Matson, the "Hollander Interest" and Ideas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The “Hollander Interest” Cathy Matson History Department University of Belawan 1n the fust years after New Amsterdam’s conquest in Other English observersproposed not to defeat but to 1664, there was very little unanimity about whether, and emulate the success of their northern neighbors, how, New Yorkers ought to trade with Amsterdam. especially with respect to Hugo Grotius’ belief in the Despite the swift transfer of power from Dutch to English “natural and permanent” rights of nations to observe a hands,the two nations confronted eachother aslong term “freedom of trade” on the expansive, uninhabited, and rivals, each with a different economic trajectory during unconquerableopen seas.Writers like Matthew Decker, the seventeenth century. Amsterdam dominated the William Petty, and Gerald Malynes extended this notion northern fisheries and Baltic trades; had a strong to the rights of individual commercial activists to “find presencein the New World carrying trades; developed vent” without constraint. As John Pollexfen put it, “Only superior shipping, warehousing, credit and banking freedom in trade can make trade great.” This literature systems;and showedthe visible signs of successin dress, promoting imitation of Dutch successwas most prolific art, and science. In contrast, England entered a phaseof during a time when England began to emerge from a economic uncertainty after 1600 in which the Old period of economic trauma and enjoy an ascent which Draperies declined, inflation and unemployment rose, would place its merchantsin first place among European and trading monopolies held extensive privileges in nations in the early eighteenth century; in the process, foreign commerce. English theorists often noted their Amsterdam would be dislodged from first place in country’s reliance upon Dutch skills and currency to commerceand the statism which has come to be called support its economy. “mercantilism” would offer benefits and opportunities to traders throughout its expanding empire.2 Together, these and other contrasts between the two countries representeddifferent moments in the separate The ambivalence of theorists and statesmen in economic directions they travelled: Amsterdamattained England was evident among colonists in the western a peak of commercial prosperity in the 1640sto 169Os, hemisphereas well. For someof them, identifying Dutch while England’s rise would become assuredonly after carriers was synonymous in the minds of someobservers the 1690s. Until then, the “Holland trades” were with identifying contraband cargoes and usurers; for England’s greatest perceived threat, one conceived and other observers the Dutch were potentially valuable maintained with an unprecedentedlatitude of commer- collaborators in areas of intense international rivalry. cial freedom. For their part, English theorists and states- Among all rival European powers, only the Dutch tried men divided sharply over the merits of this Dutch model to establish long term policies of neutrality and available of “free trade.” Some of them believed that the only credit. By the seventeenthcentury, British West Indies feasible response was to construct a state based upon governors and merchants took note of the increasing legislation designed to defeat Dutch hegemony in number of statist restraints on commerce and pleaded commerce with English taxes, manufactures, and with home officials to makeexceptions enough to recog- colonial markets. The most ambitious competitors in nize “the necessity of free trade” with Holland and its English government and commerce were willing to West Indies possessions.’ Virginia and Maryland secure greaternational profits with naval power as well. officials invested in tobacco exports to Amsterdam As the Duke of Albemarle put it in 1664, with reference before the 166Os,much of it in vesselstouching at New to the appropriatenessof taking New Amsterdam:“What Amsterdam,and the deputy collector of Newport, Rhode we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have.“’ Island regularly imported slaves from the Dutch before 251 252 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS Fig. 46. The West India Houseas seenfrom the Oude Schans, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Courtesy of the Museum of the City of New York. and after U3X4 Some English officials reported with England, was less useful in constructing New York only slight exaggeration that “all of New England” was City’s trade after the war. No English vesselsflooded the trading with Amsterdam since the Dutch West India fledgling colony with finished goods in 1664, although Company settled on the Hudson River very early in the regular trade had been conducted between Amsterdam century, and projected that this trade would continue, all and New Netherland before 1664. Since,the city’s first diplomatic settlementsbetween London and Amsterdam English governors and merchantscould hardly overlook to the contrary.5 the possibilities of securing the colony’s future by reviv- ing this trade and involving the conquenzdDutch in New 1660-1690 York City’s commercial life, they actively cast about for In the absence of reliable information about ship the right meansto bring Dutch trade into the port. Given registrations, tonnage, and the nature and values of car- these material necessities, the language and general goes, it is the reports of governors and individual ob- strategiesof free trade proved to be alluring ideological servers which must provide the foundations of our props for their policies. Free trade notions were one way impressionsof New York City’s early trade with the Low to explain the evasion of English regulalions which did Countries. Following the English conquest of New not suit New Yorkers at one time or anotlheror to justify Amsterdamin 1664the “hollander interest”continued to the pursuit of economic opportunities outside of the offer an enviable commercial model among a small but empire over the eighteenth century. powerful minority of colonists. The reasonsfor this are not difficult to attribute. For one thing, Albemarle’s New York’s direct trade with Amsterdam continued rhetoric, which was effective in building war chests for iegally for a brief period in 1664, until Governor Nicolls “WOLLANDER INTEREST” 253 (1664-1668) received orders from London to freeze the merchants who felt that even these few ships were an remaining assetsof the Dutch West India Company and unwarranted flirtation with their primary competitor to assimilate Dutch traders into the newly forming body nation. They noted Lovelace’s “shortsightedness” about of mercantile regulations. However, Nicolls quickly mercantile precepts and his closenessto “Dutch petty grew more sensitive to the economic and social impor- traders” and “Dutch usurers” in the colony; merchants tance of a continued Dutch presencein New York and like Steenwyck, Cornelius van Ruyven, and Thomas granted exceptions to the Acts of Trade and Navigation Delaval bore the more straightforward epithet “hogs,” for ships headedto Amsterdam. long a term of abuse in England for the Dutch.” One of the more active participants in this Dutch trade The last of the Anglo-Dutch wars put a temporary stop was Cornelius Steenwyck,a former memberof the Dutch to Lovelace’s involvement in foreign trade, when Dutch West India Company and a future customsofficial under privateers took the Good Fame at either Texel or Sandy the English. Dutch ex-Director General, Petrus Hook in 1673. That same year Steenwyck lost his ship Stuyvesant,supported making theseexceptions,pointing James;Thomas Delaval lost theMargaret, and Frederick out to crown officials at London that unless the Duke of Philipse lost the Frederick. But these and other losses, York’s colony traded with Amsterdam, French inter- including the surrender of the city to the Dutch for one lopers would redirect New York’s fur trade through year, only underscoredhow vital the Dutch trade could Canada and Spain would capture the budding West be for supplying the city. Indeed, many of the city’s Indies connections of the northern colonies. Besides,he Dutch paused long enough with English residents to insisted, Dutch residents of the colony had rights to a consider which mother country was, as Capt. John “free trade” with their mother country which antedated Manning put it, the greater “enemy in our Bowells.“’ ’ the conquest; private well-being, that is, supercededthe changing political rights of different states over their Upon resurrcnder of the city to the English in 1674, inhabitants.Inlate 1664Stuyvesantaskedforpermission many Dutch and English merchantsassumed the trade to to send four to six ships a year to the Low Countries until Holland would reopen, and so they revived the demand London could absorb the supplies of peltry and tobacco for open trade to Amsterdam once again, However, the which New Yorkers exported.6 From late 1667 to late new governor, Edmund Andros, at first refused to sanc- 1668 three ships per year were allowed clearance for tion the principle of free or open trade, and in 1675 he AmsterdamandRotterdam, and reportsindicated that the demanded oaths of loyalty to the crown from all city quota was filled. In addition to Steenwyck, merchants residents. Eight Dutch residents, seven of them like Oloff van Cortlandt, JacquesCousseau, Nicholas de merchants,refused to take the oaths. When pressuredby Meyer, Margareta Philipse, and others engaged in this English officials to choose either constitutional loyalty commerce,even beyond its formal legal dates.’ or individual economic privilege, most chose