|
|
|
The squabbles of small powers had to be
conducted within the limits set by greater powers. While Indians and
provinces fought and intrigued, Charles II of England "granted" all of
New Netherland to his brother James, Duke of York. James commissioned a
small fleet of three vessels; it cowed New Amsterdam into capitulation
on 27 August, 1664, and won Fort Orange in September; on the first of
October, Dutch Fort Amstel on the Delaware Bay surrendered.53 Just as
the demise of New Sweden had transformed backwoods diplomacy, so the
conquest of New Netherland now restricted even more sharply the number
of genuine choices possible for the Indians. In a manner of speaking,
the world of the Mohawks might seem to have come to an end with New
Netherland. Reduced by disease, beaten in battle, and now deprived of
the fundamental prop for their whole system of external politics, they
sued for peace. 54
Now, surely, peace ought to have come to the embroiled tribes. America
was now under English rule from Maine to Carolina; it would seem a
simple thing for the conquering Englishmen, after having eliminated
their competitors, to stabilize and pacify the tribes. To think so,
however, is to reveal the nationalistic preconceptions of our own era.
Neither King Charles nor Duke James undertook the reduction of New
Netherland just to strew benevolence over the provinces. The King's
patent to his brother embraced lands claimed by Connecticut and
Massachusetts, and the King instructed his commissioners to investigate
a reputed grant by Indians to the Crown of "a large tract of ground
about the Narragansetts Bay." If the Indian grant were to prove true,
the commissioners were to "seize upon the same in our Name and the same
tract of land shall bee hereafter called the King's Province.55 At the
opposite side of New Netherland, Baltimore's claims on Delaware Bay were
also encountered by the English conquerors. The royal commissioners
instructed their representative to declare to "my Lord Baltimore's son"
that "the reduction of the place being at his Majesties expense, you
have commands to keep possession thereof for his Majesties own behoofe
and right56 It is hardly surprising, under the circumstances, that
Puritans and Marylanders greeted the conquest of New Netherland with
less than joy. The conquest had not eliminated their powerful competitor
so much as it had substituted a still greater power in the same
relationship. Though sovereignty changed, the functions and roles of New
Netherland continued to be performed by New York.
For the Indians, of course, there could be no question about the
necessity of adapting to the newcomers. The Mohawks instantly offered
alliance and asked New York's Governor Nicolls to mediate between them
and their multitude of enemies. Nicolls agreed to try to make peace for
them with "the Naticns down the River," but he could make no guarantees
of peace with other provinces .57
As things turned out, Nicolls was unable to prevent Indian disruption
even within his own province. The Mahicans renewed a dormant ancient
feud with the Mohawks, and were able to find a source of European
support. Though both the English and the old Dutch inhabitants of Albany
combined to enforce Mahican compliance with Mohawk pleas for peace,
their edict was obeyed only so long as the time required for the
Mahicans to make a new alliance with the French.58 As the policies of
Charles II had been aimed at eliminating the Dutch power from America,
the policies of Louis XIV were aimed at eliminating the Iroquois. French
alliance with the Mahicans was only one of Louis's measures. When
AngloDutch war was renewed, France joined the Dutch in 1666. The Bourbon
monarch also decided "totally to exterminate" the Iroquois, and sent a
regiment of veteran troops and reorganized his government of Canada to
take the offensive59 Once more, the Iroquois were surrounded by enemies.
In 1666 a French expeditionary force burned the Mohawk villages and food
supply, and the Susquehannocks destroyed an Onondaga army. Meanwhile the
Mahicans "infested the roads" of the Iroquois so successfully that an
Onondaga sachem pleaded with the French to call them off.60 A Jesuit
father reported that the Oneidas were continually alarmed in their
villages by both Mahicans and Susquehannocks, and "a panic of terror"
swept over one village on the mere false rumor that a Susquehannock army
was approaching.61
In the midst of all this the voices of peace were hard to hear. Having
once embroiled the tribes with each other, the Europeans found that only
united efforts could suppress the tumult. Governor Nicolls of New York
attempted to get peace for the Mohawks in the south, but Governor
Calvert of Maryland ignored him. Nicolls' successor tried to enlist the
support of Connecticut's Governor Winthrop to calm the Mahicans, but
negotiations dragged on and on. The Onondagas had been so badly beaten
by the Susquehannock's that they made revenge an obsession, and when a
Susquehannock chief brought proposals of peace to the Cayugas in 1670
the Onondagas instigated his murder.62 It seemed to be a time
exemplifying Thomas Hobbes' "war of all against all," but it was no
Hobbesian "state of nature." In the last analysis the Indians remained
dependent on European trade goods, and wherever the Europeans could
finally submerge their own strife, they had it within their power to
stop Indian warfare. In 1670 a Susquehannock sachem dinned this into the
heads of some stubborn Lenape "and showed them, here live Christians and
there live Christians; declaring to them that as they were surrounded by
Christians, if they went to war, where would they get powder and ball?"
63
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: |
|
53 |
Hazard,
Annals of Pa., pp. 356368; John Romeyn Brodhead, History of the
State of New York (2 v., N. Y., 1859-1871) 1: pp. 743-744. |
|
|
|
|
54 |
Anonymous
letter, Quebec, 22 Sept., 1664, Jesuit Relations 49: pp.
149-153; Indian conference, Albany, 25 Sept., 1664, N. V. Col.
Docs. 3: pp. 67-68. |
|
|
|
|
55 |
Patent, 12
March, 1664, and Instructions, 23 April, 1664, N. Y. Col. Docs.
2: pp. 295-298; 3: pp. 55-56. |
|
|
|
|
56 |
Instructions
to Sir Robert Carr, 3 Sept., 1664, N. Y. Col. Docs. 12: pp.
457-458; Nicolls to Secretary of State, ibid. 3: p. 70. |
|
|
|
|
57 |
Loc. cit.;
Nicolls to Boston General Court, 30 July, 1668, N. V. Col. Docs.
3: p. 172. |
|
|
|
|
58 |
Treaty
minutes, Albany, 3 Aug./10 Sept., 1666, The Livingston Indian
Records, 1666-1723, ed., Lawrence H. Leder (Gettysburg, Pa.,
1956), p. 34; Journal of the Jesuit Fathers, 9 Aug., 1667,
Jesuit Relations 50: p. 215. |
|
|
|
|
59 |
Instructions
to M. Talon, 27 March, 1665, N. Y. Col. Docs. 9: p. 25; Colbert
to Talon, 6 April, 1667, ibid. 9: p. 58. |
|
|
|
|
60 |
Francois Le
Mercier, Quebec, 20 Aug., 1668, Jesuit Relations 51: p. 243;
letter to J. B. Van Rensselaer, 26 July, 1664, Correspondence of
Jere,nias Van Rensselaer, p. 358. |
|
|
|
|
61 |
Relation of
166869, Jesuit Relations 52: pp. 147, 175-177. |
|
|
|
|
62 |
Nicolls to
Boston General Court, 30 July, 1668, N. Y. Col. Docs. 3: p. 172;
letters of Governor Lovelace, 25 July, 1669-24 Jan., 1670,
Minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York,
ed., Victor Hugo Paltsits (2 v., Albany, 1910) 1: pp. 377-383;
Fremin to Le Mercier, n.d. [refers to 20 Aug., 1669] Jesuit
Relations 54: p. 111; Dc Carrheil to Le Mercier, June, 1670,
ibid. 54: p. 75. |
|
|
|
|
63 |
Examination of Indians, 6 Oct.,
1670, Minutes of Exec. Council of N. Y. 2: p. 502. |
|
|
|
|