soon after retreated to Savoy. About the same time Attila was king of the Huns and Ostrogoths to the terror of the world. His name is Gothic, the arrangements of his court were Gothic, and he reckoned among his knights Theodomer; the king of the Ostrogoths. The West had just learnt all the terror of this 'Scourge of God,' when news came of his sudden death (453), and in the following year his followers succumbed to the attacks of the Germans (454). Twenty-two years later, Odoacer deposed the last shadow of a Roman emperor; and again, twelve years later, Theodoric led the Ostrogoths into Italy and Odoacer fell by his hand. About the same period the Merovingian Clovis founded the kingdom of the Franks; about the year 530 his sons destroyed the Thuringian empire; and his grandson Theodebert extended his kingdom so far, that, starting from Hungary, he planned an attack on the Byzantine emperor. The Merovingians also offered a successful resistance to the Vikings, who were the terror of the North Sea, and who appeared even at the mouths of the Rhine. From another quarter the Longobards in little more than a century reached Italy, having started from Lüneburg, in the neighbourhood of Brunswick, and their King Alboin took possession of the crown of Italy in 568. These wonderful transferences of power, and this rapid founding of new empires, furnished the historical background of the German hero-legends. The fact that the movement was originally against Rome was forgotten; the migration was treated as a mere incident in the internal history of the German nation. There is no trace of chronology. … Legend adheres to the fact of the enmity between Odoacer and Theodoric, but it really confuses Theodoric with his father Theodomer, transplants him accordingly to Attila's court, and supposes that he was an exile there in hiding from the wrath of Odoacer. Attila becomes the representative of everything connected with the Huns. He is regarded as Ermanaric's and Gunther's enemy, and as having destroyed the Burgundians. These again are confused with a mythical race, the Nibelungen, Siegfried's enemies, and thus arose the great and complicated scheme of the Nibelungen legend. … This Middle High-German Epic is like an old church, in the building of which many architects have successively taken part. … Karl Lachmann attempted the work of restoring the Nibelungen lied and analysing its various elements, and accomplished the task, not indeed faultlessly, yet on the whole correctly. He has pointed out later interpolations, which hide the original sequence of the story, and has divided the narrative which remains after the removal of these accretions into twenty songs, some of which are connected, while others embody isolated incidents of the legend. Some of them, but certainly only a few, may be by the same author. … We recognise in most of these songs such differences in conception, treatment, and style, as point to separate authorship. The whole may have been finished in about twenty years, from 1190-1210. Lachmann's theory has indeed been contested. Many students still believe that the poem, as we have it, was the work of one hand; but on this hypothesis no one has succeeded in explaining the strange contradictions which pervade the work, parts of which show the highest art, while the rest is valueless."

W. Scherer, History of German Literature, chapters 2 and 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: B. Taylor, Studies in German Literature, chapter 4.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us