In my post of January 14, 2010 called Who Was Asser Levy I wrote about the story of how the Shearith Israel Congregation came to become the first Jewish congregation in New Amsterdam.
The story shows that the congregation was formed due to the emigration of 23 Jewish refugees from the former Dutch colony of Nieuw Holland in 1654 to New Amsterdam. Their arrival put them at odds with the Dutch Director-General of New Amsterdam Peter Stuyvesant. Though Stuyvesant tried to have these refugees expelled from his colony, his attempts were rebuked by the Dutch West India company and by 1657 the Jewish refugees won full rights within the colony. Ok, that's the story in a nutshell. As with any historical event, there is always more than meets the eye and my research on the matter has dug up a more elaborate scenario. So here goes.
It is accurate that the Dutch colony of Nieuw Holland was taken over by the Portuguese under General Francisco Barreto de Menezes. Menezes gave the order that those who did not want to live under Portuguese rule in the colony had six months to leave. In order to facilitate the evacuation, Menezes provides the colony's refugees with sixteen ships that were to sail from Nieuw Holland to Holland. In making the journey to Europe, many of the ships faced peril in the form of dangerous conditions and pirates. Many of these ships did not make it to Europe. The ship that carried the Jewish refugees was one such ship.
Here is where I find different branches to the story. In my original post, I said that the Jewish refugees arrived in New Amsterdam during the month of September of 1654 aboard the ship the Sainte Catherine. Ana Domingos and Paulo Mendes Pinto in their article Tracing the History of the First Jews in the US state the following:
One of the boats was attacked by pirates in Cuba, but the lives of twenty-three Portuguese Jews were saved by a French ship, the Sainthe Catherine...On September 7, 1654, the Sainthe Catherine arrived in Dutch waters at the port of the city of Nieuw Amsterdam. Its captain, Jacques de la Motthe, said farewell to the ones he saved, leaving behind the first Jewish settlers in North America.
Well that was very nice of Captain de la Motthe. But like I said before, there is always more than meets the eye. Abraham J. Peck in his article Creating Jewish New York sheds more light on Captain de la Motthe's motives:
The generally accepted history is that in late August or early September of 1654, a French ship--called variously the St. Catherine or St. Charles--captained by Jacques de la Motthe, arrived in the harbor of New Amsterdam with a number of Dutch refugees, including 23 Jewish men, women, and children, presumably from Recife. The surviving docu mentary references have given rise to a number of theories regarding the route and circumstances that brought these pioneers to Peter Stuyvesant's small village.
At least two Jews met the boat: Solomon Pieters or Petersen, who appears briefly in the Dutch records as advocate for the Jews in their first dealings with Stuyvesant; and Jacob Barsimson, an Ashkenazi trader who had just arrived in the colony. Captain de la Motthe sued his Jewish passengers for the promised fare, and when they were unable to meet his demands, two heads of family were imprisoned as hostages until funds to pay the debt could be obtained from relatives in Amsterdam.
To further shed light to the arrival of the Jewish refugees to New Amsterdam, I found the following from the passenger logs from the St. Charles on Olivetreegeneology.com:
St. Charles 1654
The Dutch administrations in Brazil, which succeeded that of Gov. Maurice, were inefficient and corrupt. The Portuguese revolted and the Dutch finally capitulated January 25, 1654. They were given three months in which either to depart or to embrace the Roman Catholic religion and become Portuguese citizens. In April 1654, there was a fleet of sixteen Dutch ships in the Harbor of Recif to evacuate the Dutch Protestants together with a small number of Dutch and Portuguese Jews.
On 7 Sept. 1654 Capt. Jacques de la Motthe/Motte, skipper of the St. Charles, appeared in court with a petition. He required payment for freight and board 'of the Jews whom he brought here from Cape St. Anthony". de la Motte states that "the Netherlanders who came over with them" are not included in his suit and that they have paid him. Solomon Pietersen "a Jew" appears and says that "900 guilders of the 2500 are paid and that there are 23 souls, big and little [meaning adults and children] who must pay equally"
[Source: The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini, edited by Berthold Fernow in 7 volumes. reprint Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc. Baltimore. 1976 Vol. I Minutes of the Court of Burgomasters and Schepens 1653-1655 p 240]
The names I have found so far (using primary records only) are:
Abram Israel
David Israel
Asser Levy
Moses Ambrosius
Judicq de Mereda
It is not clear if Solomon Pietersen was on board the ship so I have not added his name to the list.
Another passenger (non-Jewish) was Dominie Joannes Polhemius
From what can be pieced together about them, it seem probable that the twenty-three consisted of six family heads---four men (with their wives) and two other women who in all likelihood were widows, since they were counted separately---and thirteen young people. The heads of the families were Asser Levy, Abraham Israel De Piza (or Dias), David Israel Faro, Mose Lumbosco, and ---the two women---Judith (or Judica) Mercado) (or De Mercado, or de Mereda) and Ricke (or Rachel) Nunes. [Source: The Grandees: America's Sephardic Elite by Stephen Birmingham]
Leo Hershkowitz in his article By Chance or Choice: Jews in New Amsterdam 1654 adds the following to the argument:
In late summer 1654, two ships anchored in New Amsterdam roadstead. One, the Peereboom (Peartree), arrived from Amsterdam on or about August 22. The other, a Dutch vessel named the St. [Sint] Catrina, is often referred to as the French warship St. Catherine or St. Charles. Yet, only the name St. Catrina appears in original records, having entered a few days before September 7 from the West Indies. The Peereboom, Jan Pietersz Ketel, skipper, left Amsterdam July 8 for London, soon after peace negotiations in April concluded the first Anglo-Dutch War (1652–1654). Following a short stay, the Peereboom sailed for New Amsterdam, where passengers and cargo were ferried ashore, as there were no suitable docks or wharves. Among those who disembarked were Jacob Barsimon, probably together with Asser Levy and Solomon Pietersen. These were the first known Jews to set foot in the Dutch settlement, and with them begins the history of that community in New York.
So what does all this mean. I believe that the arrival of the Jewish refugees to New Amsterdam was much more complicated than I posted. The fact that the refugees and their possessions were basically held for ransom by the Captain of the St Catherine. The story of the battle between Captain de la Motthe and the Jewish refugees was documented in detail in The Green Bag: An Entertaining Magazine for Lawyers 1901. Lee M. Friedman documents in his article The Petition of Jacques de la Motthe (Volume XIII No 8 August 1901 Pg 396-398) the attempts of Captain de la Motthe to receive payment of the Jewish refugees. He attempted to do so by means of filing suit against the refugees and later through the attempted sale of their possessions by public auction. In the end, the refugees appealed to the better nature of the crew of the Saint Catherine. The crew heard the pleas of the Jewish representative Solomon Pietersen and decided to wait for their payment until their return to New Amsterdam on a later voyage.
It was at this point that Stuyvesant attempted to have the refugees removed from the colony by his appealing to the West India Company. His appeal was rejected due to the Jewish influence within the West India Company and the belief that the colony was there to make money. As the saying goes: The rest is history.
FH.
For Further Reading:
- Click Here to read the Ana Domingos and Paulo Mendes Pinto article Tracing the History of the First Jews in the US
- Click Here to access Abraham J. Peck's article Creating Jewish New York
- Click Here to read the ship's log for the St. Charles from Olivetreegeneology.com
- Click Here to read the Leo Hershkowitz article By Chance or Choice: Jews in New Amsterdam 1654 in PDF format
- Click Here to access the Google Books Digitized Version of the The Green Bag: An Entertaining Magazine for Lawyers 1901. Lee M. Friedman article on the Petition of Jacques de la Motthe, pg 396-398
Showing posts with label Peter Stuyvesant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Stuyvesant. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Who Was Asser Levy
I remember, as a child,driving around with my dad throughout New York City. To be honest, I really can't remember what we were doing or where we were coming from. But I do specifically remember a certain route he always took to get to the FDR Drive. My dad would drive east along 23rd Street then take a left on to the FDR Drive service road which he would take to the highway. There was always a street along the way that always caught my eye. The name of that street was Asser Levy Place. I always wondered who Asser Levy was. Well, here he is.
Asser Levy's fate was intertwined with that of the Quakers who I had mentioned in a previous post on the Flushing Remonstrance of 12/27/1657. How are they related you may ask. Well, in the same way that the Dutch Director-General of New Amsterdam Peter Stuyvesant opposed the Quakers in the New Amsterdam colony, Stuyvesant opposed the Jews. But before I get to the religious conflict in New Amsterdam, allow me to shed some light on another conflict concerning another Dutch colony: Nieuw Holland (Dutch Brazil).
The colony of Nieuw Holland was located along parts of Northeastern and East of current day Brazil. Settled by the Dutch West India Company the colony was one that promoted religious tolerance since the aim of the colony (as those of the other Dutch West India Colonies) was to make money. This religious tolerance attracted a large number of Jews, especially Sephardic Jews (those from Spain) to the area. To highlight how the Jewish population settled in the area, it is believed that The Kahal Zur Israel Synagogue is the oldest Synagogue in the of the Americas, located in the town of Recife. This Reuters article from Haaretz.com offers more information on the Kahal Zur Israel Synagogue. Click here.
Relative peace lasted in the area until it was taken over by the Portuguese in January of 1654. A final treaty was signed on August 6, 1661 giving Portugal total control of the former Dutch colonies in Brazil. Click here for more information on the Treaty of the Hague 1661. The thought of the Catholic Portuguese taking over brought back images of religious persecution and violence against the Jews. This caused a small number of Jewish citizens to flee from Nieuw Holland. The Jews boarded a ship called the Sainte Catherine which was headed to the Dutch colony of Nieuw Amsterdam.
You would think that going from one Dutch colony to another would be an easy transition. Unfortunately for the Jewish refugees, the colony that they would arrive to on September 1654 was controlled by Peter Stuyvesant, a fiercely religious member of the Dutch Reformed Church. A group of the size that made up the Jewish refugees (23 in total) needed permission from the local authorities to take up residence. Stuyvesant refused, echoing many of the Anti-Semitic rhetoric that would be heard centuries later to describe the Jews: Usury, Deceitful, Infectious, Blasphemers of the name of Christ to name a few. Since Stuyvesant needed approval from his superiors in Amsterdam, he sent his objections to the Jewish refugees in writing. Not willing to remain passive, the Jews also sent their own letter to Amsterdam. They directed their request to remain in Nieuw Amsterdam to the Jewish community of Amsterdam.
The Jewish community enjoyed religious and economic freedom in Amsterdam and used their influence in Amsterdam to file a petition to the Dutch West India Company. It should be noted, that many a shareholder in the Dutch West India Company was Jewish who made his or her profits engaging in trade under the Dutch banner throughout the world.
As how it would be repeated with the Quakers, the Dutch West India Company went against its Director-General Stuyvesant and decreed that the Jewish refugees could travel in and out of Nieuw Amsterdam, engage in trade and live in the colony. These rights came with restrictions:
- The Jews could not train with the guard or militia. A special tax would replace military service by the Jews
- Barred from trading outside the colony
- Barred from building permanent houses and symbols of their faith
- The Jews must care for their own poor. The poor Jews would not be wards of the colony
Stuyvesant used all the force at his disposal to enforce the rules the company placed on the Jewish refugees. So, how does Asser Levy fit into this whole scenario.
By 1655, Levy became the most prominent member of the Jewish refugees in Nieuw Amsterdam and continued the fight for freedom in the colony. Through his efforts, the restrictions placed against the refugees by the Dutch West India Company were lifted:
- The Jews could now join the militia and not have to pay the special tax
- They were allowed to trade within the Hudson and Delaware Valleys
- They were allowed to build houses and places of worship, which they did so along Whitehall Street
Asser Levy's efforts earned the Jews the right to citizenship in 1657 allowing them full rights as burghers within the colony. These 23 Jewish refugees from Nieuw Holland would become the first permanent Jewish settlement in North America. As for Asser Levy he would go on to become New York's first kosher butcher ands a founding member of Shearith Israel, the country’s first Jewish congregation. The street to the west of the recreation center bearing his name was named after Levy by local law in 1954. What's ironic is that the playground and recreation center which bears Asser Levy's name is only a short block from the housing complex that bears the name of Peter Stuyvesant (Stuyvesant town). To see the area on Google Maps, Click Here. Even along the city streets of modern day New York, they are not that far from each other.
For Further Reading:
Hasia R. Diner The Jews of the United States, 1654-2000 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2004);
Russell R. Shorto The Island at the Center of the World (New York, Vintage Books, 2005)
Asser Levy's fate was intertwined with that of the Quakers who I had mentioned in a previous post on the Flushing Remonstrance of 12/27/1657. How are they related you may ask. Well, in the same way that the Dutch Director-General of New Amsterdam Peter Stuyvesant opposed the Quakers in the New Amsterdam colony, Stuyvesant opposed the Jews. But before I get to the religious conflict in New Amsterdam, allow me to shed some light on another conflict concerning another Dutch colony: Nieuw Holland (Dutch Brazil).
The colony of Nieuw Holland was located along parts of Northeastern and East of current day Brazil. Settled by the Dutch West India Company the colony was one that promoted religious tolerance since the aim of the colony (as those of the other Dutch West India Colonies) was to make money. This religious tolerance attracted a large number of Jews, especially Sephardic Jews (those from Spain) to the area. To highlight how the Jewish population settled in the area, it is believed that The Kahal Zur Israel Synagogue is the oldest Synagogue in the of the Americas, located in the town of Recife. This Reuters article from Haaretz.com offers more information on the Kahal Zur Israel Synagogue. Click here.
Relative peace lasted in the area until it was taken over by the Portuguese in January of 1654. A final treaty was signed on August 6, 1661 giving Portugal total control of the former Dutch colonies in Brazil. Click here for more information on the Treaty of the Hague 1661. The thought of the Catholic Portuguese taking over brought back images of religious persecution and violence against the Jews. This caused a small number of Jewish citizens to flee from Nieuw Holland. The Jews boarded a ship called the Sainte Catherine which was headed to the Dutch colony of Nieuw Amsterdam.
You would think that going from one Dutch colony to another would be an easy transition. Unfortunately for the Jewish refugees, the colony that they would arrive to on September 1654 was controlled by Peter Stuyvesant, a fiercely religious member of the Dutch Reformed Church. A group of the size that made up the Jewish refugees (23 in total) needed permission from the local authorities to take up residence. Stuyvesant refused, echoing many of the Anti-Semitic rhetoric that would be heard centuries later to describe the Jews: Usury, Deceitful, Infectious, Blasphemers of the name of Christ to name a few. Since Stuyvesant needed approval from his superiors in Amsterdam, he sent his objections to the Jewish refugees in writing. Not willing to remain passive, the Jews also sent their own letter to Amsterdam. They directed their request to remain in Nieuw Amsterdam to the Jewish community of Amsterdam.
The Jewish community enjoyed religious and economic freedom in Amsterdam and used their influence in Amsterdam to file a petition to the Dutch West India Company. It should be noted, that many a shareholder in the Dutch West India Company was Jewish who made his or her profits engaging in trade under the Dutch banner throughout the world.
As how it would be repeated with the Quakers, the Dutch West India Company went against its Director-General Stuyvesant and decreed that the Jewish refugees could travel in and out of Nieuw Amsterdam, engage in trade and live in the colony. These rights came with restrictions:
- The Jews could not train with the guard or militia. A special tax would replace military service by the Jews
- Barred from trading outside the colony
- Barred from building permanent houses and symbols of their faith
- The Jews must care for their own poor. The poor Jews would not be wards of the colony
Stuyvesant used all the force at his disposal to enforce the rules the company placed on the Jewish refugees. So, how does Asser Levy fit into this whole scenario.
By 1655, Levy became the most prominent member of the Jewish refugees in Nieuw Amsterdam and continued the fight for freedom in the colony. Through his efforts, the restrictions placed against the refugees by the Dutch West India Company were lifted:
- The Jews could now join the militia and not have to pay the special tax
- They were allowed to trade within the Hudson and Delaware Valleys
- They were allowed to build houses and places of worship, which they did so along Whitehall Street
Asser Levy's efforts earned the Jews the right to citizenship in 1657 allowing them full rights as burghers within the colony. These 23 Jewish refugees from Nieuw Holland would become the first permanent Jewish settlement in North America. As for Asser Levy he would go on to become New York's first kosher butcher ands a founding member of Shearith Israel, the country’s first Jewish congregation. The street to the west of the recreation center bearing his name was named after Levy by local law in 1954. What's ironic is that the playground and recreation center which bears Asser Levy's name is only a short block from the housing complex that bears the name of Peter Stuyvesant (Stuyvesant town). To see the area on Google Maps, Click Here. Even along the city streets of modern day New York, they are not that far from each other.
For Further Reading:
Hasia R. Diner The Jews of the United States, 1654-2000 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2004);
Russell R. Shorto The Island at the Center of the World (New York, Vintage Books, 2005)
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Flushing Remonstrance 12/27/1657
Our basic rights seem to be in the center of today’s political discussions. Such rights as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Privacy seem to be constantly under attack in the current climate in this country. But imagine a time where there were no rights for religious worship. There was only one church and one man mandated that it was that particular church that was to be worshipped or else. This happened a little more than 350 years ago. But instead of allowing it to happen, a group of individuals decided to stop taking the abuse and stand up for themselves. The outcome of their actions led to the basic foundations that we now find within The Bill of Rights. These individuals were part of the Society of Friends, or as we know them today: The Quakers.
The Society of Friends was established in England by George Fox in the year 1652. The Quakers (as they were negatively called but grew to accept the moniker) followed a simple life that involved honesty, compassion and equality for all. It was through their actions that they chose to enlighten the newly “discovered” world to their beliefs. It was in the City of Boston that the Quakers met their toughest resistance.
In the Pilgrim stronghold of Boston, the Quakers were regularly ridiculed and persecuted for their beliefs. It is ironic to note, that the Pilgrims, who were also persecuted for their religious beliefs in Europe, found the freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit in Holland, but were unable to extend the same courtesy to the Quakers in Massachusetts. It was in 1657, that the Quakers saw an opportunity to practice their faith in peace. Henry Townsend who lived in Vlissingen (Current Day Flushing, New York) offered safe passage for those Quakers who wanted to leave any place that they had been persecuted. The plan worked well until it caught the eye of the Dutch Director-General of New Amsterdam, Peter Stuyvesant, who himself was a religious man but of the Dutch Reformed Church.
Peter Stuyvesant was brought in by The Dutch West Indies company to provide stable leadership to their fledgling business colony. Before Stuyvesant’s arrival, the colony was plagued by infighting between colonists, massive drinking and unruliness among the natives and the colonists. With Stuyvesant’s arrival in 1647 he attempted to being about order by closing brothels, enforcing religious observation on Sundays and of curbing the sale of arms and tobacco to the natives. It was with the enforcement of the religious observation that brought the Quakers into direct conflict with Stuyvesant.
Though the Dutch West Indies Company had no official rule about what religious practices were allowed, Stuyvesant took it upon himself to act on behalf of the Dutch Reformed Church. So when Townsend started to house his fellow Quakers, Stuyvesant fined him and had him shipped back to Holland. It was because of this that a group of Quakers got together and drafted a document that would be now known as The Flushing Remonstrance. Signed on December 27, 1657 it was within this document that they listed their displeasure with the persecution of their faith and how they believed it was their right to practice their faith, as they believed. They signed the document and had it delivered to Stuyvesant himself. This further caused Stuyvesant to go against the Quakers.
It wasn’t until the year 1662 that things came to a head. John Bowne went against the decrees and rules of Stuyvesant by continuing to house Quakers and allowing them to conduct their services under his roof. Stuyvesant had Bowne arrested in his own home and when he refused to renounce his faith, he was jailed and tortured for 3 months before being exiled to Holland.
Upon his arrival in Holland, Bowne pled his case to the directors of the Dutch West Indies Company. The directors acquitted Bowne of all charges and allowed him to return to New Amsterdam with specific rules for Stuyvesant to allow all people in the colony to practice their religious beliefs free from persecution. The rule stayed in place even when the British taking control of New Amsterdam a year later. Here is the official text of the Flushing Remonstrance:
December 27, 1657
Right Honorable,
You have been pleased to send up unto us a certain prohibition or command that we should not receive or entertain any of those people called Quakers because they are supposed to be by some, seducers of the people. For our part we cannot condemn them in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, to punish, banish or persecute them for out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
We desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand and fall to his own Master. Wee are bounde by the Law to Doe good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith. And though for the present we seem to be unsensible of the law and the Law giver, yet when death and the Law assault us, if we have our advocate to seeke, who shall plead for us in this case of conscience betwixt God and our own souls; the powers of this world can neither attack us, neither excuse us, for if God justifye who can condemn and if God condemn there is none can justify.
And for those jealousies and suspicions which some have of them, that they are destructive unto Magistracy and Minssereye, that can not bee, for the magistrate hath the sword in his hand and the minister hath the sword in his hand, as witnesse those two great examples which all magistrates and ministers are to follow, Moses and Christ, whom God raised up maintained and defended against all the enemies both of flesh and spirit; and therefore that which is of God will stand, and that which is of man will come to nothing. And as the Lord hath taught Moses or the civil power to give an outward liberty in the state by the law written in his heart designed for the good of all, and can truly judge who is good, who is civil, who is true and who is false, and can pass definite sentence of life or death against that man which rises up against the fundamental law of the States General; soe he hath made his ministers a savor of life unto life, and a savor of death unto death.
The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks, and Egyptians, as they are considered the sonnes of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. And because our Saviour saith it is impossible but that offenses will come, but woe unto him by whom they cometh, our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title he appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as we desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State; for our Savior saith this is the law and the prophets. Therefore, if any of these said persons come in love unto us, wee cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences. And in this we are true subjects both of Church and State, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble subjects, the inhabitants of Vlishing.
Written this 27th day of December, in the year 1657 , by mee
Edward Heart, Clericus
Additional Signers
Tobias Feake
Nathaniell Tue
The marke of William Noble
Nicholas Blackford
William Thorne, Seignior
The marke of Micah Tue
The marke of William Thorne, Jr.
The marke of Philip Ud
Edward Tarne
Robert Field, senior
John Store
Robert Field, junior
Nathaniel Hefferd
Nich Colas Parsell
Benjamin Hubbard
Michael Milner
The marke of William Pidgion
Henry Townsend
The marke of George Clere
George Wright
Elias Doughtie
John Foard
Antonie Feild
Henry Semtell
Richard Stocton
Edward Hart
Edward Griffine
John Mastine
John Townesend
Edward Farrington
The Society of Friends was established in England by George Fox in the year 1652. The Quakers (as they were negatively called but grew to accept the moniker) followed a simple life that involved honesty, compassion and equality for all. It was through their actions that they chose to enlighten the newly “discovered” world to their beliefs. It was in the City of Boston that the Quakers met their toughest resistance.
In the Pilgrim stronghold of Boston, the Quakers were regularly ridiculed and persecuted for their beliefs. It is ironic to note, that the Pilgrims, who were also persecuted for their religious beliefs in Europe, found the freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit in Holland, but were unable to extend the same courtesy to the Quakers in Massachusetts. It was in 1657, that the Quakers saw an opportunity to practice their faith in peace. Henry Townsend who lived in Vlissingen (Current Day Flushing, New York) offered safe passage for those Quakers who wanted to leave any place that they had been persecuted. The plan worked well until it caught the eye of the Dutch Director-General of New Amsterdam, Peter Stuyvesant, who himself was a religious man but of the Dutch Reformed Church.
Peter Stuyvesant was brought in by The Dutch West Indies company to provide stable leadership to their fledgling business colony. Before Stuyvesant’s arrival, the colony was plagued by infighting between colonists, massive drinking and unruliness among the natives and the colonists. With Stuyvesant’s arrival in 1647 he attempted to being about order by closing brothels, enforcing religious observation on Sundays and of curbing the sale of arms and tobacco to the natives. It was with the enforcement of the religious observation that brought the Quakers into direct conflict with Stuyvesant.
Though the Dutch West Indies Company had no official rule about what religious practices were allowed, Stuyvesant took it upon himself to act on behalf of the Dutch Reformed Church. So when Townsend started to house his fellow Quakers, Stuyvesant fined him and had him shipped back to Holland. It was because of this that a group of Quakers got together and drafted a document that would be now known as The Flushing Remonstrance. Signed on December 27, 1657 it was within this document that they listed their displeasure with the persecution of their faith and how they believed it was their right to practice their faith, as they believed. They signed the document and had it delivered to Stuyvesant himself. This further caused Stuyvesant to go against the Quakers.
It wasn’t until the year 1662 that things came to a head. John Bowne went against the decrees and rules of Stuyvesant by continuing to house Quakers and allowing them to conduct their services under his roof. Stuyvesant had Bowne arrested in his own home and when he refused to renounce his faith, he was jailed and tortured for 3 months before being exiled to Holland.
Upon his arrival in Holland, Bowne pled his case to the directors of the Dutch West Indies Company. The directors acquitted Bowne of all charges and allowed him to return to New Amsterdam with specific rules for Stuyvesant to allow all people in the colony to practice their religious beliefs free from persecution. The rule stayed in place even when the British taking control of New Amsterdam a year later. Here is the official text of the Flushing Remonstrance:
December 27, 1657
Right Honorable,
You have been pleased to send up unto us a certain prohibition or command that we should not receive or entertain any of those people called Quakers because they are supposed to be by some, seducers of the people. For our part we cannot condemn them in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, to punish, banish or persecute them for out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
We desire therefore in this case not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand and fall to his own Master. Wee are bounde by the Law to Doe good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith. And though for the present we seem to be unsensible of the law and the Law giver, yet when death and the Law assault us, if we have our advocate to seeke, who shall plead for us in this case of conscience betwixt God and our own souls; the powers of this world can neither attack us, neither excuse us, for if God justifye who can condemn and if God condemn there is none can justify.
And for those jealousies and suspicions which some have of them, that they are destructive unto Magistracy and Minssereye, that can not bee, for the magistrate hath the sword in his hand and the minister hath the sword in his hand, as witnesse those two great examples which all magistrates and ministers are to follow, Moses and Christ, whom God raised up maintained and defended against all the enemies both of flesh and spirit; and therefore that which is of God will stand, and that which is of man will come to nothing. And as the Lord hath taught Moses or the civil power to give an outward liberty in the state by the law written in his heart designed for the good of all, and can truly judge who is good, who is civil, who is true and who is false, and can pass definite sentence of life or death against that man which rises up against the fundamental law of the States General; soe he hath made his ministers a savor of life unto life, and a savor of death unto death.
The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks, and Egyptians, as they are considered the sonnes of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. And because our Saviour saith it is impossible but that offenses will come, but woe unto him by whom they cometh, our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title he appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as we desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State; for our Savior saith this is the law and the prophets. Therefore, if any of these said persons come in love unto us, wee cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences. And in this we are true subjects both of Church and State, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble subjects, the inhabitants of Vlishing.
Written this 27th day of December, in the year 1657 , by mee
Edward Heart, Clericus
Additional Signers
Tobias Feake
Nathaniell Tue
The marke of William Noble
Nicholas Blackford
William Thorne, Seignior
The marke of Micah Tue
The marke of William Thorne, Jr.
The marke of Philip Ud
Edward Tarne
Robert Field, senior
John Store
Robert Field, junior
Nathaniel Hefferd
Nich Colas Parsell
Benjamin Hubbard
Michael Milner
The marke of William Pidgion
Henry Townsend
The marke of George Clere
George Wright
Elias Doughtie
John Foard
Antonie Feild
Henry Semtell
Richard Stocton
Edward Hart
Edward Griffine
John Mastine
John Townesend
Edward Farrington
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)