Quebec and New Amsterdam to 1664
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
© 2012 Daniel J. Weeks ALL RIGHTS RESERVED QUEBEC AND NEW AMSTERDAM TO 1664: A COMPARATIVE NETWORK ANALYSIS By DANIEL J. WEEKS A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School—New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in History Written under the direction of Paul G.E. Clemens And approved by __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey OCTOBER 2012 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION QUEBEC AND NEW AMSTERDAM TO 1664: A COMPARATIVE NETWORK ANALYSIS By DANIEL J. WEEKS Dissertation Director: Professor Paul G.E. Clemens This study examines the techniques by which the French and Dutch secured preliminary information about the New World, claimed possession of territory in North America, and developed policies to secure possession against European competitors. It traces the development of French and Dutch colonial networks with an eye toward understanding the intentions of the colonizing powers. Finally, this study analyzes the dominant and significant flows of people, ideas, and goods along the colonial networks of the New France and New Netherland in order to map the interconnections of these colonies with the larger world. Tracing these flows reveals that the networks to which Quebec and New Amsterdam belonged were actually quite different, even though the dominant outflow—furs—was the same. The thesis of the dissertation is that for reasons related to European politics, French and Dutch policymakers adopted the principle that settlement was the only legal and practical means of possessing territory in the Americas and that it was the intention of the respective metropolitan governments to create agriculturally based settlement colonies in New France and New Netherland. Moreover, this study proposes that because of competition from other European nations, “linear” trading-post colonies were ii too weak to survive in North America, not only because they could not defend themselves, but also because they were not self-sustaining and did not become markets for manufactured goods from the metropole. This dissertation also asserts that although both New France and New Netherland made strides toward developing agriculturally based settlement colonies, the Dutch succeeded far better than the French because, as a node on a diffuse network, New Amsterdam was better able to attract settlers and connect to a wider range of markets than Quebec, which was more or less a node on a specific network. Finally, this study demonstrates that while both Quebec and New Amsterdam began to make the transition from simple primate centers on extractive dendritic/solar networks to gateway centers on more complex networks, New Amsterdam was far more advanced in this process and was rapidly facilitating the production of a new network of towns in its immediate hinterlands. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to offer my sincere and grateful thanks to Paul G.E. Clemens and Alastair Bellany of the department of history at Rutgers University for supporting my admission to the doctoral program as a part-time “walk-on” student. I am particularly indebted to Paul Clemens, who became my dissertation advisor and uniformly encouraged my scholarship, research, and writing. He proved especially patient and accommodating when I decided to change the topic of my dissertation mid-stream, as were all of the members of my dissertation committee—Allen M. Howard, Jan Lewis, Camilla Townsend, and Sara Gronim. All of the committee members provided insightful comment on my work and sage advice on how to improve it, and I thank them for it. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Sara Gronim, who very graciously consented on rather short notice to serve as outside reader. This dissertation grew out of a paper I wrote for Al Howard’s Seminar in World Comparative History. Al introduced me to network analysis and spatial theory, which have proved so extraordinarily useful in opening new perspectives on colonial development. He also encouraged me to present the paper on Quebec and New Amsterdam at the World History Association conference in London in 2008, where I had the benefit of critical comment from a number of scholars, but especially from Kevin Reilly, the chair and discussant of the panel on which I participated. In addition, Al helped me to secure a fellowship to finish my final semester of class work at Rutgers. For all of his efforts on my behalf, I am keenly grateful. iv I would also like to express my appreciation to my fellow graduate students in Al Howard’s seminar, particularly Kurt Deen, who opened some avenues of research to me that I might not otherwise have considered. Thanks are also due to Dr. Simon Finger, now at Reed College, who directed me to important sources and provided critical comment. Librarians have proved indispensable to my research, none more so than Sherri Xie of the Interlibrary Loan Office at the Guggenheim Memorial Library at Monmouth University, where I have been a member of the faculty since 1995. Ms. Xie patiently and professionally filled my seemingly inexhaustible requests for books and articles, and this dissertation could hardly have been written without her help. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my colleagues and mentors from the History Department at Monmouth University, whose support and encouragement for my scholarship and teaching over many years has been invaluable to me. Special thanks in this regard go to Sallie Pisani, formerly of the department, who first encouraged me to write about colonial history, and Ken Campbell, Tom Pearson, Rich Veit, and Brian Greenberg, who have always been ready to lend whatever support I required. I would also like to specially thank Fred McKitrick, the department chair, who went to some trouble to arrange my teaching schedule in order to accommodate my classes, research, and writing at Rutgers. I received similar support from my colleagues at the Thomas A. Edison Papers, where I have worked as a graduate assistant and editorial assistant since 2008. Paul Israel, Rachel Weissenburger, and Louis Carlat not only encouraged my work on the dissertation, but insisted that I take whatever time I needed to complete it. Their v encouragement and, from time to time, a gentle push substantially expedited this project. I also appreciate the moral support my colleagues Allie Rimer and Clare Hilliard provided. At an early stage in my research for this project the New Jersey Daughters of the American Revolution very kindly granted me a scholarship that aided my research. To them I offer my sincere thanks as well as to the Graduate School at Rutgers, which provided timely funding to offset some of the costs of travel to Ottawa for research and to London where I delivered the aforementioned paper from which this dissertation grew. Most important of all, I would like to thank my wife, Jackie, who has been in my corner the whole way, offering whatever support I needed when I needed it to get this project done. I am also grateful that I have such wonderful kids, Jared and Rachel, who never complained when their dad was lost for hours on end in reveries of the seventeenth century. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract of the Dissertation……………………………………………………………….ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….....iv List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………viii Introduction……………………………………………………………….….…………...1 Chapter 1: Reconnaissance and the Shaping of Colonial Policy: Verrazzano under Francis I……………………………………..……. ……..45 Chapter 2: Reconnaissance: Cartier’s “Discoveries”……………………….…………..75 Chapter 3: First Attempt at Settlement in New France…………………….…………...105 Chapter 4: Acadian Misadventures……………………………………………………..133 Chapter 5: Building the Network: Champlain on the St. Lawrence……………............180 Chapter 6: Reconnaissance and Staking a Claim—New Netherland………………….231 Chapter 7: Building the Network—New Netherland………………………………….273 Chapter 8: The Fur Trade—the Dominant Flow?............................................................321 Chapter 9: Native-American Networks, Flows of Disease, and the Fur Trade…...........400 Chapter 10: Flows of People……………………………………………………………451 Chapter 11: Flows of Ideas…………………………………………………...………...498 Conclusion: The Diffuse and Specific Networks of New Amsterdam and Quebec……572 Bibliography...………………………………………………………………………….601 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DRCHNY: John Romeyn Brodhead, Berthold Fernow, and E.B. O’Callaghan, eds. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York Procured in Holland, England, and France. 15 vols. Albany, N.Y.: Weed, Parsons & Co., 1856-1887. DRNN: Arnold J.F. van Laer, ed. Documents Relating to New Netherland, 1624-1626 in the Henry E. Huntington Library. San Marino, Calif.: Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, 1924. Ecclesiastical Records: Hugh Hastings, Edward Tanjore Corwin, and James A. Holden, eds. Ecclesiastical Records, State of New York. 7 vols. Albany: State of New York, 1901- 1916. Jesuit Relations: Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents . 1610-1791. 73 vols. Cleveland, Ohio: Burrows Brothers, 1896-1901 viii 1 INTRODUCTION During the seventeenth century, two fur-trading colonies were established in the eastern part of North America, one by France along the St. Lawrence River, the other by the Dutch Republic along the Hudson. In as much as the fur trade has been seen as the economic backbone