Stokes, I. N. Phelps The iconography of Manhattan Island 1498-1909 (v. 4)

(New York :  Robert H. Dodd,  1915-1928.)



Jump to page:

Table of Contents

  Page [63]  




1626 T N this year, goods and merchandise valued at 20,384 guilders
— I were bought in Holland by the Amsterdam chamber of the
A West India Co., and sent in two ships to New Netherland.—
De Laet, Korl Verhael, 26, in biiHisiorie (1644). There were im¬
ported into Holland trom New Netherland 7,258 beavers, and 857
otters and other peltries, valued at 45,050 guilders.—Ibid., 29.
1623- Although It has not proved possible to determine with absolute
1626 certainty the date of the first settlement on Manhattan Island, nor
to clear away completely the mystery which has so long surrounded
and obscured those remote days, nevertheless, the recent discovery
of the Van Rappard Documents, the appearance of several new
side-tights, and a re-examination of the known tacts in the new light
which these documents furnish, enable us to present a picture ot
Manhattan Island during the two years immediatdy preceding
Minuit's arrival, which, although sketchy and lacking iu detail, is,
nevertheless, in all probability, true in Its essential features.

The extreme limits of what may be termed the period of first
settlement are marked, respectively, by the start, shortly after
March 30, 1624 (7.11.), of the expedition on the "Nieu Nederlandt,"
which now appears, without reasonable doubt, to have been the first
definite step in the settlement of New Netherland following the
completion ot the organization of the West India Company, on
June 21, 1623 (unless we accept the theory that the "Mackerel"
expedition was an official one, and that some of her passengers re¬
mained on Manhattan Island—see bdow), and the arrival at
Manhattan Island, on May 4th, 1626, of Peter Minuit,

Although, as various items in the Chronology indicate, it is not
impossible, and In the author's opinion it is even likely, that ex¬
plorers and traders, possibly In some cases including women,
camped upon the island, and erected temporary shelters, or even
groups of huts, as early as 1614, perhaps even bdore that time;
and although, further, it seems to him not impossible that this
occasional occupation may, in the aggregate, have covered a
considerable portion ot the period between 1614 and 1626, neverthe¬
less, that nothing approaching a permanent settlement can have
existed prior to 1623 is pretty conclusively shown by the succession
ot events here recorded; and the episode ot the expulsion, in the
Springof 1624, by May, aided by the crew of the "Mackerd," ot the
"Frenchman" who sought to set up the arms of the French king
at the mouth of the Hudson constitutes also pretty definite proof
that no settlement existed in this neighbourhood in the early sum-
nier of 1624, and that the settlers who accompanied May were,
therefore, the first permanent colonists to reach the Hudson River.

This expedition was perhaps hastened by the appearance of
Adriaen Joris (Tienpont) before the "Assembly of XIX," on Nov,
3, 1623 {q.v.), and it is altogether likely that he accompanied It,
possibly on a second ship, the "Eendracht," or "Unity," as indi¬
cated by Catalina Trico (see May?, 1624?), although Ino record of
such a ship, sailing to New Netherland in this year, has been found.

There may, indeed, well have been two ships, as a vessel of 130
lasts seems hardly large enough to have accommodated 30 families,
in addition to the officers, crew, and other passengers, on a trans¬
atlantic voyage. The fact that the "Nieu Nederlandt" alone is
mentioned by Wassenaer cannot be accepted as conclusive proof
that she was not accompanied by another vessd, or vessels; Was¬
senaer is sometimes cardess in such respects. It is even conceivable
that the expedition induded the "Eendracht" and the "Nieu
Verdriet," as well as the "Nieu Nederlandt," which theory would
go far toward reconciling all of the seemingly conflicting s

The description ot the Van Rappard papers in Muller's

logue brought to fight for the first time the name "Nieu Verdriet,"
or "New Sorrow," and the dates March 28th and March 30th on
the two contemporary copies ot Van Rappard Document A, cou¬
pled with Wassenaer's statement that the "Nieu Nederlandt"
sailed "early In March," led, at first, to the supposition that there
were two distinct expeditions in March, 1624. An examination of
all available tacts, however, has led to the conclusion that there
was, in reality, but one expedition, the well-known expedition under
Cornells Jacobsz, May, In the "Nieu Nederlandt," and that this
expedition sailed on, or iromedlately atter, March 30, under
"provisional orders," now known to us through Van Rappard
Document A, which are given in full, in translated form, under
March 28th, 1624 {q.v.).

Furthermore, it seems clear, as we have already noted, that
Adriaen Joris (Tienpont) accompanied this expedition in some
official capacity, and was possibly in command ot a second ship, a
supposition which is strengthened by a Report on the Condiiion
of New Netherland, dated Dec, 15, 1644 (j.u,), in which occurs the
statement that the colonists arriving in New Netherland were
"under the direction of Cornells Jacobsz, Mey & Adriaen Jorisi,
Tienpoint, which Directors, in the year 1624 built Fort Orange on
the North River, and Fort Nassau on the South River, and after
that. In 1626, Fort Amsterdam on the Manhattes,"—JV. Y. Col.
Docs.,1: 149.

This explanation, which would be in harmony with most of the
statements made by Catalina Trico, Is based upon a belief that
the name "Nieu Verdriet," which name, so far as we know, occurs
only in the catalogue description of the Van Rappard Documents,
is, in reahty, a mis-reading tor "Nieu Nederlandt." It the two
names are written side by side, in the old Dutch script, the great
similarity in form becomes at once apparent. Furthermore, "New
Sorrow" seems an altogether unUkely name to choose for a ship (cf.
p, 6d), Unfortunately, it has not been possible to verify this theory
by reference to the original document, but. In view of all the known
facts, it seems to turnlsb the most reasonable solution of what other¬
wise appear to be hopelessly irreconcilable statements.

This theory is further strengthened by the fact that May and
his Walloons, when they expelled the "Frenchman" lying in the
mouth of the Hudson, forbade the erection ot the arms of the
French king "by commission from the Lords State General & the
Directors of the West India Company;" in all likefihood a refer¬
ence to May's "provisional orders" (Van Rappard Document A).
Moreover, It we accept this theory in general, there seems no
reason for doubting Catalina Trico's definite statement that "as
soon as they came to Manatans [the earlier deposition says about
three weeks after they arrived] . . , they sent Two famifies & 6
men to hariord River & Two families & 8 men to Delaware River
& 8 men they left alt Nieu: Yorke lo lake Possession, & y^ Rest of
y= Passengers [about i3 famihesi went y'h ye ship up as tarr as
Albany, which they then Called fort Orangie,"

It is true that, in order to reconcile Catalina Trico's statement
that 8 men and 2 famihes were sent to the Delaware River about
three weeks atter the arrival ot the expedition at Manhattan
Island with Wassenaer's statement that the "Frenchman" did not
attempt to enter the Ddaware River, "because of the settlers
already there," It Is necessary to assume that these latter had been
dispatched thither by May between the date ot his arrival and
that ot the arrival of the "Frenchman," or else that this settlement
was already In existence, which is unlikely; unless we assume
that, coming trom the direction ot the Gold Coast, and therefore
  Page [63]