The New Me

Russell Sage College

1n June of 1@3, Arent van Curler wrote to the patroon, bank of the river to the north of the now derelict Fort Kiliaen van Rensselaer,describing a visit he recently had Nassau? madeto the villages of the Mohawk. In the courseof that journey he had examined the rich alluvial lands that lay By accident, the Dutch had located their trading opera- along the Mohawk River sixteen miles north and west of tions on the Hudson River at the juncture of two similar, Beverwijck and Rensselaerswijck. Van Curler if conflicting, native cultures. At least three Mahican recognized the site’s potential for the establishmentof a villages were to be found north and south of Fort Orange community, and wrote enthusiastically that he had seen between Catskill and Cohoes. During his brief stay “the most beautiful land that eye may wish to see.” In upriver in 1609, Henry Hudson had traded with these spite of this glowing report, no community was estab- Algonquian-speaking people. The nearest Iroquoian- lished at the time. The creation of a village on the speaking group, the Mohawk, had their villages located Mohawk River was to be delayed for almost two decades some thirty or more miles to the west, near modem until the late 1650s and early 1660s when a complex Canajoharie.The stateof conflict which existed between convergenceof events would make such a settlementan the two native groups was early recognizedby the Dutch. economic and diplomatic necessity for both the Dutch In 1625, Johannes de Laet recorded in his Nieuwe and Mohawk.’ Wereldt ofte beschrijvinghe van West-Indien (New World or Descriptions of the West Indies) that the The founding of the village of Schenectadyduring the Mohawk lived west of the Hudson River and their last years of Dutch rule in New Netherland was to be enemies,the Mahican, lived to the east. In fact, not until intimately tied to the depressedstate of the province’s 1628 or 1629 were the Mohawk able to force the fur trade and to the threat posed to that trade by English Mahican to vacate fully land to the west of the river. commercial interests from Massachusetts.The begin- Perhaps the clearest indication of the latter tribe’s nings of the fur trade in the Dutch colony extendedback diminished power was the August 13,1630, agreement at leastas far as 1609.In Septemberof that year, asHenry concluded between the Mahican and the director and Hudson’s Halve Maen entered New York Bay, local council of New Netherland by which a substantial body Indians boarded the ship offering skins for trade. As the of land to the west of the Hudson River was purchased Halve Maen sailed upriver, Hudson himself traded for for the benefit of the patroon, Kiliaen van Rensselaer.4 &aver and otter pelts with Mahican Indians in the vicinity of today’s Albany.2 During the 1620s and 163Os,the Dutch West India Company sought to control the New Netherland fur trade Hudson’s voyage demonstrated the existence of a and to prohibit private traders at Fort Orange and readily available sourceof fine quality furs and of native through-out the colony. Kiliaen van Rensselaer also peopleseager to exchangethis peltry forEuropean-made instructed his settlers that no one employed by him or goods.Each yearafter 1609,Dutch ships commandedby living in his colony “shall presumeto barter any peltries Hendrick Christiaensen, Adriaen Block, and others with the savagesor seek to obtain them as a present.” could be found trading on the river. In 1614,Fort Nassau, Official prohibitions, however, whether by the Company a fortified trading post, was constructed on an island in or the patroon, proved fruitless. Emigrants to New the river with Hendrick Christiaensenin command.This Netherland quickly became competitors for furs and structure, near present-dayAlbany, wassubject to yearly wampum even though such trade was forbidden to flooding, however, and was soon abandoned.In 1624, them.5 Until 1639 Fort Orange, officially, was the ex- the newly-established Dutch West India Company clusive trading post of the Dutch West India Company. erecteda more permanentpost, Fort Orange,on the west Yet, the Company was forced to contend with smuggling

283 284 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

Fig. 49. The Dutch and Indians trading Furs, drawing by Leonard F. Tantillo, 1985. Courtesy of the Colonial Albany Social History Project. by its own servants, the increasing sophistication of trade in furs was in decline. The high point of the trade native traders, and the efforts of patroons like Van at Beverwijck came in 1656 and 1657 when as many as Rensselaerwho sought to exploit the fur trade for their 40,000 beaver and otter skins were slhipped to New own profit. In 1639, the Company opened the trade to Amsterdam each year. Within two years, however, the private individuals provided that they pay a duty on all situation had altered dramatically. In 11659,Governor goods taken into or out of the province. Fort Orange was Petrus Stuyvesant reported to the directors of the Dutch maintained as a Company outpost, but it increasingly West India Company that at Beverwijck: neighbor com- becamea place of rendezvousand settlement for private plained against neighbor “because of the decline of the traders who congregated in the village of Beverwijck trade, which grows worse from year to year.” Stuyvesant which grew up to the north of the forL6 noted the high prices which now had to be paid for skins as well as the extravagant quantity of presentsdemanded Contemporary records suggest a steady increase in by the Indians.* volume in the colony’s fur trade during the three decades after 1624. Between 1625 and 1640, Fort Orange Obvious explanations for the decline of the fur trade returned as many as 5,000 skins each year. Additionally, after 1657include exhaustion of the natural supply of fur Adriaen van der Donck estimatedthat between 1644and bearing animals within the hunting territories of the 1653 80,000 beavers were killed annually in the whole Mohawk and other Indians with whom the Dutch traded of New Netherland. During thesesame years, Arent van as well as intertribal warfare which disrupted the trade in Curler reported on the success of the fur trade at furs from regions not yet depleted to {the west. Over- Rensselaerswijck.In 1643, three to four thousand skins hunting and trapping may have contribulted to the record were shipped from the patroonship and accordin? to Van volume of furs traded at Beverwijck in the late 1650s.If Curler there had never been such a big trade? so, a decline in the population of beaver, otter and other pelt-producing species may have followed. As for the If the first years of private trading brought prosperity, element of conflict, in July 1660 the Senecaadmitted to all evidence indicates that by the end of the 1650s the Governor Stuyvesant that warfare had interrupted their NEW NETHERLAND FUR TRADE 285 trade for furs with other more westerly tribes. This it is the complaints of the Mohawk that provide someof meeting, the first appearanceof the Senecaat Bever- the most striking testimony to the fierce competition for wijck, was itself a signal that of necessitythe tradein furs furs at Beverwijck and to the abuses that could result. was exploiting ever more westerly sourcesof SupplyP Between Septemberand October of 1659, a series of meetings was held at Beverwijck and the first IvIohawk In 1657, 37,OtXl beaver skins were shipped from village, Caughnawaga.The Mohawk requestedthat no Reverwijck to New Amsterdam between June 20 and Dutchmen on horseback or on foot be allowed to roam September 27. For the community’s Dutch traders, a in the woods and complained that the Dutch would year’s profits had to be made within the three or four surround an Indian and drag him along to one trader month period between June and September by the while claiming that the others had no goodsto trade.The exchange of skins for merchandise,clothing, food, and Mohawk also complained of beatings received at the liquor. The reduction in the numberof available furs after hands of the traders and the court, in turn, forbade “all 1657 increasedthe pressuresof competition among the residents of this jurisdiction to molest any savage. . . on traders and led to a greater dependenceon Indian and pain of arbitrary correction.“” white “brokers.” Brokers were Dutchmen or Indians hired for a fee by the local traders. Their job was to The passagefrom one trading seasonto the next failed intercept Indians bringing furs overland from the to abate either dissension within the community of Mohawk River to Beverwijck, and to offer presents traders or disputes between the Dutch and IvIohawk. (often shirts or coats) in the nameof the tradersfor whom Among the Dutch, the use of brokers remained the point they worked. If the presentswere accepted,then it was of division. In May 1660, twenty-five personspetitioned expected‘that the Indians would stop at that person’s the court, announcing that they awaited the start of house on reaching Beverwijck.” another trading season,and warning “that the Christians are again about to run into the woods as brokers in order It was a system open to abuseand difficult to control. by. . . someimproper ways to get the trade entirely into In 1655, when the Beverwijck court issuedan ordinance their hands.” The petitioners claimed that this would “against going into the woods to trade,” the magistrates result in the “decline and utter ruination of Fort Orange were accused“in villainous and contemptuousterms. . . and the village of Beverwijck.” They urged instead“that of trying to reserve the entire trade to themselves.” The every one may be free to employ Indian brokers.“t3 court handled this challenge to its authority, its accuser being forced to beg forgivenesson his knees.After 1657, That limiting the use of brokers to only Indians was however, the use of Dutch or Indian brokers gained not the consensusof the entire community of traderswas added significance as each trader sought to improve his soon made clear. According to Vice-Director Johannes advantagein the competition for a declining number of La Montagne, Beverwijck was divided into “two directly furs. In the face of such acquisitive pressure,the ability opposite parties, one asking to be allowed to employ of the court to regulate the use of brokers erodedrapidly. Indian brokers and no Christians, and the other In June of 1659, the court granted permission for the use Christians and no Indians.” In late May, the court voted of Indian brokers, but with the restriction that they be four to two that “no brokers whether Christians or sent“into the woods without any presents.”Soon charges Indians, shall be employed, but that the Indians . . . shall were madeagainst Dutch traderswho were violating the be allowed to trade their beaver where they please.” regulation. One of the accused, Philip Pietersen Permissionwas granted,however, “to every one to go on Schuyler, admitted publicly that he gave presentsto the the hill, as far up as the houses stand, to inquire where Indians and claimed that “if he did wrong in that, . . . not the Indians wish to go.” Characteristically, the ordinance a single beaver is bartered in . . . [Beverwijck] but it is had barely been promulgated before accusations were done contrary to the ordinance.” Other defendantswere made to the court that its regulations were again being equally unrepentant,one calling the magistrates“a lot of violated.14 perjurers.“t ’ The fullest explanation of the stateof affairs at Bever- In seeking to enforce its ordinances, the court was wijck was presentedin a June 1660 letter from La Mon- becoming an object of abuse within the Dutch com- tagne to Director Stuyvesant.In late May, the court had munity. The strained state of Dutch-Mohawk relations met to disposeof the petition of the “principal tradersof only addedto the troubles of the local authorities. In fact, this place,” requesting that “only Indian brokers should 286 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS be admitted to carry on the trade.” Subsequently,in June, magistratesat one point or another during the 1650s.The at the court’s request, the entire community of traders small traders were rarely chosen as magistrates.17 assembled in the fort. Heard individually, they “expresseda different opinion. . . that it would be better, For the small traders, the decline of the:fur trade was to give the enormous amount of brokerage, which went proving particularly troublesome. In July of 1658, now yearly into the pockets of the Indian brokers. . . to Jeremiasvan Rensselaerwrote his mother in the Nether- Dutchmen.” The use of Indian brokers was expensive. lands that the number of beavers was sc:arceand “the La Montagne estimatedthat each year 50,000guilders in common tradersget no beavers. . . which is a great loss.” fees were funneled into their hands. In urging the use of By the fall of 1659,little improvement had been recorded only Indian brokers, the “principal traders” must have and Van Rensselaerreported that “Many persons here realized that at a time of declining profits from the fur are now so deeply in debt that I would rather keep my trade many small traderswould be hard pressedto afford goods than to extend credit to them.“” the fees demandedby the native woods runners.” For the Dutch, the depressedstate of the fur trade was Eighty of the small tradersmade the cleareststatement further complicated by the threat of English competition of their case in a petition to the court in late June. They and intervention in that trade. As early as 1640 Kiliaen claimed that the May petition had been presented “by van Rensselaer had feared that the English on the some principals who, being moved by excessive greed Connecticut River would employ Mahican Indians living make themselvesbelieve . . . that they thereby increase below Fort Grange as emissariesto the Mohawk and in the trade.” This they denied, charging that it was only “a this manner “draw everything away from us over land.” pretext invented for no other purpose than to divert the In fact, English interest in the New Netherland fur trade trade to themselves.” The petitioners declared that they was long standing. In 1634, John Winthrop estimated were not a “rabble” and urged that the magistratesnot that the Dutch trade amounted to nine or ten thousand “tolerate that the community be oppressed,considering skins a year. Thomas Morton, in his The New English that the least [of the citizens] has as much right as the Canaan, calculated the annual value of the Dutch beaver most [important one].“16 tradeat 20,000 pounds, and urged that the English should waste no time in seizing this advantageoustrade.” What did it mean to be a large or a small trader? In 1657,almost 40,000 beaver and otter pelts were shipped During the 1630sthe Dutch competedunsuccessfully from Beverwijck between June and September.In that with traders from Plymouth Colony and1settlers from year, Abraham Staats,one of the large traders, shipped Massachusettsfor control of the fur resources of the 4200 skins; Jan van Bremen, one of the small traders, Connecticut River. After 1636, Willialm Pynchon’s shippedonly 300. Taken together, the May 1660petition settlementat Springfield cut off supplies from above and of the “principal traders” and the June petition of the effecteda near monopoly of tradeon the river. Plans were “small traders,” provide the best picture of the soon afoot to tap the western fur trade by an overland community of traders at Beverwijck at this moment of route from theconnecticut River to the Hudson. In 1645, crisis, In all, sixty namescan be identified from the two a company of adventurers was organized for that pur- lists-twenty of the principal traders and forty of the pose.Although granteda twenty-year monopoly of trade small. As a group, the small traders had resided in the by the General Court of Massachusetts,the company community for a shorter period of time. In fact, over half accomplished nothing. In 1659, however, two of the had not been at Beverwijck before 1655. They were less original members, William Hawthorne and William likely to be property holders or heads of families and Paine, were joined by John Pynchon, the son of Spring- within another half decade, many of them (over one- field’s founder, to form a new company devoted to the third) would no longer be found in the community. In development of the western trade?’ contrast, the principal traders were more establishedand less transient. Almost all of the principal tradersin 1660 All three were men of influence. William Paine of were headsof families, and most were property owners, Ipswich was one of the wealthiest individuals in the who had been in the community for over a half decade. MassachusettsBay Colony while Willialm Hawthorne Moreover, many would remain at Beverwijck (Albany) was one of the Commissioners for the United Colonies after the English conquest. Finally, fully half of those of New England. Meanwhile, John Pynchon had taken who can be identified as principal traders had acted as over his father’s affairs at Springfield after the elder NEW NETHERLAND FUR TRADE 287

Pynchon returned to England in 1652. By this date the Stuyvesant may already have been approachedby a trade in furs on the Connecticut River had become so group of proprietors headed by Arent van Curler who reduced that there was hardly any profit to be made.For wem seeking permission to establish a new community this reason,the designsof the previous decadewere now on the Mohawk River. Van Curler had had several given new consideration. The journey ofbotb Hawthorne opportunities to broach the project to both the Mohawk andPyn-chon to the Hudson River in the summerof 1659 and to Governor Stuyvesant. He was among those indicated that this was to be a more serious attempt persons who met with the Mohawk at Beverwijck and against the Dutch trade. At Beverwijck, their presence Caughnawagain the fall of 1659, and when Governor was made known to the local magistrates. The two Stuyvesant was at Beverwijck for a conferencewith the Englishmen explained their visit asan attempt“to supply Iroquois in July of 1660,Van Curler also may have been the place with cattle.” For this purpose, they asked in attendance.Subsequently, in April of 1661, he was at permission to settlea village to the south near the Hudson Manhattan where he met on at least one occasion with River, “east of the Wappenger’ski11.“2’ the govemor.24

After receiving notice of Pynchon’s and Hawthorne’s The formal deed of land at Schenectadybetween the arrival, Governor Stuyvesant wrote the directors of the Mohawk and Van Curler was signed on July 27,166l. Dutch West India Company. Stuyvesant explained that One month before, Van Curler had written Governor the English intended to settle near Fort Grange “to ruin Stuyvesant reminding him that “When last at Manhatans and cut off our beavertrade.” In fact, Stuyvesanthad long I informed your honor that there were some. . . who were feared that the fur trade at Fort Orange would be seized well inclined . . . to take possessionof and till the Groote by a foreign power. As early as 1649, he had accused Vlackte (Great Flat).” According to Van Curler, “six or Swedish settlers on the Delaware River of designs eight families” were ready to remove to the Mohawk against the Dutch trade similar to thoseof which he now Flats. Unfortunately, there exist no records of the suspectedthe English, In 1655, Stuyvesant sent a force negotiations which must have occurred between Van to the Delaware to remove the threat of the Swedish Curler and Governor Stuyvesant, Van Curler and the colony. This military action wasfollowed by the creation Mohawk, and among those individuals and families of New Amstel, a community sponsoredby the city of interested in the venture. Of all persons, however, Van Amsterdam. These two steps to reassertDutch control Curler was the ideal individual to achieve assentfor his over the region barely had been taken, however, before proposal. His political and familial connections within the Delaware settlementsfaced new threatsfrom nearby New Netherland were impeccable, while his influence Maryland. In September1659, at the samemoment that with the Iroquois has been compared to that of Sir Stuyvesant was alerting the directors of the Dutch West William Johnson in the 1700~.~ In his letter to India Company to the English threat at Fort Grange, he Stuyvesant in June, Van Curler addressedthe governor also dispatched an embassyheaded by Augustine Heer- as a “lover of agriculture,” and it was in this context that man to treat with the English of Maryland.22 the governor and council granted permission for the establishment of the new community. Although this Facing encroachments on both the Hudson and document makesclear that farming was to be a primary Delaware, Stuyvesantmust have felt as if his colony was activity at the village, it is silent both as to the extension the victim of a pincers movement on the part of the or prohibition of trading rights. There is evidence, how- English. That he did not isolate his troubles geo- ever, that Stuyvesant did grant trading rights to several graphically, but treated them as part of an overall larger of the original Schenectadyproprietors. Theseprivileges concern is clear. In April 1660, Stuyvesant formulated may not have been extended to the rest and were, in any his responseto the English threat then confronting New event, soon withdrawn. By 1662, Stuyvesantclearly had Netherland. In a letter to the directors of the Dutch West no intention that Schenectady would become a new India Company, he wrote, “God grant, that such means center for the fur trade. The settlers were ordered not to may be adoptedas will preservenot only the Southriver, sell liquor to the Indians and the Schenectadylands could but also this Northriver against . . . the English.” To not be surveyed until the settlers promised not “to trade protect the economically and strategically vital Hudson with the savages.”It may be that the Indian troubles of River, Stuyvesant proposed “the best and safest plan these years at Esopus and elsewhere causedStuyvesant would be to forestall theEnglish by peopling and settling to reconsider his initial grant of trading rights to the the lands with somegood and clever farmers.“23 Schenectadysettlers. Certainly the traderswho remained 288 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

Fig. 50. Plans des forts sur la Riviere de Richelieu, 1666. National Map Collection, Public Archives Canada. at Beverwijck were quick to protest that Schenectady’s brewer and a small trader who in 1661 owed over 3,000 remotenessmade it an unfit site for trade.26 guilders. Brouwer was also one of the earliest associates of Arent van Curler in the Schenectady settlement. At Although Schenectady was intended by Governor SchenectadyBrouwer was to mortgage his house and Stuyvesant to be a village of farmers, the one common farm as a guaranteefor repayment of his debt.27 thread that united the Schenectadyproprietors was their desire to engagein the trading of furs. For two years the Not only for small traders, like Philip Hendricksen settlers protested to Stuyvesant against its prohibition Brouwer, but for several large traders, the founding of a and even a decade later the village magistrates were village at Schenectady offered new hope for rescuing seeking the right to trade from the colony’s English fortunes damaged by the decline in trade. Two of governors. All throughout theseyears the settlerscarried Schenectady’s most prominent founders, Arent van on an illicit trade in violation of the governors’ orders. Curler and Sander Leendertsen Glen, were seriously in Attempts by the Beverwijck (Albany) magistrates to debt by the early 1660s.Van Curler owed almost 2,000 suppressthe trade were often met with violence. Of the guilders and Glen over 9,000. Together, Van Curler and fourteen original Schenectadyproprietors, only threecan Glen became the largest land owners at. Schenectady. be identified as agriculturalists in the years before 1661. Having acquired a farm and a house lot alt Schenectady, Fully eight of the fourteen proprietors participated in the Glen was able to recoup his fortunes by selling property fur trade at Beverwijck or Rensselaerswijckand several that he owned at Beverwijckand Rensselaerswijck.Even others later acted as traders at Schenectady.Five of the a decadelater, however, he was still making payments proprietors..hadsigned the 1660 petitions regarding the on his initial debtF8 use,of Indian or Dutch brokers. Of the five, four were “small traders,” the group most hurt by the decline in the Until the MOs, the Dutch had purchased land only trade. Philip Hendricksen Brouwer, for example, was a from the Mahican and other River Indians. The Iroquois NEW NETHERLAND FUR TRADE 289 could and did block expansion westward.For this reason, Van Curler wrote: “The savagesare quite willing to give the 1661 Schenectadypurchase was precedentsetting. It it up for a small price, especially on account of the poor marked the first acquisition of land by the Dutch from trade.“3o the Iroquois. In selling the land at Schenectady, the Mohawk were giving away little and potentially gaining The Mohawk could expect to profit from a Dutch much. Similar treaties in the coastal region of New community at Schenectadyin several ways. As a site for Nctherland resulted in the removal of the original Indian the fur trade, it would eliminate the overland passage owners. At the Mohawk Flats, no village or population required to reach Beverwijck. In effect, the water route had to be resettled. In fact, the Mohawk were turning to advantage would shift from the Dutch to the Mohawk. advantageproperty which they had acquire4 only after Moreover, Arent van Curler occupied a crucial position their dispersal of the Mahican Indians to the east side of in Dutch-Indian relations on the upper Hudson. In selling the Hudson River during the late 1620~~~ the lands at the flats to a group of settlers headedby Van Curler, the Mohawk were cementing both their tradeand Whatever the diplomatic or military ramifications, the diplomatic relations with the Dutch. With the exchange crux of Dutch-Mohawk relations was economic. The of furs centered at Schenectady and Van Curler in source of the Mohawk’s special statuswas their ability, residence, the Mohawk may have hoped to avoid many either directly, or indirectly as middlemen, to supply the of the abusesto which they had recently been subjected. Dutch with furs. In September1659,atamomentofcrisis Finally, as Van Curler’s letter to Governor Stuyvesant in the fur trade, the Mohawk pointedly reminded the suggested,it may be that at a time when fewer furs were Dutch magistrates at Beverwijck of this fundamental available to trade,the Mohawk realized that the attractive fact: “The Dutch, indeed, say we are brothers and are property they controlled at the flats could itself be joined together with chains, but that lasts only as long as exploited as a resource to provide them with the we have beavers.” Trade between the Dutch and merchandisethey desired. Mohawk was a mutual exchange with Dutch desire for furs matched by Mohawk demand for European-made In summary, for all involved, the founding of a settle- goods, clothing and arms. Only a particularly pressing ment at Schenectady was a solution to problems that appetite for such goodsand weaponry would have led the centered around the fur trade. For Petrus Stuyvesant, it Mohawk to tolerate the litany of abuses which they provided additional protection against English usurpa- received at the hands of the Dutch traders. As such, the tion of the Dutch trade. For at least some of the local Mohawk had a vested interest in maintaining their posi- traders at Beverwijck and vicinity, it offered new hope tion as suppliers of furs to the Dutch. That the saleof the for relief from their recenteconomic distress,and finally, lands at Schenectadyby the Mohawk wasdirectly related for the Mohawk it reaffirmed their position as key to the poor stateof the fur trade was suggestedby Arent partners of the Dutch in the fur trade. van Curler in a June 1661 letter to Governor Stuyvesant. 290 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

Notes

‘A.J.F. vanlaer, ed.,“ArentVan CurlerandHisHistoric Origins of New Netherland (New Yolk New York Letter to the Patron,” Dutch SettlersSociety of Albany, University Press, 1968) and Van Cleaf Bachman, Ye&book, nt (1927-1928), 11-29. Van Curler’s letter Peltries or Plantations: The Economic Policies of the was one of the last piecesof correspondencereceived by Dutch West India Company in New Netherland, 1623- the patroon who died in October 1643. Ibid., 16. The 1639 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969). Schenectadylands lay at a distance to the west and were ‘Van Laer, ed., Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, outside the bounds of the patroon’s domain. Moreover, 483; Adriaen van der Donck, A Description of New Van Rensselaerhad already expressedhis intention to Netherlund, ed., Thomas F. O’Donnell (Syracuse: purchaseproperty to the south, along the Hudson River Syracuse University Press, 1968), 111; Van Laer, ed., at Catskill. SamuelG. Nissenson,The Patroon’sDomuin “Van Curler and His Historic Letter,” Dutch Settlers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), 243. Society of Albany, Yearbook, III (1927-1.928), 29. 2J.Franklin Jameson,ed.,NarrativesofNewNetherland, 8E .B. O’Callaghan and Berthold Femow, eds., Docu- 1609-1664 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), ments Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New 16-28. York (Albany: Weed, Parsons& Co., 18561887), XIV: 3Donald Lenig, “Of Dutchmen, Beaver Hats and Iro- 444, hereafter cited as MCD. quois,” in Robert E. Funk and Charles F. Hayes III, eds., 9A.J.F. van Laer, ed., Minutes of the Court of Fort Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archeology (Al- Orange andBeverwyck, 1652-1660 (Albany: University bany, N.Y.: New York State Archeological Association, of the State of New York, 1920-1923), D[:284. There is 1977) 77; Allen Trelease, Indian Affairs in Colonial disagreementas to how rapidly the Mohiawk and other New York: The Seventeenth Century (Ithaca: Cornell Iroquois depleted the peltry resources within their own University Press, 1960), 28-36. territories. George Hunt argued for a date around 1640, 4Lenig, “Of Dutchmen, Beaver Hats and Iroquois,” in but ThomasNorton is notconvinced that it was this early. Funk and Hayes, eds., Current Perspectives, 78; Bruce Trigger sees1670 as the date by which beaver had Trelease,Indian Aflairs. 14-15; T.J. Brasser,Riding on been hunted to extinction within the Iroquois heartland. the Frontier’s Crest: Mahican Indian Culture and Cul- He suggeststhat by 1640 the number of furs that could ture Change (Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, be taken from this territory was insuffici~entto meet the 1974); Bruce G. Trigger, “The Mohawk-Mohican War Iroquois demand for European trade goods. George T. (1624-28): The Establishment of a Pattern,” Cunudiun Hunt, The Wars of the Iroquois: A Study in Intertribal Historical Review, LII (1971), 27686; Oliver A. Rink, Trade Relations (Madison: University of Wisconsin Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social History F%ess,1940), 33; Thomas E. Norton, The Fur Trade in of Dutch New York (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, Colonial New York, I686-I776 (Madison: University of 1986), 30; A.J.F. Van Laer, ed., Van Rensselaer Bowier Wisconsin Press, 1974). 9-l 1; Bruce G. Trigger, “On- Manuscripts (Albany: University of the State of New tario Native People and the Epidemics od 1634-1640,” York, 1908), 166-69. in Shepard Krech, ed., Indians, Animal>s, and the Fur ‘Van Laer, ed., Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, Trade (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press,1981), 209; E.B. O’Callaghan, ed., Laws and Ordinances of 27-28. New Netherland, 1636-1674 (Albany: Weed,Parsons & “A.J.F. van Laer, ed., Jonathan Pearson, translator, co., 1868), 10-12. Early Records of the City and County of Albany and ?bid.; Oliver A. Rink, “Company Management or Colony of Rensselaerswyck (Albany: J. Munsell, 1869, Private Trade: The Two Patroonship Plans for New 1919), I: 244, hereaftercited as Early Records; Van Laer, Netherland,” New York History, LM (1978), 5-26; ed., Court of Fort Orange and Beverwyck, II: 191-92, Trelease, Indian Affairs, 49, 61, 112-13; Donna Mer- 201-3. wick, “Dutch Townsmen and Land Use: A Spatial “Ibid., I: 223-24; II: 189,191,201. Perspective in Seventeenth-Century Albany, New 121bid.,211-19. York,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., XXXVII 131bid.,255. (1980), 57. The commercial history of New Netherland 14 is treated in Rink, Holland on the Hudson, Thomas J. NYCD, WI: 175; Van Laer, ed. Court elf Fort Orange Condon, New York Beginnings: The Commercial and Bevernyck, II: 255-56,263-65. NEW NETHERLAND FUR TRADE 294

“The standard account of the events at Beverwijck at Delaware, seeChristopher Ward, The Dutch and Swedes this time provided by Allen Treleaseis wrong. Trelease on the Delaware, 1609-1664 (Philadelphia: University confuses the positions of the two groups of traders, of Pennsylvania Press, 1930) and C.A. Weslager, The claiming mat it was the principal traders who urged the English on the Delaware, 1610-1682 (New Brunswick, use of Dutch brokers. Trelease,Indian Affairs, 134. N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1967). ‘%an Laer, ed., Court of Fort Orange and Beverwyck, 23SamuelHazard, et al., eds., Pennsylvania Archives II: 266-68. (Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Pa., 1852-1949), XIX: 17Early Records, I: 244; Van Laer, ed., Court of Fort 631-32,707; NYCD,XIII: 107-08. Orange and Beverwyck, II: 255,266-68. Information on 24For Van Curler’s meetings with the Mohawk and community residence, family relations, office holding, Governor Stuyvesant, see Van Laer, ed., Court of Fort and property ownership can be found in Early Records, Orange apadBeverwyck, II: 211-19, 222-23, 281-87; Van Laer, ed., Van Rensselaer BowierlWaPluscripts, and Van Laer, ed. Correspondence of Jeremias van Van Laer, e.&, Court of Fort Orange and Beverwyck as Rensselaer, 251. well as in Charles T. Gehring, ed., New York Historical 25JonathanPearson+4 History of the Schenectady Patent Manuscripts: Dutch, Land Papers (Baltimore: in the Dutch and English Times, J.W. MacMurray, ed. Genealogical Publishing Co., 1980) and JonathanPear- (Albany: Joel Munsell’s Sons, 1883),9-14. Van Curler’s son, camp., Contributions for the Genealogies of the significance is noted in Van Laer, ed., “Van Curler and Descendants of the First Settlers of the Patent and City His Historic Letter,” Dutch Settlers Society of Albany of Schenectady (Albany: Joel Munsell, 1873). Yearbook, III (1927-1928), 15-16, and Trelease,Indian ’ ‘Jeremiasvan Rensselaer,Correspondence of Jerernias Affairs, 115. van Rensselaer, 1653-1674. A.J.F. van Laer, ed. 26Pearson,Schenectady Patent, 9-14; Van Laer, ed., (Albany: University of the State of New York, 1932), Court of Albany, Rensselaerswyck and Schenectady, III, 104,175. 494; G’Callaghan, ed., Laws of New Netherland, 442- lgVan Laer, ed., Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, 43. 483-84; John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal, ed., James 27Pearson,Schenectady Patent, 10; Early Records, I: K. Hosmer (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908), 301; ThomasE. Burke, Jr.,“‘TheExtreemestPartof All’: I: 131; Thomas Morton, The New English Canaan, The Dutch Community of Schenectady, New York, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Prince Society, 1661-1720” (unpubl. Ph.D. diss., State University of 1883), 23940. New York at Albany, 1984). 50-53 (forthcoming from 2oA.rthurH. Buffington, “New England and the Western Cornell University Press). Fur Trade, 1629-1675,” Publications of the Colonial 28EarlyRecords, I: 313-14,336,505; III: 111-13.221. Society of Massachusetts,Transactions, XVIII (1915- 2gTrelease,Indian Affairs, 215; Trigger, “The Mohawk- 1916), 176-83; John Pynchon, Letters of John Pynchon, Mohican War (1624-28),” Can. Hist. Rev., LII (1971), 16.54-1700,ed., Carl Bridenbaugh, ibid., LX (1982), 30. 276-86; Lynn Ceci, “The Effect of European Contact 2’Van Laer, ed., Court of Fort Orange and BevePwyck, and Trade on the SettlementPattern of Indians in Coastal II: 208. New York, 1524-1665: The Archeological and ~NYCD,XIII: 101,126;CharlesT. Gehring,ed.,New York Documentary Evidence” (unpubl. Ph.D. diss., City Colonial Manuscripts: Dutch, Delaware Papers, 1M8- University of New York, 1977). 256.. 1664 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1981), 3%an Laer, ed., Court of Fort Orange and Beverwyck, mm: 3747, 84-97, 143-53, 15861, 211-22. For II: 211; NYCD,XIII: 203; Pemson,SchenectadyPatent, 10. Dutch relations with the Swedes and English on the