Colonial America

by Richard Middleton, Anne Lombard

  Before the Civil War trade between the colonies and the mother country had been regulated on an ad hoc basis, mostly through the imposition of duties on profit-making commodities like tobacco. The only colonies being administered by the English government (through governors appointed by the Crown) were Virginia, Barbados, the Leeward Islands, and Jamaica, and the regulation even of these colonies had been unsystematic. By 1650 more thought began to be given to the question of how to make this system of administration rational and systematic. Part of the answer was a set of legal rules later known as the mercantilist system.1

  In the turbulent era of the English Civil War, as we have seen, the Dutch had steadily appropriated much of the trade from the colonies. Dutch shipping rates were cheaper and their masters more adept at finding markets for their cargoes. The Dutch could supply not only herring from the North Sea but also slaves from Africa as well as products shipped from around the globe, from cotton cloth and coffee to the tobacco and sugar that English merchants had hoped to control for themselves. By 1648 England had lost much of its colonial trade, while it seemed that the Dutch would not be content until they had an absolute monopoly. Meanwhile the English government had begun to recognize that it would benefit from promoting English trading interests and regulating the trade.

  Accordingly, in 1651 Parliament passed the first Navigation Act, which laid down two basic principles. The first was that all goods imported into England from any plantation in America, Africa, or Asia must be shipped in vessels owned and manned by Englishmen or English colonists. The second was that all European goods destined for the colonies had to be carried in English vessels or vessels belonging to their country of origin. The act's aims were twofold, first to exclude the Dutch from the carrying trade and, second, to encourage the growth of English enterprise. The Crown stood to benefit because the expansion of English trade would increase its customs revenues.

  The success of the act has been disputed. The Dutch, however, considered it sufficiently damaging to fight the first of its three wars against England in the period 1652–74.

  The 1651 act lapsed following the Restoration, because the Crown refused to recognize any laws passed during the interregnum. However, the exclusion of the Dutch from the carrying trade had now become a cardinal aim of the merchant community, and some alternative measure was essential if Charles II was to retain their support in Parliament. Many believed that the 1651 act had not gone far enough because it did not prevent the shipment of colonial goods to Holland or elsewhere in foreign vessels. As a result, a considerable proportion of the colonies' trade was not directly benefiting the mother country, particularly with respect to customs revenue. In October 1660, therefore, Parliament passed a new act which excluded foreign traders altogether by permitting only vessels owned and built in England or its American colonies and three-quarters manned by Englishmen to enter English colonial ports. Second, this act enumerated a list of colonial goods which had to be exported to England before being shipped elsewhere: sugar, tobacco, cotton, indigo, and other dyes. All those trading in such goods had to give bonds of up to £2,000 to the governors to ensure that they brought their cargoes to England.

  The act of 1660 by no means completed the economic regulation of the colonies, for it was recognized that the provinces were not simply producers of raw commodities but also an increasing market for English goods. Consequently, in 1663 a further measure was passed, this time requiring all foreign goods going to the plantations to be shipped via England, where they could be taxed and thus denied any competitive advantage.

  Finally, in 1673 an act was passed requiring the colonists to pay the same enumerated duties as their compatriots at home. In the future all enumerated goods shipped from one colony to another were to be treated as though they were destined for England. To ensure that these “plantation duties” were properly collected, the Crown arranged for customs commissioners to be appointed in every colony.

  These measures promised to secure the commerce of England for the sole benefit of England. Parliament was of course only copying the example of Spain, Portugal, and France, for as the 1663 act averred, “It was the usage of other nations to keep their plantation trade to themselves.” As already noted, however, it was not simply the commodities but the method of commerce itself which was now important. The new government measures would promote the development of the English shipbuilding industry by requiring that commodities be carried on English vessels, and encourage additional ships' voyages between the colonies and England by requiring that goods exported from the colonies be shipped through English ports. The expanded carrying trade helped sustain a large mercantile marine, giving employment to thousands of seamen. That in turn provided the sinews of naval power, which was increasing in importance as the century progressed. If the king's navy was to match its rivals, it must have a ready reserve of seamen, which its growing merchant fleet promised to supply.

  3 New York Becomes an English Colony

  English government efforts to force the Dutch out of the colonial trade were not limited to trade regulations. England had already employed its growing navy in attempting to force Dutch merchants out of the North American trade during the first Anglo-Dutch war from 1652 to 1654. In 1663, rivalry between the English and the Dutch spilled over into Africa after Charles II chartered the Royal Africa Company to monopolize the supply of slaves to the English West Indies, thus threatening the long-established Dutch slave trade. Another Anglo-Dutch war began in 1664.

  In connection with its competition against the Dutch, the English had begun to focus new attention on the colony of New Netherland, sandwiched between two fast-growing areas of English settlement, the Chesapeake and New England. In English eyes the Dutch colony was a serious impediment. Much coastal trade was calling there to evade the newly passed navigation laws. If the new regulations were to be effective, this loophole would have to be closed. In addition, English settlers on western Long Island were still complaining about their arbitrary treatment at the hands of the Dutch. James, duke of York, Charles II's younger brother, was anxious to extend his patrimony: where better than in the New World at the expense of the Dutch?

  The interests of Charles II and his brother coincided. Accordingly on March 12, 1664, Charles granted James a charter to the area between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers, giving him an essentially feudal grant with powers similar to those granted to Lord Baltimore in Maryland. The duke acquired possession of all the lands within the grant along with the right to make laws and appoint such officers as he wished, providing the former were “as conveniently may be, agreeable to the laws, statutes and government of this our realm of England … ” Like Baltimore, James owed a nominal tribute, 40 beaver skins a year, to the king, though Charles II retained the right to hear appeals. There was no mention of an assembly in the duke's charter.

  James quickly organized an expedition under the command of Richard Nicholls, one of the commissioners who were to investigate the condition of New England. Accompanying him were 400 troops, several frigates, and a bomb vessel. This force was more than enough for the intended target, for help was also expected from New England. Nicholls arrived off New Amsterdam on August 18, 1664, where he linked up with a force from Connecticut under John Winthrop, Jr. New Amsterdam's governor, Stuyvesant, with the fortifications of the town still incomplete, found himself hopelessly outnumbered. He had only 150 troops, and even the Dutch population, at least the commercial class, was lukewarm about resisting. Stuyvesant accordingly surrendered on August 27 after Winthrop had acted as intermediary. Generous terms were granted: the property of the Dutch inhabitants, including that of free blacks, was to be protected; those who wished to leave were given a year to do so, while new settlers from Holland would be admitted; liberty of conscience was guaranteed; and Dutch inheritance laws were to be respected.

  Nicholls decided to call his conquest New York in honor of the duke. He then dispatched Sir Robert Carr, another of the commissioners, to seize the
settlements on the Delaware. Victory was relatively easy here too, with the Swedish population welcoming deliverance from the Dutch.

  The territory now had to be reorganized to ensure the loyalty of its ethnically diverse population. Although the Dutch and English had been accustomed to living together as refugees and coreligionists for the past 100 years, their interests were potentially at odds. James simplified the task of governing by selling the lands between the Hudson and Delaware to two friends, John Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, who had helped plan the expedition. However, the task of creating a viable government was complicated both by the reluctance of the Dutch majority to live under an English legal system, and by the need to appease the towns of eastern Long Island, which were now to become part of the duke's province. In the aftermath of the campaign, Winthrop had ceded Connecticut's claims to the island in exchange for a more favorable boundary on the mainland.

  Nicholls generally sought to adapt the institutions of government in New York to reflect those of England more closely. At the beginning of March 1665 he issued what came to be known as the Duke's Laws. These laws attempted to integrate English practice with those Dutch customs protected under the recent treaty and were heavily influenced by the laws of New England. Twelve crimes were to merit the death penalty, among them the denial of God, murder for gain, sodomy, conspiracy to overthrow the government, treason, and resistance to the king's lawful authority. Rules were laid down for the conduct of the magistrates, sheriffs, and constables, with justice to be administered through annual courts of session, as in New England. English common law rules were to apply in the courts, although the Dutch were permitted to follow Dutch inheritance law and keep their property. Local government, too, reflected New England practice. The freeholders of each town would elect overseers, who were to have the same functions as selectmen and the same powers as petty magistrates. Later a county structure was added, consisting of a panel of justices who were also to be appointed by the duke or his representative.

  Figure 14 The Stadthuys of New York in 1679, corner of Pearl Street and Coentijs Slip. Lithograph by G. Hayward & Co. From Journal of Jasper Danckaerts, 1679–1680 (New York, 1867), plate 8. Collection of the New York Historical Society, New York City.

  New Amsterdam, now renamed New York, was also remodeled politically. The Dutch municipal officials were replaced by a “mayor, aldermen and sheriff, according to the custom of England.” However, these officials were to be appointed by the duke, rather than nominated from among themselves. The Dutch burghers protested at what they considered a breach of the surrender terms, but to no avail.

  Although the peace treaty guaranteed liberty of conscience to the Dutch, it was not intended to open the floodgates to other religious denominations. Ministers of religion had to show that they had been properly ordained. Nevertheless, no congregations were to “be disturbed in their private meetings” nor anyone “molested, fined, or imprisoned for differing in judgement in matters of religion who profess Christianity.” Although tithes were to be levied, it was left to the overseers in each town to decide which church to support. This liberality was similar in many respects to Baltimore's Act Concerning Religion. Perhaps it was no coincidence that James, like Baltimore, was a Catholic.

  The Duke's Laws made concessions to both the English and the Dutch populations; yet neither group was completely satisfied. The principal weakness from the English settlers' point of view was the absence of any assembly to make laws and levy taxes, partly because such a body would have had a Dutch majority. Nevertheless, by 1665 all of England's other American colonies had an assembly, and the lack of one in New York was to be a source of much grievance, especially among the towns in eastern Long Island which had formerly been represented in the Connecticut general assembly. These towns led a protest against Nicholls's plan in 1665 to register all land titles as the prelude to collecting a quitrent. The same towns led the refusals in 1669 and 1670 to pay their rates, on the grounds that they were “inslaved under an Arbitrary Power” and denied the “Liberty of Englishmen.” In 1672 several of them requested to be returned to Connecticut's jurisdiction.

  Document 11

  The Duke's Laws, April 2, 1664, reprinted in W. Keith Kavenagh, Foundations of Colonial America: A Documentary History (New York, 1973), Vol. 2, 1037–45

  The influence of New England can be seen in the laws concerning children and sexual misconduct. Punishment for same-sex sexual intimacy was especially harsh. Question to consider: Do these laws reveal anything about the problems that the English colonial government faced in trying to govern a colony full of Dutch inhabitants?

  1. If any person within this government shall, by direct expressed impious or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his attributes, he shall be put to death.

  2. If any person shall commit any willful and premeditated murder, he shall be put to death.

  3. If any person slays another with sword or dagger who has no weapon to defend himself, he shall be put to death.

  4. If any man shall slay or cause another to be slain by lying in wait privately for him or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy, he shall be put to death.

  5. If any man or woman shall lie with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation, they shall be put to death and the beast shall be burned.

  6. If any man lies with mankind as he lies with woman, they shall be put to death, unless the one part were forced or be under fourteen years of age; in which case he shall be punished at the discretion of the Court of Assizes.

  7. If any person forcibly steals or carries away any mankind, he shall be put to death.

  8. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away a man's life, he shall be put to death.

  9. If any man shall traitorously deny his Majesty's right and titles to his crown and dominions or shall raise arms to resist his authority, he shall be put to death.

  10. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publicly attempt to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this government, he shall be put to death.

  11. If any child or children above sixteen years of age and of sufficient understanding shall smite their natural father or mother, unless thereunto provoked and forced for their self-preservation from death or maiming, at the complaint of the said father and mother, and not otherwise … shall be put to death.

  12. Every married person or persons who shall be found or proved … to have committed adultery with a married man or woman, shall be put to death.

  13. Every single person or persons who shall be found or proved … to have committed carnal copulation with a married man or woman, they both shall be grievously fined and punished as the Governor and Council or the Court of Assizes shall think meet, not extending to life or limb.

  The new English governors similarly failed to appease the Dutch. Nicholls initially refused to have any of them on his council, although in 1668 his successor, Governor Lovelace, did promote two Dutchmen and appointed a third to be mayor of New York City. In time, a group of the most successful Dutch merchants accommodated themselves to English rule and became part of New York's ruling elite. For many Dutch New Yorkers, however, the imposition of an English legal system produced a traumatic loss of economic security and prestige. The loss was particularly acute for Dutch women. The Dutch community property system had given married women significant economic autonomy and control over their property, but this control disappeared with the introduction of English law, which insisted on married women's strict legal subordination to their husbands.2

  Dutch New Yorkers found their opportunity to protest English rule in 1672, when news arrived that England and Holland were at war again. This third conflict was mainly the result of the 1670 secret Treaty of Dover in which Charles II had promised to assist Louis XIV in any conflict with the Dutch. This time it was the Dutch government which took advantage of the hostilities to change the status of New York. After assembling a force in the West Indies, they
first visited the Chesapeake, destroyed the English tobacco fleet, and then arrived off New York. Here they met little opposition, as the Dutch population greeted the fleet with open arms. The English towns refused to resist either; the Dutch ruler, William of Orange, was a fellow Protestant with close ties to the English royal family, and many Englishmen disapproved of England's aggression towards Holland on behalf of the Catholic king of France. The Dutch expedition enjoyed similar success in retaking the settlements on the Delaware.

  This respite from the duke's rule was to be short-lived, however, for by the 1674 Treaty of Westminster New York was returned to English control. The duke accordingly reissued his code of laws, though he now allowed the governor and council to amend them if necessary. He also appointed a new governor, Major Edmund Andros, who had served in the West Indies and had also fought in the Dutch service. It was the confident and authoritative Andros's first civil appointment.

  Andros's tenure as the governor of New York marked the beginning of a shift in the structure of England's relationship with its North American colonies, for Andros would soon begin an attempt to consolidate imperial control not only over New York but over the other northern colonies as well. His actions appear to have been the product not of a predetermined philosophy but of his efforts to deal with the challenges of governing New York as they arose. The first problem he faced as governor was the same problem which had perennially faced his predecessors, namely the lack of money. Andros's attempts to raise revenue soon provoked the English towns to renew their clamor for an assembly. The episode convinced the governor that James must take over either all of New England or at least western Connecticut and New Jersey if New York was to be a viable settlement. Andros subsequently undertook an exploratory visit to Connecticut but was warned off by the local militia. He also tried to give instructions to the authorities in New Jersey but had limited success. The only other way of raising money, he suggested to the duke, might be the summoning of an assembly.