and sufficient title to those parts,) and require of them that, 1621. as well those ships, as their further prosecution of that plantation may be presently stayed."

1622.

the business.

him. Has an

Upon this, the ambassador engaged in ascertaining the February 5. facts of the case, "that about four or five years previously, Ambassador two companies of Amsterdam merchants began a trade to America, between 40° and 45°, to which they gave the names Facts ascerof New Netherland, North and South Sea, &c., and have tained by ever since continued to send vessels of 60 or 80 tons at most, interview. to fetch furs, which is all their trade," and have factors there trading with the savages; "but he cannot learn that any colony is as yet planted there, or intended to be." He, how- February 9. ever, had an interview with the States, and presented a Presents a memorial, dated February 9,1 of the subject of which they The result. pretended to be ignorant, but promised, on the 16th March, 1622, to write for information, "to the participants in the trade to New Netherlands." There is at present to be found no written evidence of the result, though a reply to it is incidentally referred to many years later.2

1623.

memorial.

peans to set

tle upon the

Delaware.

The West India Company having made arrangements to First attempt effect the objects of its charter of 1621, and as afterwards by Euroamplified, turned its attention, about this time, to planting a colony on the Delaware; and, with few exceptions, historians generally are agreed in fixing upon this year as the date of the first attempt made at a settlement on this river, by any European nation. A report of certain commissioners, in 1659, in making out a claim which they were then defending, indeed says, "that the river (Delaware) was, in the primitive times, possessed by the Dutch, and a colony planted on the western shore, within the mouth of the South Cape, called the Hoorekill to this day; the Dutch nation erecting there, and all over the country, their states arms, and a little fort; but after some time, they were all slain and murdered by the Indians, so that the possessions and propriety of this river, at the first, in its infancy, is sealed up with the blood of a great

1 See the Memorial in O'Call. vol. i. p. 97, from London Doc. vol. i. 22, 23. * See Brodhead's Address to N. Y. Hist. Soc. p. 24, 25, 26. London Doc. vol. i. p. 17, 19, 20, and Holl. Doc. vol. i. p. 17.

upon which this rests.

1623. many souls. After this, in the year 1623, the fort Nassau was built, about 15 leagues up the river, on the eastern shore." The circumstances here mentioned, so clearly point The evidence to another event, which occurred some years subsequently, as to produce a belief that the commissioners were, in order to strengthen their cause, induced to antedate the facts stated. It is mentioned, in the document before referred to, that Fort Nassau was built in 1624;2 and in another, that the West India Company took possession, in the year 1626, of the River Delaware, and built, or had built, two strongholds or forts, the largest about 16 miles (Dutch) up the river, on the eastern shore, called Nassau. With these exceptions, so far as we know, all the early and later writers agree. There is also the positive testimony of an Indian sachem, "that a skipper, named Cornelis, with one eye, or having a film on the eye, was the first who coming there, (to New Netherlands,) established himself on the South River."4

West India

ver, under

being his so

cond visit. He builds

Fort Nassau.

We feel therefore warranted, from these facts, to assume, until better evidence be produced, that 1623 was the date of the first European settlement on the river.

It has already been related, that in 1614, Captain Cornelis Expedition Jacobsen Mey visited this river on an exploring expedition, of the Dutch from Manhattan, where he parted with his companions, they Company to proceeding with a similar object in view, towards the north, Delaware Ri- and that they all afterwards returned to Holland. To what Captain Mey, distance Mey then ascended the Delaware, is, we believe, unknown, but he was, probably, in consequence of that visit, now considered the most suitable person to conduct another expedition, which the company were then contemplating to send thither. An agreement having been entered into, on the 21st of June, between the managers and the adventurers of the West India Company, with the approbation of the States-General, and they having selected a ship called the "New Netherlands," Captain Mey and Adriaen Jorisz Tienpont were appointed directors of this expedition. All necessary preparations of colonists, provisions, and all other means for planting a colony being made, Captain Mey took his de

June 21.

1 Report of Heermans and Waldron, in N. Y. Hist. Coll. vol. iii. p. 375.

2 Report of XIX. O'Call. i. p. 418.

3 Holl. Doc. vol. viii. p. 59 to 65.

4 Holl. Doc. vol. viii. p. 73, translated by O'Call. vol. i. p. 100.

5 See this agreement at length, in Laet's Jaerl. Verh. Hazard's Hist. Coll. vol. i. p. 175; also in O'Call. vol. i. p. 410.

parture for the Delaware, then called Zuydt, South, or Prince 1623. Hendrick's River, which they reached in safety. Passing between Capes May and Cornelis, which, either now, or on the former visit, received his name, he ascended the river about 15 leagues from its mouth, where, on the eastern shore, he immediately commenced the erection of Fort Nassau, as well for security against the Indians, as for a trading post with them. It is said to have been built of logs, and “that a garrison was continually maintained there."

opinions as

to the local

ity of Fort

Nassau.

There is more difficulty, at this remote period, in deter- Various mining the locality of this fort, than in settling the date of its erection, as no vestiges remain to indicate the precise spot, and tradition can afford but little aid in deciding the question. Most historians, however, agree that it was in the neighbourhood of the present Gloucester Point, and at the mouth of the most northerly branch of Timber Creek, then called Sassackon.1 Various names have been assigned to it, or its vicinity, as Hermaomessing, Arme Wamix, Tekoke, Techaacho, Arwames, &c. The old maps that we have consulted, place the fort between the two branches of Timber Creek; a map in a late work has it at the north of the creek.3 It is referred to in various documents and books: one says, "it was 15 leagues up the river;"" about five or six miles (Dutch) above Fort Christina;" "about 16 miles up the river, on the eastern shore;" "Beaver Rede on Schuylkill is said to be down the river from Fort Nassau."5 Another says, "it is about a mile south of a purchase he had made north of it," which is supposed to be a part of the present site of Philadelphia. From all these various statements, it is evident that there can be but a few miles difference between the true position of Fort Nassau, and that generally assigned to it; and here we are disposed to let it rest, until further investigations and facts are produced to alter it. The great changes in the river, by currents, embankments, &c., render almost hopeless any attempt to discover more accurately the exact locality; still it is desirable to do so, if practicable. How long Captain Mey continued at Fort Nassau, why he

Mickle's "Reminiscences of Gloucester," p. 3. Mulford's N. J. p. 49. 2 Ibid. Campanius, Clay, Barker, Gordon, &c.

3 Ferris's Orig. Settlements, p. 310.

Report before referred to in N. Y. Hist. Soc. vol. iii. p. 375.

Holl. Doc. vol. viii. p. 32 to 51.

Hudde's Report, N. Y. Hist. Soc. vol. iii. N. S., p. 428.

B

Uncertain how long

Mey conti

Various

statements of the occupa

1623. departed, what were his operations there, and whither he went, are to us unknown. The probability is, he for some time carried on a trade with the natives, for skins or furs, which appears to have been one great object of the colony. It is asserted, that when he left, he bore with him the affecnued there. tion and esteem of the natives. It is the opinion of some writers, that, for a season at least, after his departure, the garrison was removed, and the savages took possession, but that a trade in skins was occasionally carried on with the natives from Manhattan. In 1633, the fort was visited by De Vries, who says, that the Dutch families had left it, and that it was in the possession, then, of a few savages, who wanted to barter furs;1 and yet we have an account, in the same year, that Arent Corsen was commissary,2 with a clerk, and that, by direction of the directors, he made a purchase on the Schuylkill, for another fort. It is certain that the administration of Van Twiller commenced in this year, and tion and de- the probability is, that learning the condition of Fort Nassau, Fort Nassau. one of his early acts was, to repair and restore it to a state of defence. We are informed by recorded documents, that he erected a large house, and made some repairs, for which he was afterwards called to account, under charge of extravagance in the expenditure of public funds. In 1635, an unsuccessful attempt was made by the English on this fort. When the Swedes arrived in 1638, it is said the Dutch had no forts on the river, they having all been destroyed by the Indians; and yet Hudde, who had commanded that fort, says, there was, in that year, a sufficient garrison on the river; and a public document exists which, in 1639,6 complains, that "Fort Nassau is a heavy burden to the company, as regards a garrison, provisions," &c. There was certainly a commissary there in 1638, who gave the governor on Manhattan immediate notice of the arrival of the Swedes, which occasioned a protest; and in 1642 it was occupied by about twenty men. From that time up to 1650, we have facts to show

struction of

1 De Vries, in N. Y. Hist. Coll. vol. i. N. S. p. 252.

3

4

2 Holl. Doc. vol. viii. p. 32 to 52. O'Call. vol. i. p. 142. Holl. Doc. vol. ii. p. 88. Albany Records, vol. ii. p. 328.

Albany Records, vol. i. p. 85, 86. Holl. Doc. vol. iii. p. 97.

4 De Vries, 259. O'Call. vol. i. p. 170.

Hudde's Report, N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll. vol. iii. N. S., p. 429.

6 Holl. Doc. vol. iii. p. 32 to 52.

7 Ibid.

8 Reg. of Penns. vol. iv. p. 19.

that commissaries were stationed there. In 1650 or 1651, the fort was destroyed by the Dutch themselves, "being too high up, and too much out of the way." It was transferred to the new Fort Cassimir.

1623.

as its main

We have deemed it important, as a starting point in our Its history Dutch history, to collect the various facts in relation to this important, fort, contradictory and unsatisfactory though they may be; tenance was and perhaps we have attached more consequence to them than dered. they merit; but this fort was, for many years, considered by the Dutch a very desirable point to be maintained.

1624.

so consi

rival of Peter

This year arrives at New Amsterdam, as director of New Supposed ar. Netherland, Peter Minuit, or Minnewit, with whose history, Minuit at in connection with the settlements on the Delaware, we shall New Amsterbecome better acquainted. He continued in this office till 1632, when he returned to Holland.1

dam.

West India

submitted

by William

An application for a Swedish West India Company, upon Proposal for the plan of the Dutch West India Company, whose establish- a Swedish ment has been noticed, was this year presented to Gustavus Company Adolphus, king of Sweden, by William Usselincx, a mer- to the King chant of Antwerp, the original projector of the Dutch West of Sweden, India Company, and for several years connected with it, Usselincx. but who, for some reasons, became dissatisfied. Having derived much information from his long intimacy with the operations of the company, and being convinced of the advantageous prospects which such a company presented, he laid before Gustavus Adolphus his views upon the subject, in such a forcible manner, as warmly to engage the feelings of that monarch in its favour, and ultimately to lead to the incorporation of a company, which, however, did not take place till 1626. Acrelius, however, says, "that he this year obtained a commission for it, dated at Stockholm, December 21, 1624, upon which" a contract was formed for the approbation and signature of the company. The plan was recommended by the king to the States, and confirmed in the Diet of 1627.2

1 O'Call. vol. i. 100, 130. N. Y. Hist. Coll. vol. i. N. S., p. 450.

* Acrelius, p. 408. Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 284. Argonautica Gusta. Campanius, p. 64, 65. Loccenius, p. 556.