1. The Spanish colonies in Florida, New Mexico, and Texas, and the French colonies in the Midwest and Louisiana, will be discussed in Chapter 15.
2. For more information on the Iroquois Great League of Peace or Iroquois Five Nations, see Chapter 1, section 4.
3. For a discussion of the assimilation of Catholic rituals into Potawatomie traditions, see Susan Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes (Amherst, 2001).
4. See Chapter 15 for a fuller discussion of these developments.
5. The older view may be found in Thomas Condon, New York Beginnings: The Commercial Origins of New Netherland (New York, 1968). An example of the newer approach is Donna Merwick, The Shame and the Sorrow: Dutch–Amerindian Encounters in New Netherland (Philadelphia, 2006).
6. The Manhattan Indians were Algonquian speakers who appear to have had some links to the Mahicans further north.
7. The commerce in wampum was relatively new, since the iron tools necessary for its mass production had been available only since the arrival of the Dutch.
8. For the older view, see Condon, New York Beginnings, as well as Michael Kammen, Colonial New York: A History (New York, 1975), chs 1–3. Recent work emphasizes the Dutch origins of New Netherland institutions. See especially Jaap Jacobs, New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Century America (Leiden, 2005).
9. For the rise of the Jewish community in the Americas, see Jacob R. Marcus, The Colonial American Jew, 1492–1776, 3 vols (Detroit, 1970). The number of Jews throughout the colonial period was small.
10. Scholarly considerations of New Swedish roles in the fur trade include Karen Ordahl Kupperman, “Scandinavian Colonists Confront the New World,” and Lorraine E. Williams, “Indians and Europeans in the Delaware Valley, 1620–1655,” both in Carol Hoffecker, Richard Waldron, et al., eds, New Sweden in America (Newark, 1995), 89–111 and 112–120, respectively.
11. A “hundred” was an administrative district within an English shire. The word originated during the medieval period, when each hundred contained approximately 100 families.
12. The traditional view was to see America as a land of opportunity for all emigrants. This view was especially popular in the nineteenth century when the examples of Andrew Carnegie and others were regularly cited. More recently the tendency has been to emphasize that only the lucky few made such progress, even in the earliest years when the social and economic structures were fluid. See Lois Green Carr and Russell R. Menard, “Immigration and Opportunity: The Freedman in Early Colonial Maryland,” in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds, The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society (Chapel Hill, 1979), 206–42.
13. Until 40 years ago the structure of the population in the Chesapeake was totally overlooked because historians limited their investigations to evidence from the small, literate part of the population. Since the late 1960s, the availability of computers and new statistical methods have allowed early colonial society to be reconstituted using hitherto ignored parish registers, tax lists, wills, conveyances, and account books. See Russell R. Menard, “Immigrants and Their Increase: The Process of Population Growth in Early Colonial Maryland,” in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds, Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland (Baltimore, 1977); Lorena S. Walsh, “‘Till Death Us Do Part’: Marriage and Family in Seventeenth-Century Maryland,” in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds, The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society (Chapel Hill, 1979); Gloria L. Main, Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650–1720 (Princeton, 1982); and Russell R. Menard, Economy and Society in Early Maryland (New York, 1985). Similar problems were experienced in Virginia: see Chapter 7, section 1.
14. It is estimated that 378,000 emigrants went from the British Isles to America before 1700, of which 223,000 went to the Caribbean. Henry A. Gemery, “Emigration from the British Isles to the New World,” Research in Economic History, 5 (1980), 179–231, and “Markets for Migrants: English Indentured Servitude and Emigration in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” in P. C. Emmer, ed., Colonialism and Migration: Indentured Labour Before and After Slavery (Dordrecht, 1986).
15. Historians have traditionally thought Dutch merchants supplied the capital for developing sugar plantations. For the argument that most capital in fact came from English sources, see Larry Gragg, Englishmen Transplanted: The English Colonization of Barbados, 1627–1660 (Oxford, 2003).
16. For the comparison between Brazilian and English and French West Indian plantation regimes, see Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800 (London, 1997), ch. 8.
Chapter 6
The Restoration Era
1658 Oliver Cromwell dies.
1660 The English monarchy is restored under Charles II. The first Navigation Act enumerates exports from the colonies.
1662 Charters are confirmed for Rhode Island and Connecticut.
1663 The second Navigation Act regulates exports to the colonies. A proprietary grant is issued to the Carolinas.
1664 A royal commission investigates New England. New Netherland is captured by the English in the Second Dutch War.
1665 The Duke's Laws are issued for New York.
1666 Much of London is destroyed in the Great Fire.
1669 The Fundamental Constitutions are drawn up for the Carolinas.
1670 Old Charles Town is founded. Charter granted to Hudson's Bay Company for trade north of Québec.
1672–4 Third Dutch War
1673 The third Navigation Act regulates intercolonial trade.
1676 Kahnawake reserve established for Catholic Mohawks near Montréal.
1677 Culpepper's rising takes place in North Carolina. Governor Andros negotiates the Covenant Chain with the Iroquois.
1680 The Westo Indians in South Carolina are defeated. Charleston is moved to the junction of the Cooper and Ashley rivers.
1683 New York holds its first assembly and issues the Charter of Liberties.
1 The Return of Charles II
THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR turned the English political world upside down from 1642 to 1651, as supporters of the cause of Parliament waged war against supporters of the Stuart king Charles I. At stake were not only issues of church governance and religious orthodoxy but also the division of powers in the English Constitution, for Charles I had believed that the monarch had the personal power to rule and raise revenues for government operations without consulting Parliament. His opponents in Parliament insisted that they had the right to convene regardless of the King's wishes, as well as the right to approve all taxes. Parliament prevailed; Charles I was executed in 1649 and the country was ruled as a Commonwealth, with Oliver Cromwell as lord protector, from 1651 until his death in September 1658. Cromwell's son Richard succeeded him but soon proved unequal to the task of controlling the army and within 18 months it was clear that only the recall of the Stuart dynasty could save the country from anarchy. In the end the monarchy was restored and Charles II crowned as England's new king.
Charles II has traditionally been portrayed as the “merry monarch” of the Stuart dynasty. In contrast to his inflexible and haughty father, Charles I, he had a great sense of fun and a love of life, not to mention his mistresses, of whom Nell Gwyn was the best known. Easygoing and relaxed, the new king wanted above all to enjoy a quiet life politically after his 11 years as a refugee. His priorities at the outset of his reign would be to regain his authority, summon a new Parliament, and determine the religious settlement of England. The affairs of the North American colonies, whose population was still less than 80,000, were not paramount.
Nevertheless, the Civil War had raised numerous issues that would have to be resolved before the relationship between the colonies and the English government could be stabilized. First was the question of whether the colonial governments would recognize the new regime. Virginia and Maryland were generally f
avorable. Virginia had been strongly loyal to the Stuarts until the dispatch of the Claiborne–Bennett commission. The Maryland settlers were more divided, but the colony's affiliations were determined by its proprietor, who was firmly for the Crown. In the northern colonies the Restoration received a much cooler reception. Only Rhode Island, which was in need of friends, acted expeditiously, proclaiming Charles II king in October 1660. Elsewhere the various settlements delayed, weighing the dubious advantages of recognition against the likelihood of punishment should they fail to do so. The possible ramifications were enormous, as all acts passed by the English Commonwealth were likely to be overturned. It was not yet certain, however, that the monarchy's restoration would be permanent, and the penalties for a premature declaration might be severe. Thus Connecticut did not proclaim for the new monarch until March 1661; New Haven followed in June 1661. In August 1661, Massachusetts became the last settlement to recognize Charles II, though a loyal address had been sent privately the previous November.
A second issue would be the impact of England's religious settlement in the colonies. In England, the Church of England had been restored to its former position, complete with bishops and other symbols inimical to the Puritans, and it was soon clear that those who dissented would be penalized. The Corporation Act of 1661 prohibited all dissenters from holding office and the Act of Uniformity required all services to be conducted according to the Book of Common Prayer. In addition, the Conventicle Act fined dissenters for holding meetings, while the Five Mile Act effectively prohibited their ministers from entering any town. In New England, however, the applicability of these laws remained unclear. Charles II himself preferred a more tolerant stance towards dissenters, and in general it was the Crown, not Parliament, which regulated colonial affairs. Hence the only immediate effect of the Restoration on the relationship between government and church in the colonies was the royal instruction of September 1661 to cease the prosecution of Quakers. In the future Quaker offenders were to be sent to England for trial.
Most New England colonies, including Massachusetts, sent emissaries to England to express their loyalty. Rhode Island and Connecticut in addition took the opportunity to have their charters confirmed. It proved an expedient move, for in his formal response on colonial matters in April 1662 Charles II made only four relatively lenient demands. The first was that, while regicides were to be prosecuted, all other infractions of the laws were to be pardoned. Second, everyone was required to take an oath of allegiance and all laws derogatory to the royal authority were to be annulled. Third, anyone conforming to the Book of Common Prayer was to receive the sacrament. Lastly, “all freemen, of competent estates, not vicious in conversation, and orthodox in religion” were to have the vote.
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Plymouth quickly accepted these conditions. They harbored no participants involved in the execution of Charles I and were glad to take the oath of allegiance, since it merely reinforced the temporal authority of the king. Admission to the communion concerned only Anglicans, of whom there were very few, and there was nothing else in the royal instructions which undermined their existing religious arrangements.
Connecticut and Rhode Island were duly rewarded. Rhode Island had its grant of 1644 confirmed under the great seal; Connecticut was similarly granted a charter which conformed closely to its existing Fundamental Orders. Especially pleasing to the Connecticut government was the incorporation of New Haven as part of its grant, notwithstanding bitter protests from New Haven itself. New Haven may have been punished because it had concealed two of the regicide judges, William Goffe and Edward Whalley, and was slow to recognize Charles II.
The king made a similar offer to confirm Massachusetts' charter, but to no avail. The Massachusetts general court held the view that its existing grant endowed sufficient authority. Allegiance to the king merely meant not conspiring against him, nor aiding any foreign prince, nor harboring any fugitives from justice. Nothing more was required.
The slow response of Massachusetts and some other New England settlements led Charles II to renew his four demands in April 1664. This time he dispatched four commissioners to back them up. Compliance was urgent, since war with Holland was threatening. Indeed, the commissioners were to travel as part of a force for the capture of New Netherland. The tone of their instructions was conciliatory, since Charles II wanted New England's help against the Dutch. The commissioners, therefore, were to reassure the colonists that their various churches would be respected and, indeed, were told privately not to listen to self-appointed friends of the Church of England, who might stir up animosity. Their main objective was merely to secure the “obedience and loyalty” of the New England colonies, which could best be done if the Crown had a say in the nomination of their governors and militia officers.
The commissioners, led by Colonel Richard Nicholls, duly visited the several settlements. All except Massachusetts were anxious to show that they had conformed to the king's four points of April 1662. When the commissioners arrived at Plymouth, its leaders raised the question of a new charter, explaining that the colony had been too poor to send a special mission to London. They then produced their old grant from the Council of New England. The commissioners agreed to forward this and then suggested that Plymouth name three men from whom the king might select a governor. This offer was politely declined, though with great protestations of loyalty.
The commissioners' hope that the conduct of the other New England colonies would make Massachusetts more compliant was dashed in October 1664, when the general court actually petitioned the king to recall the commission. The Puritan leaders reiterated that the existing charter had given them permission to go into the wilderness at their own expense to govern themselves and practice their religion. If this freedom of worship was not respected, they might have to move to another jurisdiction, by which they meant that of Holland. The Massachusetts Puritans' only concession was to enact a new franchise law in August 1664. From now on, property with a rental value of 10 shillings would qualify an individual for freemanship and thus the right to vote, provided a certificate from their minister confirmed that the person was “orthodox in religion.” While the royal intention was to allow Anglicans to participate in affairs, this new law was clearly designed to do the exact opposite by keeping the saints in control.
Thus Massachusetts remained obdurate on all the points specified by Charles II. The commissioners had been authorized to hear appeals from the local courts, but the magistrates refused to acknowledge their authority, affirming that “the general court was the supremest judicatory.” Another cause for disquiet was the Massachusetts Book of General Lawes and Libertyes which contained not a single reference to the king. The commissioners recommended that the king's name be substituted for “commonwealth” and similar titles. The commissioners also recognized that the new freemanship law was a sham, since only three persons in a hundred had ratable property of 10 shillings; church membership was still the real criterion for participation in the colony's affairs.
Earlier the general court had ordered the New Hampshire settlements not to cooperate with the commissioners during their visit there. The commissioners were further angered by the knowledge that Whalley and Goffe had passed through Boston with much feasting, even though they had been declared traitors. Clearly, they felt, unless a firm stand was taken the province would continue to produce radical dissenters and rebels.
The commissioners noted that the general court set much store by the possibility that the Dutch war might produce political upheaval in England, and that the court was quite likely to adopt the tactic of writing letters and doing nothing.
The commissioners were proved right. First, they themselves were captured on the voyage home by a Dutch warship, so were unable to make their report until December 1665. When Charles II then offered the colony one last chance to explain itself, Massachusetts simply stalled. Such defiance might have seemed foolhardy, but although the Dutch war had not produced the hoped-f
or political deliverance, Charles II had too many other concerns to enforce his demands. London was devastated first by the plague and a year later by the Great Fire, while in Europe the ambitions of Louis XIV of France were of increasing concern. For the moment Massachusetts was able to do as it pleased, even annexing Maine, though the commissioners had arranged for that area's settlements to be administered independently.
In reality the Crown still lacked the machinery of government to enforce its decisions. At the start of his reign Charles II had created a council of trade, but its members invariably had other responsibilities, and the body received little money for bureaucratic support. Provided the New England colonists acknowledged Charles II, recognized the laws of trade, and did not harbor regicides, they could still expect to remain self-governing.
2 Mercantilism: The Navigation Laws
Although the regulation of the colonies was not an initial priority for the new government, it was becoming increasingly clear by 1660 that England's role in the world was changing, and the concerns of its government were changing along with it.
The material benefits of owning colonies had been a prime reason for chartering the first trading companies. Attention had initially been fixed on the discovery of precious metals, a phase usually associated with bullionism, an economic theory that defined a nation's wealth in terms of the amount of precious metals it possessed. But with England's growing involvement in global trade, theories about the purposes of empire began to be reframed. By the 1620s it was being argued that the key to wealth and national power was a favorable balance of trade, which could best be achieved by monopolizing the production and export of staple commodities like sugar and tobacco. Exports of these commodities would generate profits for the planters and the English merchants who re-exported them, and then taxes on their profits would generate revenues for the government.
Colonial America Page 22
