"Smackdown on the Hudson" The Patroon, the West India Company, and the Founding of Albany
A Lesson for the Seventh Grade
The New Netherland Research Center and the New Netherland Institute
2013
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center Smackdown on the Hudson 2
Contents
• Lesson Procedures 3
• Readings and Worksheet 7
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 3
Lesson Procedures
Essential question: How was the colony of New Netherland ruled by the Dutch West India Company and the patroons?
Grade 7 Content Understandings, New York State Standards:
Social Studies Standards This lesson covers European Exploration and Colonization of the Americas and Life in Colonial Communities, focusing on settlement patterns and political life in New Netherland. By studying the conflict between the Petrus Stuyvesant and the Brant van Slichtenhorst, students will consider the sources of historic documents and evaluate their reliability.
Common Core Standards:
Reading Standards By analyzing historic documents, students will develop essential reading, writing, and critical thinking skills. They will read and analyze informational texts and draw inferences from those texts. Students will explain what happened and why based on information from the readings. Additionally, as a class, students will discuss general academic and domain- specific words or phrases relevant to the unit.
Speaking and Listening Standards Students will engage in group and teacher-led collaborative discussions, using textual evidence to pose hypotheses and respond to specific questions. They will also report to the class on their group’s assigned topic, explaining their ideas, analyses, and observations and citing reasons and evidence to support their claims.
Writing Standards To conclude this lesson, students write a letter to the editor of the Rensselaerwijck Times that draws evidence from informational texts and supports claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
Historical Context:
In 1614, soon after the founding of the New Netherland Company (predecessor to the West India Company, est. 1621) by Dutch investors, company employees built the first Dutch trading post in North America. Fort Nassau was located on Castle Island, part of present- day Albany, NY. Settlers selected this spot near the confluence of the Mohawk and Hudson rivers for its proximity to Indian trade routes. Every spring the island tended to flood;
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 4
consequently, the fort was abandoned less than three years later. In 1624, West India Company employees erected a new trading post to replace Fort Nassau. Fort Orange was located just north of Castle Island on the west bank of the Hudson River.
In 1630, residents of the fort welcomed new neighbors. That summer, the first group of farmers and artisans arrived to settle the privately-owned colony (or patroonship) of Rensselaerswijck, which surrounded Fort Orange on both sides of the Hudson River. Kiliaen van Rensselaer—a jewelry merchant and a West India Company director— purchased the land that comprised his patroonship from Mahican Indians. The patroon and his heirs were authorized by the West India Company to administer the colony’s economic and legal affairs. Outside of Rensselaerswijck, the West India Company’s directors and their agents prevailed. The Company also controlled the Dutch colony’s lucrative fur trade.
Rensselaerwijck’s proximity to Fort Orange was intended both to protect the settlers and to provision the fort. But proximity and divided rule eventually led to conflict between the West India Company’s Director-General, Petrus Stuyvesant, and the patroon’s agent, Brant van Slichtenhorst, Director of Renssleaerswijck. Uncompromising by nature, both men fought to uphold what they understood to be their employer’s rights. The result was what historian and novelist Firth Haring Fabend has called the “smackdown on the Hudson,” an event that gave birth to the village of Beverwijck now known as Albany.
In this case, Stuyvesant won the day. The Director-General of New Netherland from 1647 until the colony’s capture by the English in 1664, Stuyvesant was an able administrator and dedicated Company man. He promoted the colony’s growth and oversaw its transformation from a trading post to a commercial hub.
This lesson requires students to analyze the power struggle bewteen Stuyvesant and Slichtenhorst through the study of informational texts and historic documents. (Translations of historic documents and other readings have been shortened and simplified for use by students.) Students will use these to participate in a debate and to write a letter to the editor of the Rennselaerswijck Times. Before starting this lesson students should have studied the founding of New Netherland.
Activities:
Reading and Discussion The teacher should hand out an excerpt from Firth Haring Fabend’s New Netherland in a Nutshell: A Concise History of the Dutch Colony on the conflict between Petrus Stuyvesant and Brant van Slichtenhorst. Before students start reading, the teacher should explain that Fort Orange was owned and controlled by the West India Company. However, the property surrounding the fort was owned and governed by the patroon of Rensselaerwijck. Students should understand that the patroonship was a privately owned and administered estate
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 5
within the colony of New Netherland. The patroon was empowered by the West India Company to set up a system of government within his estate.
The teacher should place students in pairs to read and analyze the Fabend reading. After the students have finished reading and taking notes, the teacher should lead a whole group discussion on the following questions:
Who was Brant van Slichtenhorst? Who was Petrus Stuyvesant? How did each man understand his job? How would you describe each man’s personality and behavior? What was the source of the conflict between the two of them? What do you think would happen to you if you defied a person in authority? Would you have responded like Van Slichtenhorst did to Stuyvesant? Note: The teacher might wish to introduce a contemporary analogy: Your teacher prohibits you from bringing your cellphone to class, but your parents say you must have your phone with you at all times.
The teacher should conclude the discussion by asking students to predict how this conflict between Stuyvesant (the agent of the WIC) and Van Slichtenhorst (the agent of the patroon) would be resolved.
Small Group Document Analysis The teacher should divide students into 6 collaborative work groups. Each group will analyze a set of historic documents and report back to the class on the documents they analyzed. Each group will tell part of the larger story of the conflict between Stuyvesant and Slichtenhorst, and each should address the following questions:
• Who wrote these documents? Whose point of view do they represent? • Who was the intended audience? • What was the purpose of these documents? • What is the tone of these documents—pleased, angry, resolute, concerned, matter-of-fact, indignant, etc? • According to your documents, what happened? • Do you think these documents were biased for or against Slichtenhorst or Stuyvesant? If so, what evidence do you have? Use quotes from your documents as evidence of bias. • Based on what you’ve learned from reading these documents, is there anything you would add to Firth Fabend’s narrative and analysis? Is there anything that you would change? Note: This might be an opportunity to lead a discussion about the differences between secondary sources (contemporary historical narratives, such as the
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 6
Fabend reading) and primary sources (historic documents, such as the Stuyvesant and Slichtenhorst readings).
Whole Group Document Analysis The teacher should hand out copies of the West India Company’s “Proposed Freedoms and Exemptions for New Netherland.” The class should read the document out loud together, stopping to define difficult words. The teacher should then lead a discussion of the following questions:
• What was a patroon? • What did the patroons own? • What rights did patroons enjoy within the borders of their North American estates? • How was the West India Company obliged to assist the patroons? • What were the patroon’s obligations to the Company? • Whose laws—the patroon’s or the Company’s—were supreme within the borders of the patroon’s estate?
This final question will be the focus of the debate that follows.
Debate The teacher will assign students to one of two groups, each taking one side of a debate between Stuyvesant and Slichtenhorst over who rightfully controlled the land surrounding Fort Orange—the West India Company or the patroon. Each of the two groups should contain a roughly equal number of students from each of the small groups. Students should draw on the assigned readings to develop their arguments. Each group will develop and present 5 debate points.
Culminating Activity Students will write a letter to the editor. Teachers should use the following prompt (Worksheet 2):
After reviewing the debate between Petrus Stuyvesant (the West Indian Company’s representative) and Brant van Slichtenhorst (the Patroon’s agent), who do you think had the stronger case? Write a letter to the editor of the editor of the Rensselaerswijck Times. Explain who you think was at fault, why, and how you think the issue might be resolved. Use at least three quotes from three different historic documents to support your argument.
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 7
Readings and Worksheet
Historic Document: Accounts of the conflict between Petrus Stuyvesant and Brant van Slichtenhorst, 1648- 1652. 8
Historic Document: The West India Company's "Proposed Freedoms and Exemptions for New Netherland," 1640 14
Modern Document: Excerpt from Firth Haring Fabend’s New Netherland in a Nutshell 16
Worksheet: Letter to the editor of the Rensselaerwijck Times 18
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 8
Accounts of the conflict between Petrus Stuyvesant and Brant van Slichtenhorst, 1648-1652. Group 1 26 April 1648, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswijck:
Brant van Slichtenhorst protested against Petrus Stuyvesant’s directive proclaiming a day of fasting and prayer. He considers Mr. Stuyvesant’s order to have infringed on the right and priority of the Patroon.
20 October 1648, Brant van Slichtenhorst Protest:
Assisted by an armed soldier, Petrus Stuyvesant’s Vice Commander Mr. Carel van Brugge and Mr. Labbatie dared of their own authority, without asking previous permission, as is customary, to burst suddenly into the Patroon's house. They declared that they would demolish the house and building of Jan Tomassen and Rem Jansen, the blacksmith.
This pretended objectionable building is situated beyond five hundred and fifty paces of the fort. It is plainly beyond the range of a musket shot. It is even out of sight of the fort or trading house. Petrus Stuyvesant previously demanded only that we should abandon the supervision and jurisdiction of the fort.
It is declared that buildings should not be constructed so close to the fort, as the fort is thereby obstructed in time of necessary defense. So far as regards the renowned fortress, Slichtenhorst is its nearest neighbor. He has never seen one person carrying a sword, musket or like, nor has he heard a drum beat, except when the General himself came there last.
Therefore we cannot understand how such an argument can be made. But there are valiant soldiers, when they are armed with ax and gun. The soldiers cut down the best and nearest timber in the Patroon's woods. They shoot the game and steal the stone belonging to the Patroon. ' Tis wonderful that the General should take such needless trouble about the Patroon's Colony and worry himself about his buildings. In New Amsterdam, his Honor tolerates a number of streets full of buildings within thirty paces of Fort Manhattan where his government is.
21 December 1648, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswijck:
Brant van Slichtenhorst promises to save Rutger Jacobsz from all loss and damage which may be caused to him by Petrus Stuyvesant or his agents on account of the house he intends to build near Fort Orange.
Adapted from: A. J. F. van Laer, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck,1648-1652 (1922) and B. Fernow, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York, vol. 14 (1883).
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 9
Group 2 15 June 1650, Brant van Slichtenhorst to Petrus Stuyvesant and his Council:
I understand that you intend to prevent the settlement of the area of the Catskill Creek. This was undertaken by order of the Patroon’s guardians and thus comes into conflict with your order. I protest that two conflicting matters cannot be reconciled unless one gives way. Your honors must realize that it is impossible for me not to follow the Patroon’s instructions. According to my oath, I am bound to carry them out.
Note: Johannes van Rensselaer, the second Patroon of Rensselaerswijck, was a minor when he inherited his father’s title. The patroonship was, therefore, governed by the young man’s guardians.
9 February 1652, Brant van Slichtenhorst and the officers of the Court of Rensselaerswijck proclaim:
On February 8, 1652, Johannes Dyckman appeared before the full assembly. He read aloud a placard of Petrus Stuyvesant and the Council of New Netherland regarding certain claims to some ground around Fort Orange. He first asked for permission to post this placard in Rensselaerswijck. According to our duty, this was refused. Dyckman then assured us that such was the order of the Directors of the West India Company.
Be it known that we shall await the Directors’ order. In case they refuse, we shall by virtue of our oath to the Patroon be bound to protest against all resulting damage.
In case any placards should be posted within the jurisdiction of Rensselaerswijck, we promise that any person who shall tear them down shall not be punished.
Note: Johannes Dyckman was a West India Company employee; he was the commander of Fort Orange.
22 February 1652, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswijck:
Johannes Dyckman once more posed the question whether we would consent to have the placards posted. Brant van Slichtenhorst answered: “In no wise, as long as I have a drop of blood in my body, unless you show me first an authorization from their High Mightinesses [the Directors of the West India Company] or our honorable masters.”
Adapted from: A. J. F. van Laer, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck, 1648-1652 (1922).
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 10
Group 3 29 February 1652, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswijck:
Brant van Slichtenhorst complains of violence committed by Johannes Dyckman’s soldiers on New Year’s Eve 1651. The soldiers placed burning fuses on the roof of the Patroon’s house and also on the Director’s house, which is covered with thatch. This action endangered not only the houses, property and papers, but more particularly, some people’s lives.
Secondly, Van Slichtenhorst complains about great and notorious violence received by his son on New Year’s day at the hands of Mr. Dyckman and his soldiers. The soldiers grabbed his son by the hair and struck him on the forehead so that he fell down. They not only beat him black and blue but dragged him through the mud and mire and treated him as if he were a criminal. Dyckman encouraged his soldiers in their evil work by calling aloud, “Beat him now and may the devil take him!”
Note: Johannes Dyckman was a West India Company employee; he was the commander of Fort Orange.
25 March 1652, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswijck:
According to Philip Schuyler, Johannes Dyckman said to him that when Petrus Stuyvesant came up the river, Schuyler should not be present. Schuyler asked why. Dyckman replied that he would not have his father-in-law [Brant van Slichtenhorst] very long.
Philip Schuyler and Robert Vasterick declare that on New Year's Day 1652, they tried to prevent the beating of the honorable Director's son. But Johannes Dyckman threatened to run them through if they dared to interfere.
Catalyn Donckesz declares that Mr. Dyckman said to her that a gallows was being built for three persons. She asked, “For whom?” He replied: "For Mr. Slichtenhorst, his son and Jan Baptist van Rensselaer."
Note: Jan Baptist van Rensselaer lived in Rensselaerswijck and would become Director of the patroonship in July 1652.
10 April 1652, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswijck:
Pieter Rywerdingh, without asking, posted a placard on the Patroon’s house. Brant van Slichtenhorst protested against it. Rywerdingh answered that whatever came of it Petrus Stuyvesant would make good.
Adapted from: A. J. F. van Laer, Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck,1648-1652 (1922).
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 11
Group 4 24 November 1648, Order from Petrus Stuyvesant’s council to the commander of Fort Orange:
We are informed of the usurpation of power and improper procedure by Brant van Slichtenhorst. He and his associates are hemming in the West India Company’s fort by various structures. They are plowing up the gardens of the fort’s commander. They are preventing repairs to the fort, which was severely damaged last winter by floods. We ordered the fort’s commander to repair the fort and surround it with a wall of stone, instead of timber, so as to avoid the annual repairs. Van Slichtenhorst, however, prohibited Company officials from the quarrying of stone and the cutting of timber within Rensselaerswijck. This was never before done by a chief officer of a patroonship—or tolerated by a director or council of New Netherland, as it tends to nullify the West India Company’s supreme jurisdiction. Proceeding on that basis, the West India Company would be deprived of firewood and of timber for ships, churches, forts, and other buildings. We therefore authorize the commander of Fort Orange to proceed with repairs to the fortress.
24 January 1652, Proclamation by Petrus Stuyvesant and his council:
We have been informed of the impertinent and unchristianlike tyranny of Brant van Slichtenhorst. He forbids the officials of the West India Company to cut firewood in the public woods. He also forbids the inhabitants of Rensselaerswijck to haul firewood for the fort. As a result, the Company’s employees are compelled to carry the firewood, which they have begged from him, on their shoulders like slaves, for the amusement of Van Slichtenhorst.
We, therefore, give permission to the officials of the honorable Company to procure all firewood and building timber they require in the public woods. We also request that all settlers in Rensselaerswijck serve the inhabitants of the fort for reasonable wages.
Adapted from: Arnold J. F. van Laer, New York Historical Manuscripts Dutch: Council Minutes, 1638- 1649, vol. 4 (1974) and Charles T. Gehring, Council Minutes, 1652-1654, 1983.
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 12
Group 5 5 March 1652 , Proclamation by Petrus Stuyesant and his council:
Be aware that we have several times warned Brant van Slichtenhorst not to shut in and obstruct the West India Company’s fort with new buildings within 600 geometric paces, about a salute gun’s shot, from the fort. This order was communicated to him and to the court of the colony on 23 July 1648 by Petrus Stuyvesant, verbally as well as in writing. Although these orders have been communicated several times, Van Slichtenhorst has ignored them. Yet, for the sake of the village of Rensselaerswijck and in order to be in a better position to assist one another in time of need, we yielded to the request of respectable inhabitants and refrained from pulling down houses unless so ordered by the Company’s honorable directors. But Van Slichtenhorst, without recognizing any higher authority in this province, gradually began to distribute lots nearer to the fort. Finally, in order to maintain the privileges of the fort and the Company’s authority, we were compelled to publicly proclaim their rights and the boundaries of the fort. This proclamation was communicated to Van Slichtenhorst with directions to publish the same in Rensselaerswijck. He, to the disparagement of ourselves and of the Lords Directors of the West India Company, most insultingly dared to tear it out of the hands of the clerk and throw the seal of the province to the ground.
Van Slichtenhorst has, by this insult to the supreme government, violated all neighborly obligations. We, therefore, prohibit the construction of any building either west or northwest of the fort within 600 geometric paces of 5 feet each. So that no one may plead ignorance, we direct the fort’s commander to erect to the north, south and west a post with the honorable Company’s mark showing the fort’s jurisdiction.
Adapted from: Charles T. Gehring, Council Minutes, 1652-1654, 1983.
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 13
Group 6 4 April1652, Directors of the West India Company to Petrus Stuyvesant:
We cannot sufficiently express our astonishment at the insolence of Brant van Slichtenhorst. We desire our authority in the neighborhood of this fort to be maintained in every way as far as a cannon shot.
9 December 1652, Protest of Patroon Johannes van Rensselaer to the Directors of the West India Company in Amsterdam:
Director Petrus Stuyvesant commanded his soldiers to haul down the flag of his Honor, the Patroon.
He ordered wood to be cut and carried out of the forests without recognizing the Patroon’s rights or asking permission.
He published a placard stating that the jurisdiction of the area around the Fort Orange belonged to the Company, thereby taking from the Patroon not only his soil but also his subjects.
He dared to arrest the Director of the patroonship, Brant van Slichtenhorst, within the jurisdiction of Rensselaerswijck.
We, therefore, demand of you, the Lords Directors, whether you have given Petrus Stuyvesant the authority to commit these illegal acts. We protest the use of force and the resulting losses to the Patroon’s rights and privileges. We also request that you issue an order by the ship now going to New Netherland for the return of everything as it was before.
Adapted from: B. Fernow, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York, vol. 14, 1883.
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 14
The West India Company’s “Proposed Freedoms and Exemptions for New Netherland,” 1640.
In the selection of lands, those who first notify the West India Company of their intent shall be preferred over others who follow.
Patroons must ship to New Netherland and settle on their land at least 50 persons, above 15 years of age, within the space of three years after having made a declaration of intent to the West India Company.
A Patroon shall, on requesting it, be granted the power to dispose of, or bequeath, his fiefdom by Will.
The Patroons at the places where they will plant their estates shall have the privilege to extend the latter one mile along the coast, bay, or navigable river and two contiguous miles landward in.
The Patroons shall forever possess all lands situated within the limits of their estates, together with the produce, minerals, rivers, and fountains therein. They shall also enjoy rights over hunting, fishing, fowling, and milling. In jurisdiction, the estate will be a perpetual hereditary fiefdom. Each new Patroon must demonstrate fealty and homage to the Company.
And should any Patroon happen to prosper in his estate to such a degree as to be able to found one or more towns, he shall have authority to appoint officers and magistrates there.
The Patroons shall furnish settlers on their estates with instructions on the mode of government to be established. But these directions must first be exhibited to and approved by the West India Company directors.
All the patrons and inhabitants of New Netherland shall be privileged to sail and trade to the entire coast of North America on the following conditions: First, that all goods must be brought into the Company’s stores for inspection and payment of proper duties.
The Company shall take all colonists, whether free or bound to service, under their protection, defend them as far as lies in their power with force which it has there, against all domestic and foreign wars and violence, on condition that the patrons and the colonists shall, in such case, put themselves in a suitable state of defense for which purpose each male emigrant shall be obliged to provide himself, at his own expense, with a gun or musket of the Company’s regular caliber, or a cutlass and side arms.
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 15
The Company reserved unto itself all large and small tithes, all waifs, the right of coinage, laying out highways, erecting forts, making war and peace, together with all wildernesses, founding of cities, towns and churches, retaining the supreme authority, sovereignty and supremacy, the interpretation of all obscurity which may arise out of this Grant, with such understanding, however, that nothing herein contained shall alter or diminish what has been granted heretofore to the Patroons in regard to jurisdiction.
Adapted from John Romeyn Brodhead, Documents Relative to the State of New York; Procured in Holland, England and France, vol. 1, 1856.
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 16
Firth Haring Fabend, “Smackdown on the Hudson.”
Petrus Stuyvesant has been portrayed as autocratic and tyrannical, but as director-general of New Netherland he was also a conscientious leader. He wanted the colony—and his employer the West India Company (WIC)—to succeed.
In 1648, one year into Stuyvesant’s tenure as director general, the Van Rensselaer family appointed Brant van Slichtenhorst director of the patroonship of Rensselaerswijck. Van Slichtenhorst was charged with collecting the patroon’s fees from the inhabitants, preserving and enforcing all of the patroon’s rights, and maintaining good relations with local Indians. He also served as chief officer of the court at Rensselaerswijck, responsible for seeing that the inhabitants obeyed local ordinances and were punished if they did not.
Upon arrival in New Amsterdam, Van Slichtenhorst was instructed to present himself to Petrus Stuyvesant and offer the patroon’s greetings and wishes for cooperation. It seems to have been beneath Van Slichtenhorst’s dignity to defer to the much younger Stuyvesant. From the records of a court case, it appears that the older man got drunk and behaved “as if he came there in order to have authority over Stuyvesant and as if he wanted to rule over him.”
Soon after this unfortunate first meeting, Van Slichtenhorst refused an order from Stuyvesant to observe a day of thanksgiving in honor of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Eighty Years’ War between the Netherlands and Spain. Stuyvesant, always one to stand on ceremony, was offended. When he learned that Van Slichtenhorst had begun to grant lots and permits for houses around Fort Orange, Stuyvesant took action, ordering Van Slichtenhorst not to build anything within the area of a cannon shot of the fort.
Van Slichtenhorst retorted that the land under and around the fort belonged to the patroon. He added another provocation by preventing colonists from using the patroon’s wagons and horses to help repair the fort from winter damage. Then he heaped insult on injury by forbidding WIC employees from quarrying stone and cutting wood on the patroon’s lands without his permission.
Stuyvesant could not abide these assaults on his authority, or any actions that could weaken the fort. Fort Orange was central to the fur trade, to the colony’s defense, and to the honor of his own office. He, therefore, ordered the new houses to be torn down. But Van Slichtenhorst went on issuing building permits. Stuyvesant ordered Van Slichtenhorst to appear before him and the council at the first court day in April 1649.
Van Slichtenhorst failed to appear in court in New Amsterdam in April 1649 as ordered, and he went a step too far when he tore down a WIC placard. At this, Stuyvesant had him
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 17
brought to New Amsterdam and threw him in jail. Van Slichtenhorst promptly escaped and sailed back to Rensselaerswijck.
Fed up, on March 5, 1652, the council proclaimed the WIC’s jurisdiction around the fort and ordered the erection of boundary posts to mark its perimeter. Van Slichtenhorst promptly tore down copies of the proclamation.
Adapted from Firth Haring Fabend, New Netherland in a Nutshell: A Concise History of the Dutch Colony in North America (2012).
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 18
Letter to the editor of the Rensselaerwijck Times:
Name:______
Date:______
After reviewing the debate between Petrus Stuyvesant (the West Indian Company’s representative) and Brant van Slichtenhorst (the Patroon’s agent), who do you think had the stronger case? Write a letter to the editor of the editor of the Rensselaerswijck Times. Explain who you think was at fault, why, and how you think the issue might be resolved. Use at least three quotes from three different historic documents to support your argument.
______New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 19
______
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 20
______
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center
Smackdown on the Hudson 21
______
New Netherland Institute New Netherland Research Center