sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dutch Americans, Schoonhoven, Stamp Act, Union of Utrecht

laerswijck rX

“A

September 1 Fig. 72. Title page of De Americaanse Almmack (1754) Courtesy of the New JerseyHistorical Society, Newark, . Rcprlnted from Stephen I,. Schechter and Richard B. Bernstein, a.& the Union: Conhibutions lo the American Comstifntional Eqetience (Albany, NY: New York State Commission on tbe Bicentennial 07 the U.S. Constitution, 1980): 22-28.

From time to time, colonial governors and administrators in North America considered proposals for unification, primarily for defensive purposes. They looked to Europe for inspiration, finding in the Union of a model that had served to regularize the confederation known as the United Provinces of the .

he Dutch impact on eighteenth-century America has liberty. An abbreviatedDutch text.of the Union had been often been told in terms of Knickerbockers and other reprinted in De Americaanse Almanak for 1754,the only provincialisms, but the true heart of the surviving relic of a series of forty or fifty New York matter lies in the critical political and economic forces Dutch almanacs.2 The author of the articles began: by which The Netherlands affected the American scene. “These provinces, that is, the Dutch provinces, consist of Foremost were the traditions of union and liberty, sym- a group of commonwealths independentof one another, bolized by the Union of Utrecht, the de facto Dutch though united to protect one another against the common constitution. Emerging most clearly at the time of the enemy.” in the 175Os,the Dutch example, as it was often called, continued its positive impact The bloody and unsettling French and Indian War was through the period of the Continental Congresses,help- at hand. The Valley was a major passage ing to shape the Articles of Confederation. As the between the British and the French colonies to the north. American constitutional debatesof I787 took shape,the Albany, in the middle, wasa major center for Indian trade Dutch-American comparisons took on new and more and other Indian affairs. No American colonists were critical forms. more pressingly aware of the threat of French and Indian warfare than the Dutch of the upper river valley. The On the tenth of September, 1787, the Committee of almanac’s article describing a defensive union againsta Style and Arrangement was working in Philadelphia to common enemy spoke directly to their condition. What put the final touches on the newly drafted Constitution. was most neededamong the disparate colonies was just Thomas Jefferson was in Paris attending to the interna- such a union, one which would respect their prevailing tional political and fiscal affairs of the new nation. To independence and yet provide protection against the America’s representative in The Netherlands, Charles common enemy. The timely reminder of the Union of W.F. Dumas,Jefferson wrote: “Happy for us, that when Utrecht must have been welcome to many of the New we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to World Dutch settlers. securethe happinessof our people,wecan assemblewith all the coolnessof philosophers and set it to rights, while The Dutch example, however, was by no means every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms limited to the once-Dutch middle colonies, but was a to amend or to restore their constitutions.“’ Though topic of conversation among their Anglo-American Jefferson’sview proved overly optimistic in the long run, neighbors, as well. In a Boston sermon in 1754, Pastor he was well awareof the history of the Dutch constitution Jonathan Mayhew observed,

the Union of Utrecht and he hoped for as much for the No one that is not an absolute stranger to French ambition, to their newly shapedAmerican constitution. policy. to their injustice, to their perfidiousness, can be in any doubt what they aspire at. . . Their late conduct may well alarm us; especially considering our disunion, or at least want of a Much earlier, the Union of Utrecht had been a symbol sufficient bond of union, amongst ourselves; an inconvenience to many , first of unity, and then of unity and which, it is to be hoped, we shall not always labour under. And 353 354 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

whenever allourscatteredraysshallbedrawntoapointandproper widely discussedprior to the congress,but the seedsof focus, they can scarce fail to consume and bum up these enemies union-thinking were widely scatteredas ;aresult of the of our peace, how faintly soever they may strike at present. What plan which was formulated. No person walsas crucial to union can do, we need only, look toward those Proviny, which are distinguished by the name of the United, to know.” that elusive-but-hoped-for union as was Benjamin Franklin. In May of 1754, Franklin’s famous political Though the significance of the Union of Utrecht was cartoon of the “Join or Die” snake spread his ideas as clear, in a general way, to most Dutch-Americans of throughout the colonies more rapidly than any words the mid-eighteenth century as the Declaration of Inde- could have done.Franklin arrived in Albany in early June pendenceis to most Americans now, the story of Dutch with the draft of a plan. “Short Hints,” he called it, which union and of the Dutch struggle for liberty was familiar he hoped could be developed into a commonly accept- to any well-read colonist, regardless of national origin. able document of agreement.4 Sir William Temple’s Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands was a most popular book The Dutch political example which influenced the in the colonies, having passedthrough numerouseditions discussionsat Albany must surely have been reinforced and translations. (In fact, it may well be the sourceof the by the setting; most of the city’s architecture was more account in De Americaanse Almanak.) Though firstpub- reminiscent of than of Boston or Philadel- lished in 1673 when Britain and The Netherlands were phia, and a large portion of the popularion regularly at war, no book in English detailed the Dutch political conversed in Dutch. In fact, the English Indian agent, sceneas adequately. Temple had served as envoy to the ThomasPownall, complained that all the Indian negotia- United Provinces, and he wrote with understanding and tions were fiit conducted in Dutch and then had to be with considerable objectivity. In 1750, when Benjamin translatedinto English. Franklin was recommending a course of study for the Philadelphia Academy (now the University of Pennsyl- Franklin’s “Short Hints” were soon elaborated into a vania), Sir William Temple was among the foremost document called “the committee’s Short IHints.” There authors cited. Indeed, it appearsto have been Temple’s are many parallels between this document rmdthe Union work which informed much of Franklin’s thinking as he of Utrecht. Like the Union of Utrecht, it proposed that prepared for the Albany Congressof 1754. “the Several Colonies may each enjoy its own Constitu- tion, Laws, Liberties and Privileges as so many Separate That congress was the most significant intercolonial Corporations in one Common Wealth.” A Grand Council meeting held in the American colonies up to that time. It was proposed to fill the place of the IDutch States opened to everyone the question of union, which only General, and a PresidentGeneral to fill that of the king’s later was to eventuate in independenceas well as union. regent. All of the Albany documents, from Franklin’s The concrete idea of union does not appearto have been “Short Hints” to the final Albany Plan, explicitly recog-

J 0 1 w or D I E.

Fig. 73. Benjamin Franklin, “Join or Die” woodcut, published May 9,1754, in the Gazette.Courtesy of the Library Company of Philadelpha.. THE DUTCH-AMERICAN CONNECTION 355 nized the royal authority of the British king. Indeed, the called to protest taxation without representation- original 1579preface to the Union of Utrecht had stated coincidentally, one of the original causesof the Dutch “ . . . the deputies of the aforesaid provinces . . . have revolution two centuries earlier. decreedand concluded the following Points and Articles, without thereby in any way desiring to secedefrom the Though the Albany Plan of Union was never effected, I-Ioly Roman Empire.“’ A Dutch declaration of inde- Franklin never lost sight of the Dutch example. Writing pendence did, however, follow two years later. The in 1768 to alert the English to American restiveness,he Albany committee’s “Short Hints” noted “Perticular noted: Colonies not to Declare Warr.” The Union of Utrecht Threescore years did the oppressed United Provinces maintain a required “Peace and War not to be made without the war in defence of their liberties against the then powerful kingdom consent of all the Provinces.” Other technical points of of Spain . . . which was fmally obliged to acknowledge their comparison can be made,but far more fundamental than independency in a formal treaty.. . and with a broken strength that has never since been recovered.7 passing analogies was the psychological impact of the Union of Utrecht and its function as a symbol of union A decade later, when in seeking European among diverse and independent bodies. In fact, though support for the Revolution, Franklin wrote on behalf of the existence of the Union was well known, the content the American commissioners to their agent in The of the documenewas little known and even less under- Hague, “. . . in the love of liberty, and bravery in the stood. It is significant that eighteenth-centuryAmericans defence of it, Holland has been our example. We hope usually referred to the country as the United Provinces, circumstances and constitutions, in many respects so and only occasionally as The Netherlands. Historically, similar, may produce mutual benevolence. . .“s The it is also important to keep in mind the fact that the Union Dutch constitution to which he referred was the Union of Utrecht, like the Albany Plan of Union, was not of Utrecht. The American constitution was the Articles originally conceived as a constitution of fundamental of Confederation, though it would be 1781 before it was law, but asa meansof regularizing aconfederation based signed by Maryland, the last of the statesto ratify. on pressing historical exigencies. Franklin’s constitutional comparison was not news to The Albany Plan was never ratified, in spite of the the Dutch, at least not to all of them. In The Netherlands, efforts of Franklin in Pennsylvania and the Livingstons an eager young lawyer, , was in the midst in New York. At that time, young William Livingston of writing a three-volume study of the Union of Utrecht led the pro-union struggle and probably stoodbehind the in a country then undergoing deep political problems. weekly New York newspaper,the Instructor. In the first Paulushad adeepinterest in tracing connectionsbetween issue,articles were solicited; but, it noted, “no controver- theutrecht Union and American events.Volume one had sy of any kind shall have admittance.‘4 Then, the been published in 1775 and volume two in 1776. As he journal’s own editorials proceededto argue for union. was writing the third volume, published in 1777, he received a draft copy of the American Articles of Con- “The only expedient. . . is, that all the Colonies appertaining to the Crown of Great Britain on the Northern Continent of America, federation. Paulus wrote: be united under a legal, regular, and firm establishment. . . . A The Union of Utrecht, Imust admit, is for the time in which it was coalition, or union of this nature . . . will, in all probability, lay a constructed, one of the best sets of fundamental laws which human sure and lasting foundation of dominion, strength, and trade. . . .” wisdom could frame. . . . I cannot imagine that the wisdom of our forefathers, intheframing of thelhrccht Union.couldeverbe seen Tradition says that the British found the Albany Plan too more clearly or impartially than that a powerful posterity of radical, and the more radical colonists felt that it did not freeborn [American] children are persuaded by it, as they realize go far enough. Though there is sometruth in that obser- that the IVlother, who earlier had sought freedom herself . . . designed that each member of society and all civil companies have vation, reasonsboth more complex, and at times more a natural and inseparable right. Now, I say, the English colonies in mundane, also accounted for its failure to gain North America, after the passape of about two centuries, have acceptance.Its long-term impact, nonetheless, was of vowed to venture all and undergo everything to make themselves great importance to the colonies astheir problems shifted totally independent from Great Britain. . . . As concerns the object from the French government, which had been driven of the matter, the reaching of that intention, it has been necessary to come to the same decision, concerning the same fundamental from Canadaby the French and Indian War, to the British law which our forebears two hundred years ago approved as the government, which was increasingly more insensitive to most useful. So that some will not consider these remarks hyper- the developmentof colonial power and identity. The next bole.IincludetheirArriclesofConfederationandPerpetual Union American congresswas the StampAct Congressin 1765, in their entirety [in Dutch translation].’ 356 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

Paulusdrew somecomparisons between the historical repeatedreferences to the Dutch exampl’e. situations in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. He admitted that “the American Union, in some respects, As one examines the influence of the United Provin- appearsto be arguedsomewhat neater.” He noted certain ces, first in the and later in the differences, due to structural forms of government Continental Congresses,one is led to a clear affirmation arising from the hereditary “,” the Dutch chief of its symbolic impact on the debatesin 1754 and again of state. Indeed, that and other of Paulus’ observations in 1776. Dutch union and then Dutch liberty became were later echoed and elaborated in the American measuring rods for the colonists. It is the positive effect debatesin 1787. of the imagined Dutch political paradigm that emerges initially and most importantly. The negative aspectsof It is of interest that one of the conspicuousdivergences the then-current Dutch political scenefirst beganto enter between Paulus’ text and the final American text is in the discussion in the congressional de,batesof 1776. Article XIII, the article which most frequently evoked Eleven years later, those negative evaluations gained comparison with the Dutch example when opened to prominence in the constitutional debatesof 1787, most debate by the Continental Congress. The printed text accessibly for modem readersin The Fe(deralist No. 20, simply reads:“In determining questions,each Stateshall in which “Publius” (in this case,James Madison) drew have one vote.” Paulus’ text modifies it to read: “Each extensively on discussionsof the Union of Utrecht by Sir state shall have one vote in determining all differences William Temple and French philosophes. By that time, in the general congress.”The debatesin Congressclearly the symbolic value of the aged and fahering Union of reveal the intention of the Article to allow just one vote Utrecht was weakenedby a more realistic assessmentof on all matters, not only those over which differences Dutch political difficulties; indeed, such was the analysis arose. The Reverend Dr. John Witherspoon of New presentedby The Federalist No. 20 in drawing parallels Jersey,arguing for one vote for each state regardlessof between the defectsof the Union of Utrecht and thoseof size, several times cited the Dutch model as a positive the Articles of Confederation.’ ’ example validating the procedure. Pennsylvania’s Dr. Benjamin Rush, on the other hand, found the Dutch The Dutch example, as Franklin had called it. had procedure lacking, thus strengthening his case for served its practical and polemical purposes. By 1787, proportional representationin the vote. “The decayof the American independencehad been won and her govem- liberties of the proceeded from three ment established.The Dutch financial support which had causes,”he wrote, “1. the perfect unanimity requisite on undergirded the was next called all occasions. 2. their obligation to consult their upon to support the young republic.12 Millions of very constituents. 3. their voting by provinces.“*’ That tangible Dutch guilders, which made the Witherspoon’s evaluations were overly optimistic in fiscally viable, took the place of the idealized symbol of appraising Dutch success and that Rush’s historical the United Provinces. Both had been h turn indispen- observations were inaccurate, to say the least, is not sable,first to the and then to the thirteen really the matter at hand. The fact of importance is the statesas they struggled to become a new nation. THE DUTCH-AMERICAN CONNECTION 357

Notes ‘Thomas Jefferson, The Papers (Princeton: Princeton of those who realized that support from Europeans for University Press, 1955), XII: 113. Letter to C.W.F. the American causewould not be forthcoming aslong as Dumas, 10 September1787. the newly-declared united stateswere not in fact united, 2ThomasMore, De Americaanse Almanak voor . . . I754 that is federatedor confederated.of the drafts of 12 July ([Nieuw York: de Nieuwe Druckery in de Bever Straat, and 20 August 1776, only eighty copies each were 1753]), [181-E191. printed and copies were considered secret documents. Almanacs in colonial times were far more than guides to No memberwas “to disclose either directly or indirectly, the weather and the times of sunrise and sunset. These the contents of the said confederation.” Paulus’ copy is popular little booklets often provided information on the most like the draft of 20 August, though his text gives meetings of the provincial courts, religious and political occasional evidences of paraphrase. The most likely verse, and even timely essays we would now liken to conjecture, therefore, is that Paulus had acquired a newspaperop-eds. Among New York’s eighteenth cen- manuscript copy of the 20 August version which incor- tury almanacs,at least forty or fifty were published in the porated certain emendations.Perhaps it or its covering . Time has robbed us of all but one, an letter was dated 4 October 1776. Unfortunately, the imperfect copy of De Americaanse Almanak for 1754, identity of Paulus’ American correspondentis unknown. by chance a precious relic of America’s constitutional “Journals of the Continental Congress, (: past. On page 18 the pseudonymous editor, Thomas Government Printing Office, 1906). VI: 1104-5. More, included an article entitled, in translation, “The “The Feabalist, edited with introduction and notes by Constitution of the SevenUnited Provinces,” that is, the JacobE. Cooke (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University United Provinces of The Netherlands. The constitution Press,1961), 124-29. was, of course, the Union of Utrecht. (Since the writing of this paper,an interesting fragment of De Americaanse ‘%he loans came from bankers and business men who Almanakfor 1760 has turned up in the private collection were membersof the Dutch Patriot movement, an anti- of Michael Zinman. It includes small Dutch mapsof Fort monarchical group who rejoiced in America’s rejection Duchesneand Quebec). of the British crown. Jeffersonencouraged their politics while soliciting their loans. As he wrote at the time to 3JonathanMayhew, A Sermon Preach’d in the Audience George Washington: ‘There is not a crowned head in of His Excellency William Shirley (Boston: Samuel Europe whose talents or merit would entitle him to be Kneeland, 1754), 34-35. elected a vestryman by the people of any parish in 4Benjamin Franklin, The Papers (New Haven: Yale America.” Among the earliest Dutch Patriots to support University Press, 1962), V: 361-64. the Americans was Jean de Neufville whose business ‘“The Union of Utrecht” in The in Early activities, both through the Caribbean island of St. Eus- Modern Times, edited and translated by Herbert H. tatius and directly with New England, helped keep the Rowen (New York: Walker and Company, 1972), 70. Americans supplied during the Revolution. In 1782 De 6The Instructor, V. 1, no. 1 (New York: J. Parker and W. Neufville sent a circular letter to his friends in America, Weyman, 1755). in part regarding his imminent retirement and in part to comment on the successful conclusion of the Dutch- 7Benjamin Franklin, The Papers (New Haven: Yale American Treaty of Amity and Commerce, America’s University Press, 1972), XV: 191. oldest still effectual foreign treaty. He wrote: “. . . I could ‘Benjamin Franklin, The Writings (New York: Macmil- not but think it the duty of my Country to make the cause lan Company, 1906), VII: 139-40. Letter to C.W.F. of America her own; for where could oppressedfreedom, Dumas, 10 1778. more naturally look for succour, than from a Republick “Pieter Paulus, Verklaring der Unie Utrecht that had so long, and so hard struggled to secureher own (Utrecht: J. van Schoonhoven, 1777), III: 240-52. Liberty?” My own share in those troubles, he added, A note should be added concerning Paulus’ text of the “‘affords me the most pleasing reflections, on considering American Articles. He writes that they were signed on 4 how abundant and sweet will be the fruits of that Union October 1776, but nothing official was signed then. The to every Individual of both Republicks.” With the chang- first draft, the so-called John Dickenson draft, was ing political situation in Europe De Neufville, like presented to Congress on 12 July. Debate followed, several other Dutch Patriots, found it wise, in time, to changes were made and a modified draft was approved move to America. The old Dutch regions of New York for private printing on 20 August. Pressingmatters of the state proved especially attractive. De Neufville, who war itself then consumedthe time of Congress.It was not moved to Albany, died there in Decemberof 1796,just until April of 1777 that discussionson the Confederation forty odd years after De Americaanse Almanak had pub- were again enjoined, and then largely under the pressure lished The Union of Utrecht.