Talk:New Amsterdam

It has occurred to me that some of the history I've included up to 1625 properly belongs under the New Netherland entry, since it is about the colony as a whole, rather that the New Amsterdam settlement. Because of this, I'm going to shift some of the recently added material over there and rewrite the opening of the history section to focus more specifically on New Amsterdam.Decumanus 04:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In edit history I said "OIC should be WIC". s/OIC/VOC/ so: "VOC should be WIC" Kim Bruning 10:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Splitting up articles too much results in artificial problems, in my experience. Duplicated information-- even *gasp* some duplicated text-- seems just fine to me. As a New Yorker Magazine editor kept saying, Tell the story! Wetman 15:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's probably just my ignorance, but I had thought that the ONLY acceptable form, even in English, was Nieuw Amsterdam? - Node

• It also seems to me that this page has some POV in the form of something like "The Dutch weren't really using the land"; if that is factual, I don't know, but it seems more POV to me. (what colony WAS started with the aim of spreading a culture? I thought all colonies started as business ventures...)

• • New Amsterdam is certainly the common form. As far as the land thing goes, the Dutch colonies were completely different than, say, the English colonies. The English were specifically interested in plantation and large-scale cultivation for its own sake. The Dutch cultivated land basically to supply food to the trading posts. Additional settlers were considered a nuisance more than anything else. The Spanish are an example a colonialism that attempted to spread its culture, specifically its religion, among the native peoples. More broadly, the Dutch weren't nearly as interested in other European powers in "claiming" land as being an overseas extension of their empire (at least in North America: I don't know about elsewhere). The Dutch colonies were for-profit enterprises, and they were not interested in broad sweeping claims like that English and Spanish made in particular, only in what could support their trading operation. If something was unprofitable, it was abandoned, arguably more readily than by other European powers. True, the other powers' colonies were intended for financial gain too, but they were also part of national ego extensions in a way that probably didn't apply near as much to States General's colonies. The Virginia Company was a join stock operaton, but also an imperial venture of the English Crown, with all that entailed, and thus their was more at stake in sustaining it than simply making a guilder. This difference, in my opinion, is probably because of the political structure of the States General, which was very different than the other European powers at the time (which were essentially absolute monarchies still). At least this is my impression. I'm not a historian, but I've read widely on this era of the history of New York, since I find it fascinating. The best source on this point about Dutch land usage is probably Mike Wallace (historian)'s book Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898, which is quite exhaustive on this topic. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:44, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

One of the big differences between English and Dutch colonization in this regard was the way the English properietors issued patents on land for settlement (basically subleasing, in a way) and encouraging further settlement and cultivation of their land by third parties, partly to grow and expand the colony's population. The West Indian Company operations were specifically against this. Settlement was intended to be kept to the barest minimum. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Excellent new material from Anon. 162.83.152.153! --Wetman 22:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Adriaen van der Donck

I thought people here would be interested in my peer review request for Adriaen van der Donck. Discussion has kinda died down there, so I'm trying to solicit more feedback. My goal is to get this to featured article quality. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is now a FAC. Drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adriaen van der Donck if you're interested. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

English Advice on how to construct Fort Amsterdam

On the Wikepedia New Amsterdam website is stated:

"There is evidence that the Dutch West India Company was interested in building such a fort as early as 1620, based on a letter dated that year from the English architect Inigo Jones, who had probably been contacted by the company to design the fort. In the letter, Jones advises the company to avoid constructing a timber fort out of haste, but rather to build a moated fortification with stone and lime. Jones' accompanying drawing illustrates the traditional star-design that had become prevalent because of its ability to deflect cannon fire."

I would like to see that presumed "evidence" of an English architect advising the Dutch West India Company in 1620. The Company didn’t even come into being until 1621.

Moreover, in 1620, the Netherlands had been fighting an active war since 1568 and built many dozens of fortifications including "star-design" ones as defense against Spanish intrusions. It is hard to believe that the Dutch Republic, experienced in the construction of fortifications for 52 years, would ask, require or consider advice from England; not quite as experienced in those matters and not always its best friend at the time as some of you may know.

If Wikipedia contributors want to contribute, rather than writing nonsense, they should do their homework first. With respect to Fort Amsterdam they will have to read first the Instructions to military engineer and surveyor Crijn Fredericksz who arrived on Governors Island in 1624 and who was entrusted with laying out a Citadel with Fort Amsterdam as centerpiece on Manhattan.

I am afraid that this is another example of Wikipedia's inherent flaw of publishing unsubstantiated prose, suppositions, guesses and other prejudiced or culturally biased information from people who, for the most part with respect to New Netherland, get their information from historical novels and other, often erroneous, secondary information. No scholar or academician could possibly hope to contribute to this encyclopedia as he/she would be driven away by amateurs versed in other disciplines as the map of New Sweden proves on the New Netherland site. As it is a waste of time to argue on these pages where fact should supersede ignorance, I will not remove the above paragraph and leave it up to others to do so. PS, Is it credible that the Dutch EAST India company would DeKoning

This is a good example of why people should cite their sources. The Fort Amsterdam article says that it was the Dutch East India Company that contacted Inigo Jones. I assume that without a citation to check someone decided to "correct" East to West. I'm still trying to find out what the original author's source was though.

I appreciate you pointing out this discrepancy, but I note it could have been done with significantly less lecturing and condescension. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but the map of New Sweden is so unforgivable a creation for any Wikipedia site that its presence on the New Netherland site corrupts and vandalizes the entire New Netherland site thus making it unworthy of any further serious contributions. The fact that it is still there in spite of reasoned argument that it is wrong and must be removed proves my point as there is no reasonable counterpoint that justifies its presence. I am merely observing that irrational and ignorant behavior rooted in games of power has triumphed over reason. This is not about being condescending but about being dismayed. DeKoning

PS When people write that Inigo Jones "had probably been contacted", my hairs rise. He either was or wasn't contacted. The contributor has a choice, go to the archival or original source and get confirmation or just post a fairytale to mislead the gullible reader. If it is not fact why post it? By using words like perhaps, possibly, probably, likely, etc. one creates immediately doubt about the story's reliability. Namely, how likely is it that the Dutch EAST India Company, which at the time had a very clear mandate that did not include the western hemisphere, would ask an English architect in 1620 to built a fort on or around Manhattan? The WEST India Company "Particuliere Instructie" of April 25, 1625 to Cryn Fredericks prove that a decision as to where to place the fort wasn't even made yet in 1624 because Cryn and Verhulst, together with the council, were also considering to erect Fort Amsterdam on the Hudson River's west side rather than on Manhattan. Story telling and subjective judgments about personalities (like, e.g., "he was a bad man", or "people didn't like him") should have no place on Wikipedia. Errors are rampant as with, for example, captions under pictures when contributers write below one map "ca. 1642" and somewhere else under exactly the same map write "c. 1635". Either one date is right or both dates are wrong. I readily concede though that I am lecturing to make my point.

I agree completely, weasel words are to be avoided. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

the first sentences are really convoluted and confusing, can someone clean them up? I don't understand what existed from 1614-1674, was that the land grant, or what? --Awiseman 07:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Expand English take over

I think the article needs to be expanded on the English take over in 1664. In particular, the terms of surrender which provided a kind of bill of rights which some argue had major impact in the American bill of rights. This is covered in The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America. WilliamKF 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oldest city

This claim, in the second paragraph, confuses me: "The town of New Amsterdam became a city when it received municipal rights in 1653 and was unilaterally reincorporated as New York City in June 1665. This makes NYC the oldest incorporated city in the United States, followed by Albany, NY, the second oldest."

Feeling skeptical, I checked some other pages and found earlier incorporation dates for many cities in New England, such as Boston, Salem, New Haven, Cambridge, Gloucester, Doveretc. Looking into it slighter closer, I found that New England cities were originally incorporated as "towns" and only "reincorporated" as cities in the 19th century. But as towns they had municipal governments and seem to have been everything New Amsterdam was, city-wise, in all but the word "city". So I am wondering-- does the claim of NYC being the "oldest incorporated city" in the United States come down to semantics, or is there something in particular that made NYC in 1653 a unique municipality, something that Boston etc lacked? If it is just a difference of terms, the claim seems misleading; if there is a governmental difference, perhaps it should be described? Pfly 03:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Brooklyn named from gebrokeland or Breukelen?

Moved from the Early Settlement section of the article:
question to all: on the picture at the right it says "Gebrokeland" (it means "broken land"/not belonging to the mainland/less useful land) in stead of "Breukelen" (village in Holland, which later has become "Brooklyn")? How do you explain? Does Brooklyn come from "Breukelen" or "Gebrokeland/Brokenland"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.110.174 (talk • contribs) 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. Since the map is very early (1635) there was probably little settlement there at the time; "gebrokeland" seems very appropriate for the area then. The village of "Breuckelen" was chartered in 1646. Perhaps that name was choosen exactly because it both resembled the old town name Breukelen and sounded similar to what some had been calling the area ("gebrokeland"). Maybe they were trying to get away from the "less useful land" connotation. Could be a simple map maker's mistake too. (All speculation, of course.) -R. S. Shaw 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in New Amsterdam

Should it not be mentioned? The first African to visit the region was Esteban Gomez, who sailed up the Hudson as a Protuguese Pilot as early as 1525. The first African to live in New Amsterdam was Jan Rodrigues, who arrived in 1613: the first non-indigenous inhabitant of Manhattan. The first African slaves in New Amsterdam were sold were sold by pirates in 1626 (16 of them). There should be something added about slavery in New Amsterdam as it was essential to the commercial survival of the colony and to the colony's workforce. I am not the authority to do it, however. Joe 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe, The issue of slavery is an important one but nearly everything people seem to know about is sadly wrong and nothing less than imaginative story telling. The value of such stories is no more than the story of Snow white and the seven dwarfs. I have read many books on the subject and the factual errors and misinformation in them are astounding. That includes the book "Black Manhattan" by James Weldon Johnson. Often well-intended these writings belong under the rubric of rhetoric, not scholarship. People write often things they would like to believe rather than factually checking their [prejudiced] beliefs. Do not trust any secondary information but only use and accept primary, original source information. For that one needs to do serious and time consuming research. For example, how can Jan Rodrigues be an inhabitant of New Amsterdam in 1613 when New Amsterdam wasn't started until 1625? I am afraid that I also have to counter your suggestion that slavery was essential for commerical survival of the colony. These are all broad unsubstantiated statements which need to be addressed in future scholarly writings where the word professor or doctor alone won't be enough to cover up sloppy secondary citations. January 25, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.104.71 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ignorant Indian" propaganda

The Manahattas had no legal concept of permanent ownership of land since they moved encampments on a seasonal basis and lived off whatever land they inhabited. Since the Manahattas were not familiar with European legal issues they could not have understood the concept of property deeds.

This is false, and is uncited speculation in any case. The Europeans had no compunctions about treating with tribes that had no claim to land they were treating with, and often the tribes took advantage of this fact by signing over their enemies' land on the cheap. The Europeans exercised no diligence in determining who had claim to what, and just tossed out treaties to the first groups they encountered. --76.217.95.165 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I removed the passage. It could be described as part of the "legend" mentioned, I suppose. But it was written as if true, even though the text clearly said we don't know what the Manhattas thought. Pfly 01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations by Secondary Sources

I removed because it is wrong. Sadly, all information on web sites from official bureacratic sources at the federal, state and city level are filled with misstatments and errors. Bureaucrats are certainly not well versed in history and don't feel that they have a responsibility toward the public to be factually correct. For the last ten years I have tried them to make corrections but they don't want to know, understand or accept historic facts. I have even asked the Secretary of Education in Washington, DC, to help with the correction of so-called "official sources" but to no avail. Therefore, citations prove nothing as nearly all come from published secondary information which merely repeat errors over and over. Joep de Koning

We've heard the rant. Back goes the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation reference, which may well need to be set in better historical context with a published quote from a historical revisionist with more credit than some anonymous IP. --Wetman (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations by Primary Sources

The legendary tale of the “purchase” of Manhattan Island in 1626 as the best real estate deal is unrelated to the founding of the town of New Amsterdam or New York City which started with the construction of Fort Amsterdam on Manhattan Island in July 1625 (i.e., the official date of birth of New York City as imprinted on the City Seal).*

Governors Island (originally named Noten Eylant by the Amsterdam explorer and fur trader Adriaen Block and later in pidgin language referred to as Nutten Island until 1784) was the locus for the transformation of the New Netherland (“NN”) territory – currently referred to as the New York Tri-State region – to a North American province of the Dutch Republic in 1624 from having been a place for private commercial interests through patents issued by the [Dutch Republic's] States General (parliament) since 1614 (see details of Block’s 1614 map on www.TolerancePark.org).

Prior to 1614, this region was discovered, surveyed and mapped by varied Dutch explorers sponsored by assorted companies and private financiers starting with the discovery of the Mauritius River – now Hudson or North River – by the [Dutch] East India Company yacht Half Moon, captained by Henry Hudson, in 1609.

Therefore, Governors Island and the year 1624 are, respectively, the birthplace and date of birth of New York State (then the Province of NN ― see Legislative Resolutions no. 5476 and 2708) because the first delivery of 30 families from the Low Lands (Netherlands) as well as the planting in North America of the legal-political order of the States of Holland and Zeeland took place first on Governors Island. Hence, in 1624, the law of the ship effectively ceased to exist in the NN territory and the laws and ordinances of Holland and Zeeland (the two most important states of the Dutch Republic) became applicable and effective.

The historical facts are that, in that year of 1624, settlements existed at a fort on Noten Island (Governors Island) just south of Manhattan, at Fort Orange (Albany) at the top of the Hudson River, on Verhulsten Island (Burlington Island) in the Delaware River as well as at the mouth of the Connecticut River thus delineating physical possession of the New Netherland Province according to the Law of Nations (Hugo Grotius).

RATIONALE:

The Letter of Secretary Isaac De Rasière of 22 September 1626:

Peter Minuit had returned from New Netherland to the Dutch Republic in 1625. On January 9, 1626 he left Amsterdam to arrive again in New Netherland as “volunteer”, together with second director Willem Verhulst, with the ship Meeutje on May 4, 1626.

Isaack de Rasière wrote that he (de Rasière) had arrived in front of “Fort Amsterdam” on July 28, 1626 (“so that we anchored in the river on July 28 in front of the fort Amsterdam with many sick people with scurvy).” On that date, Peter Minuit was at Fort Orange (now Albany). De Rasière’s statement is textual evidence that Fort Amsterdam existed in one way, shape or form upon his arrival at Manhattan on July 28, 1626.

It is therefore not possible that Peter Minuit (who is often [erroneously] credited with constructing Fort Amsterdam in 1626) could have built Fort Amsterdam in less than three months from his arrival in New Amsterdam on May 4, 1626, until De Rasière’s arrival in front of Fort Amsterdam on July 28, 1626.

Moreover, Minuit was neither authorized nor instructed to build Fort Amsterdam. That task was entrusted to Cryn Fredericxsz, engineer and surveyor, who had been given “specific” instructions on April 25, 1625. He was “to build a fortification and housing” immediately upon arrival “when the best possible place by the Council is selected” in order to settle “according to our instructions with all the livestock.” Fredericxsz had arrived in June 1625 with the second shipment of colonists (i.e., farmers and livestock) to the fort on Noten Eylant (Governors Island) most of whom were moved with the farm animals to Manhattan within a few days of each other over a period of a few weeks as there was not enough pasture land on Noten Eylant (i.e., no later than July 1625).**

July 1625 is the month in which Cryn Fredericxsz demarcated a citadel on Manhattan Island wherein situated Fort Amsterdam as described in: “First, surveyor Cryn Fredericxsz shall mark out the [three-sided] moat and the parapets in size as follows and in the manner as indicated in the concept which is to be square and open on the waterside…As soon as the moat is finished, Director Verhulst and the Council shall start the fortification according to concept no. C which shall be named Amsterdam.”

DISCUSSION:

The Provisional Order of March 30, 1624:

"Provisional orders upon which the respective colonists have agreed and were dispatched in the service of the West India Company (“WIC”) to New Netherland in order to take up their residence on the river of the Prince Mauritius or at other such places the people shall be employed by the Commander and his Council."

Those first authorized WIC settlers were delivered by New Netherland’s first director, Cornelis Jacobsz May, to Noten (Governors) Island (not Manhattan Island) with the ship New Netherland in May, 1624. They had been given a Provisional Order on March 30, 1624 in which they were instructed “to take up their residence on the river of the Prince Mauritius (Hudson River) or at other such places the people shall be employed by the commander (Director) and his council.” and “to use all means possible to fortify their residence through common effort as well as building the necessary civic housing.” That March 30, 1624, Provisional Order also contained official language specifically related to the precept of toleration (religious tolerance as in the 1579 founding document of the Dutch Republic: “that everyone shall remain free in religion and that no one may be persecuted or investigated because of religion”), namely, that the settlers should try “to attract the Indians and other nonbelievers to the knowledge of God’s word through their Christian living and walk (i.e., through attitude and by example) without, on the other hand, to persecute anyone for reason of his religion but to leave everyone the freedom of his conscience.” On that date, the first settlers swore the oath of allegiance to both the States General (the governing body of the Dutch Republic) and the West India Company (WIC) on the New Netherland prior to departure.

The Instruction to Willem Verhulst of January 1625:

“Instruction for Willem van Hulst, Commissioner on the journey to New Netherland and, provisionally, Director of the colonists who are already there and as yet will be shipped to there until the Company is ready to install new government.”

In January 1625, the second [provisional] director, Willem Verhulst, received detailed instructions in a letter of that date. Verhulst sailed that month from Amsterdam (on the ship Den Orangen Boom) with, amongst other, a comforter of the sick, Sebastiaen Crol, and “Pierre Minuyt as volunteer” together with a few other new settlers to New Netherland (arriving in March 1625).

These settlers were to be distributed to existing habitations but especially to the colony in the Zuidt (South or Delaware) River. Peter Minuit, together with other selected colonists, was to sail as high as possible up the South and North rivers in order to survey the land and to seek trade with the Indians. Verhulst was instructed to survey both rivers and to select and recommend the best places for more defensive fortifications for future colonists other than the ones already made and occupied. If the existing fort [Orange] at the top of the Noord (Hudson) River was at risk of flooding, he was to gather the [1624] settlers at Fort Orange and “to transport them to the fort on Governors Island and to maintain only quarters for trade with the Indians or, upon having found a more favorable place for fortification in the Noord [Hudson] River than Noten Eylant as habitat for the colonists and farmers, to put them there and immediately advise us about the reason for the change.”

Furthermore, Verhulst was also instructed to “make a provisional fortification on Verhulsten Island (in the Zuidt or Delaware River) to protect the settlers and their livestock”. Furthermore, he had to placate any Indians who lived or pretended to live on Verhulsten Island (in the Delaware River), or in other places selected by the colonists which could be of service to the Company, and to “get rid of them not with force or threats but to persuade them with good words or otherwise appease them to their satisfaction by giving them something or to let them live among us thereby making a contract which they shall sign in their manner and which contracts could be of much service to the Company at other occasions (e.g., an instruction similar to the so-called “purchase” of Manhattan in 1626).”

Verhulst was to maintain his chief residence in the South (Delaware) River and his [South River] Council there was to comprise the ship captains at hand. He was to visit the North River frequently to put things in good order and to deliberate and resolve everything with Deputy Director Adriaen Thienpont, Deputy Commisioner Daniel van Cryeckenbeeck and the captains Fezard and Lampo as provisional [North River] Council. Peter Minuit was instructed to research minerals and crystals from the North and South Rivers.

Subsequent Instruction to Verhulst of April 25, 1625:**

“Subsequent Instruction, composed by the Directors of the Amsterdam Chamber of the West India Company, for Willem vanderHulst, Commissioner, as well as for those of the resident Councils in the rivers, islands, and the lands of New Netherland, carried by Gerrit Fongersz, Deputy Commissioner and Gerrit Jsbrantsz, captain of the yacht Macrel, according to which Vander Hulst and the members of the Councils, as well as the farmers and everybody else who now have been dispatched thither with the ships Macrel, Horse, Cow and Scheep and are now sailing, shall conform with obedience, faithfulness and humility, in order to take their residence on the South or North River or such other places as shall be of service to the Company…”

This instruction reveals that the 1624 settlers had been distributed to Noten (Governors) Island (not Manhattan), Fort Orange and the Delaware River. The instruction states that upon arrival in the North River and before they unload their ships and set up a place for the cattle, they had to “summon Director Willem Verhulst or Deputy-Director Adriaen Jorrissz Thienpont in order to chose by mutual agreement, the best places for their houses, pastures, and sowing fields… which would be especially advisable to do so at the mouth of the [North] river for which we are recommending first the west side (of the Hudson River) because the couriers pass along that place when going from the North to the South River, the corner of Manattes north of Noten Island, or on another appropriate place which they will find of service after proper investigation.”

“In case no appropriate place can be found which has been deserted or not occupied by the Indians and is at least 800 or 1000 morgen large and  suitable for sowing and pastures, we find it not advisable to make such a heavy fortification and such a large moat as given in the plans to the surveyor but to settle provisionally.”

“Meanwhile, if Director Verhulst with the help of the surveyor Cryn Fredericxsz…finds no [deserted or empty] place in both rivers in order to settle there with livestock, but finds the desired place for fortification already occupied by Indians, he should ponder whether he could negotiate with them for goods or can come to terms by way of other amicable agreements so that they leave us ownership and possession without forcing them to such ends in the least or to obtain the place through cunning or with ease (i.e., an expanded instruction designed to legally protect the WIC’s and colonists’ work/investments ― such as Fort Amsterdam and its outlaying farms ― which, doubtless, was the motivation for the mythical “purchase” of Manhattan in 1626).”

Specific Instruction for Cryn Fredericksz’s of April 25, 1625:

“Specific instruction for the engineer and surveyor Cryn Fredericxsz as well as for the Director (Willem Verhulst) and his Council…concerning the fortification and the construction of houses upon the Council having found an appropriate location in order to settle with all livestock according to our instruction.”

Cryn Fredericxsz was instructed that “As soon as the moat has been constructed, Director Verhulst and the Council will immediately start the fortification according to concept No. C which shall be named Amsterdam and which shall be worked on by as many people as can be missed possibly from the farmers, sailors and colonists.”

Cryn returned to the Dutch Republic in the ship “Arms of Amsterdam” on September 23, 1626, from Fort Amsterdam, never to return to New Netherland. Peter Minuit was appointed [as the forth] director of New Netherland by the Council in New Netherland on September 26, 1626.

It was Verhulst and the Council (comprising Willem vander Hulst, Adriaen Jorissz Thienpont, Joost vanden Boogaert, Daniel van Cryeckenbeeck, Gerrit Fongersz, Pierre Minuyt, Cryn Fredericxsz, Franchoys Fezard and Johan Lampo) who had chosen Manhattan Island as the place for the construction of Fort Amsterdam in 1625 – the birthplace and date of birth of New York City. They were the town’s founders. __________________________________

 * In November 1626, in Amsterdam, Peter Schaghen, the representative of the States General in the WIC, reported that the ship “Arms of Amsterdam” had sailed from New Netherland out of the River Mauritius on September 23 and that “they have purchased the Island Manhattes from the Indians for the value of 60 guilders”… and that they “had all their grain sowed by the middle of May, and reaped by the middle of August They sent samples of these summer grains: wheat, rye, barley, oats, buckwheat, canary seed, beans and flax.”

• • On April 22, 1625, the ships Horse, Cow, Sheep and the yacht Macrel sailed out of the Dutch Republic to arrive in June, 1625 at Noten Eylant (Governors Island). The Macrel carried with them the “Subsequent Instruction” to Verhulst wherein it was recommended that the farmers and the other settlers should “take their residence on the South or North River or such other places as shall be of service to the Company…”