OCTOBER 16, 1662 New Style (October 6 Old Style): Bowne is moved to the Stadt Huys

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE, FOLIO 51 VERSO

“So I was kept there and allowed nothing but coarse bread and water -that they knew of- till the 6th day of the 8th month. Then Came the Scout about the middle of the day, and he calling to me bade me to make up my bedding, I must go to another place.  So I was brought to the State House, and there put in the prison room, where I have remained...”

NOTES ON THE TEXT

The Scout: Although Bowne does not name him, this probably refers to Resolved Waldron, whose official title was Provincial Deputy Schout-Fiscal. Waldron was the Anglo-Dutch official who originally arrested Bowne, and possibly was kept on his case because he could speak English. However, it could also refer to the local Schout, or Sheriff, for New Amsterdam, Peter Tonneman.

The State House: The Stadt Huys, or City Hall, located on the embankment of the East River at Pearl Street between Coenties’ Lane and the main canal (now Broad Street.)

the prison room: The New Amsterdam Court of Burgomasters and Schepens met on an upper floor of the Stadt Huys, while the prisoners were kept in a room below.

Fort Amsterdam and the Stadt Huys. From Redraft of the 1661 Castello Plan, Adam Wolcroft Smith and I.N. Phelps Stokes, 1916. (N.Y. Historical Society)

The Scout gave Bowne no explanation for his transfer from the Dungeon to the seemingly more civilized confines of the City Hall. The Fort and the Stadt Huys were the only two official prison facilities in New Amsterdam (although people were often placed on house arrest or sometimes confined in taverns, which had extra space since they doubled as hostels.) The Court of Burgomasters and Schepens—city officials roughly equivalent to city managers and aldermen—sat at the Stadt Huys, where they adjudicated lesser crimes and civil cases under 100 guilders. However, it seems unlikely that the Council of New Netherland, being the superior court, would transfer a heretic and subversive to the jurisdiction of the lower court. There is no record that Bowne ever appeared before the Burgomasters and Schepens.

View fullsize

“The Old Stadt Huys of New Netherland.” Illustration from A Popular History of the United States, 1876

Artist’s depiction of Director-General Stuyvesant outside the Stadt Huys (c.1909)

OCTOBER 5, 1662 New Style (September 25, Old Style): “Carried or Guarded away to the Dungeon”

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE, FOLIO 51

Previous post: September 21, 1662- Ordinance Against Conventicles

“[...so I was kept there till the 25 day of that month.] Then came the Fiscal and Scout in great rage. [They] demanded of me to answer the Court sentence, which I denied as before. So I was presently carried or guarded away to the dungeon and there put, a strict charge being given to the guard of soldiers, which was by both day and [night] to let nobody come at me or speak with me. So I was kept there and allowed nothing but coarse bread and water than they knew of ‘till the 6th day of the 8th month.”

(Red stars marks the beginning & end of today’s passage.)

Journal of John Bowne Folio 51

Photostatic reproduction, Bowne House Archives. Original at New York Historical Society.

Journal of John Bowne, Folio 51 verso

Photostatic reproduction from Bowne House Archives. Original at New York Historical Society.

Notes on the Text

“the 25th day of that month”: the 25th of September in the old calendar used by John Bowne and other English subjects (October 5th New Style)

“the Fiscal and Scout”: The Fiscal, or public prosecutor, of New Netherland in 1662 was Nicholas de Sille. The Provincial Schout, or Sheriff, was named Peter Tonneman, although here Bowne may actually be referring to Deputy Schout Resolved Waldron, the Anglo-Dutch officer who had arrested him. These men’s salaries were partially funded by the fines that they collected, which no doubt contributed to their “great rage” at Bowne for refusing to pay.

the Court sentence: Bowne had been found guilty of violating the Ordinance against Conventicles, and been issued a fine of 150 guilders, or 25 pounds Flemish.

the dungeon: Until this point, Bowne had been confined in what he calls “the cort-a-gard.” It is unclear exactly what this term refers to, but it may have been a cell adjoining the sentry box or the barracks at Fort Amsterdam. The “dungeon” was presumably also located in the Fort, as the only alternative place of detention in New Amsterdam was the Stadt Huys, or City Hall, where Bowne was not moved until the following month. The word calls to mind the account of Robert Hodgson, who was nearly martyred by Stuyvesant following his 1657 arrival on the Woodhouse, which brought the first Quakers to New Netherland: “I was cast into a dungeon, so odious as I never saw, for wet, dirt, and nasty stink.” The move clearly marks an escalation in the pressure campaign against Bowne.

“…that they knew of”: One of the mysteries of Bowne’s imprisonment is how he managed to survive and remain healthy on a bread and water diet. Here, Bowne hints that, in fact, he did not have to. In fact, a separate page towards the back of Bowne’s journal, where he sometimes jotted down accounts and memoranda, reveals that Bowne had a relationship with an English couple who owned a nearby tavern, and that they were able to smuggle provisions to him. We will explore this arrangement further in a separate post at a later date, as Bowne remained a customer of theirs throughout the Fall. (Bowne’s aside also suggests that he was not overly worried about his captors reading his diary.)

Sentencing of the Tiltons and the Spicers

On the same day that Bowne was remanded to the dungeon, the four Quakers from Gravesend who had been arrested around the same time as he were sentenced. These were the Tiltons, a middle-aged married couple, and the Spicers, a widow and her adult son. As all were repeat offenders who had been arrested in past years, the Tiltons and the Spicers were not given the same opportunity as Bowne to mend their ways. The fire-damaged sentencing records appear below, courtesy of the New York State Archives. (Fortunately, translations commissioned by Governor DeWitt Clinton before the fire have survived.)

View fullsize

Sentence of John and Mary Tilton of Gravesend. October 5, 1662, Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. (New York State Archives.) View and download in hi-res

View fullsize

Sentence of Michelle and Samuel Spicer of Gravesend. October 5, 1662. Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. (New York State Archives.) View and download in hi-res

Interestingly, only the Tiltons’ sentence contains an order in English. John Tilton was also the sole member of the Gravesend group who had insisted on received a written copy of the complaint against him from the Notary Public. He had served as Town Clerk in Gravesend for many years; possibly this role had given him an appreciation for the importance of getting things on the record.

Council Resolution re: Sentence of John and Mary Tilton

“Presented and read the conclusion of the Attorney-General versus John Tilton and his wife, and the frivolous and obstinate answers of the defendants,—so was adopted the following resolution:

[In Dutch] Whereas Director-General and Council are certainly informed, and actually find it so, that John Tilton, and so too, his wife, residing at Gravesend, continue yet pervicacious and obstinate in entertaining and lodging the Quakers, and frequenting their conventicles, notwithstanding the aforesaid Tilton was for it, in the year 1658, on the 10th January, condemned to a fine, and since, in the year 1661, on the 20th January, was commanded to leave this province, but has so far conspired, in the hope of his reformation; but whereas he, as it is already said continued obstinate, so it is resolved and deemed necessary, to avoid, as far as possible, confusion and schism in this youthful province, to banish the aforesaid John Tilton and his wife out of this province.

[In English] The Governor-General* and Council of New Netherlands do ordain and command you, John Tilton, with Mary Tilton your wife, to depart and remove out of this province before the 20th day of November next ensuing, upon pain of corporal punishment. This enacted and ordained, in our assembly kept in Fort Amsterdam, the 5th October, 1662: _____"

*Stuyvesant’s title was actually Director-General; Governor-General was a higher rank reserved for administrators of larger, more important colonies. However, the English residents (such as the English Secretary, who would have written this addendum) may not have been fully aware of the distinction.

Council Resolution re: Sentence of Michelle and Samuel Spicer

“1662: 5th October.___Whereas the Director-General and Council in New Netherland are certainly informed, and found it actually to be so at different times, that those of the sect called Quakers keep an unusual correspondence, and are continually supported, kindly received and lodged at the House of Michel Spicer, residing at s’Gravesende,* now a prisoner: she, with her son Samuel Spicer, before more than once have been arrested and fined, with an express warning to be on their guard in the future, and avoid it, on the penalty of banishment, nevertheless they thus far continue in this with great obstinacy; but what is more, lately dared to distribute and spread seditious and seducing pamphlets among the inhabitants of this province, to propagate the aforesaid heretical sect of Quakers: wherefore, it being necessary, to avoid confusion and schisms in thi new-rising province, to crush this abominable sect of Quakers, who aim at nothing else but to bring the word of God, religion, and government into disrespect, so is it, but the Director-General and Council, resolved to keep all others under a better control in this province.

The Director-General and Council in New Netherlands command you, Michel Spicer, that ye shall depart from this province, with your son Samuel Spicer, before the 20th November next, on the penalty of corporal punishment.

Done and commanded, in our meeting in Fort Amsterdam, in New Netherlands, on the day as above.”

---

Notably, the prisoners were given a generous amount of time to get their affairs in order before leaving the province- despite the fact that John Tilton had simply ignored a previous sentence of banishment. Later records show that the Quakers did not, in fact, leave the colony; in fact, the following May, Stuyvesant was still trying to remove them. Shortly thereafter, the Dutch effectively lost administrative control of the English towns in New Netherland, due to the maneuverings of neighboring Connecticut, which was aggressively asserting the English claim to all of Long Island. Samuel Spicer was living in Gravesend as late as the 1680s. The Tiltons also resided there for the rest of their lives. While Stuyvesant had autocratic tendencies, the thinly-stretched administrative and police state available to him simply lacked the capacity to enforce them out on Long Island.

SEPTEMBER 19, 1662 New Style: Complaints Against John and Mary Tilton, Quakers

CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST JOHN AND MARY TILTON, FOR ATTENDING QUAKER MEETINGS

—Continued from September 15, 1662: The Sentence of John Bowne

John Bowne’s arrest did not happen in a vacuum. The documents below, having survived both time and fire, show that he was one of several Quakers caught up in a purge around the same time. John and Mary Tilton were a married couple in Gravesend, Long Island who had long been known to host forbidden religious meetings in their homes.

View fullsize

Complaint against John Tilton for attending Quaker Meetings. New York State Archives Digital Collections. Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. View & Download

View fullsize

Complaint against Mary Tilton for attending Quaker Meetings. New York State Archives Digital Collections. Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. View & Download

Criminal Complaint Against John Tilton, a Prisoner, for attending meetings of Quakers

To the Great and Respectful Director-General and Council of New Netherland,

Showeth, reverently, Schout Nicholas de Sille, how that John Tilton, now a prisoner here, continues to frequent all the conventicles of the Quakers, and even permits the Quakers to quake at his house, not remembering the great favor and merciful sentence given by your Honors on the 10th January 1658, nor the sentence pronounced on the 20th January, 1661, by which he was commanded to depart out of this province, on the penalty of corporal punishment, but that he treats it with contempt, and proceeds in his malice, protects that heretical sect, contrary to the orders and placards published on this subject, for which he, as an example for others (being that the Quakers are such forgetting men), ought to be punished; so is it, that the Attorney-General, nominee officin, concludes that John Tilton aforesaid ought to be condemned to a fine of £100 Flanders, and further, to remain in prison until the aforesaid fine shall have been paid, with the costs and fees of justice.

 Done in Fort Amsterdam, 19th September, 1662.

                                                                        Your N, G, and R servant, Nicholas de Sille

Complaint Against Mary Tilton, a Prisoner, for attending meetings of “that abominable sect called Quakers.”

To the Noble, Grand, Respectful Director-General and Council of New Netherland,

Whereas Mary Tilton, wife of John Tilton, now a prisoner here, has dared not only to assist at all the meetings of that abominable sect who are named Quakers, but even has presumed to provide them with lodgings and victuals, and has endeavored to go from house to house, and from one place to the other, and to lure the people, yea, even young girls, to join the Quakers, and already with several succeeded, encouraging and supporting them; so it is highly necessary now, to prevent all calamities, schisms, and confusion, as far as it is possible, that there be a stop put to it, and that such persons be punished, as an example for others, on which the Attorney-General concludes, ex officio, that the aforesaid Mary Tilton shall be condemned in £100 Flanders, and further, to be banished out of the province of New Netherland, and to remain in prison until the sentence shall be satisfied, with the costs and fees of justice. 

Done in Fort Amsterdam, in New Netherland, on the 19th September, 1662.

                                                                        Your N., G., and R. servant, Nicholas de Sille

Notes on the Text

JOHN TILTON:

Nicholas de Sille: the Provincial Schout-Fiscal, similar to Attorney-General. Referred to by Bowne as “the Fiscal.”

conventicles: forbidden religious gatherings held in private homes or other hidden places

“permits the Quakers to quake at his house”: Quaker was originally a derogatory label applied to Friends, whose bodies would quiver and quake with the fear of God when they worshiped or testified.

“the merciful sentence [of] 10th January 1658”: John Tilton had previously been charged with harboring Quakers, in the aftermath of the Flushing Remonstrance. As a first-time offender, he was just charged twelve pounds Flemish (one-half of the usual fine for attending conventicles.)

“the sentence pronounced on the 20th January, 1661”: Tilton had been exiled out of the province on pain of a severe whipping after resuming his Quaker activities in 1661, but clearly he slipped through the cracks and never actually left.

“contrary to the orders and placards”: The text of the Quaker ban has not survived; we know about it from references such as these in court proceedings.

£100 Flanders: Four times the fine assessed to first-time offender John Bowne. Roughly equivalent to $36,000 in contemporary money.

“Your N., G., & R. servant”: Noble, Grand, and Respectful

MARY TILTON

“schisms, calamities, and confusion”: the devout Dutch Reformed officials of New Netherland feared that other sects would lure their citizens away from the “true Church” with false doctrines, potentially jeopardizing their souls. They also believed that God would punish the colony with epidemics, Indian attacks, or other disasters if the populace sinned.

“to be banished out of the province”: Mary’s recommended punishment of £100 and banishment is more severe than John’s, although she has not been sentenced before. One genealogy written by a descendant of Nicholas de Sille notes the Schout-Fiscal “was especially severe on female offenders,” citing a case in which he deported a housewife to Holland stand trial for fighting with another woman, also recommending a prison term for hoisting her petticoat too high in respectable company. De Sille’s comments about “young girls” being enticed to join the Quakers is revealing in this light.

Coming September 20: Bowne must pay to read his own sentence.

REFERENCES

New York State Archives Digital Collections. Dutch Colonial Records. Minutes of the Council of New Netherland, 1638-1664. http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/objects/55296

Religious Society of Friends, “The Early Settlement and Persecution of Friends in America.” Friends’ Intelligencer I, no. 5 (Fifth Month, 15th, 1838): 54-59, 83-87, 102-106. Google Books 

Reference to Nicholas de Sille found in: Kip, Frederick Ellsworth, The Kip Family in America, (Boston: Hudson Printing Co., 1928) 32-3. Internet Archive

SEPTEMBER 15, 1662 New Style (September 5, 1662 Old Style): Sentence of John Bowne for Lodging Quakers

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE: FOLIO 51

—Continued from September 14, 1662: John Bowne On Trial

“So the next morning he came and gave me a writing in Dutch, and told me the Governor had sent me a copy of the Court’s sentence. He was not ashamed of what he did, and if I would I might have it in English. It was that for such and such things I was fined and must pay a hundred and fifty guilders and charges, and other particulars of what must follow if I did so again. I told him I could pay nothing upon that account.

So I was kept there till the 25 day of the month…”

Reproduction from Bowne House Archives. Original from NY Historical Society

Notes on the Text

he came: Schout Resolved Waldron (Deputy Sheriff and head of the military police)

a writing in Dutch: a copy of his sentence (see below)

I might have it in English: The register of Solomon La Chair, notary public of New Netherland, show that on September 20 Bowne was charged another 3 guilders for an English-language copy of his sentence.

150 guilders: 25 pounds Flanders, roughly equivalent to $9,000 in today’s money

upon that account: on those terms

Bowne’s sentence, passed by the Director and Council of New Netherland, has been preserved in the New York State Archives as part of the Dutch Colonial Records. Like many of the Colonial records, it was damaged in the 1911 Capitol Library fire. (The original document, seen below, can also be viewed and downloaded in high-res from the Digital Collections on the NYSA website.)

SENTENCE. JOHN BOWNE, OF FLUSHING, L. I., FOR LODGING QUAKERS, AND ASSISTING AT THEIR MEETINGS -Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. September 14, 1662

Sentence of John Bowne, page 1 (New York State Archives)

Sentence of John Bowne (New York State Archives.)

A full translation of the two-page sentence is not readily available, but the following partial translation gives the gist:

“Whereas John Bowne, now a prisoner, residing in Flushing, on Long Island, has dared, in contempt of our orders and placards... to provide with lodgings some of the heretical and abominable sect named Quakers and even permitted that they keep their forbidden meetings a his house... [we] condemn the aforesaid John Bowne to an amend of twenty-five pounds Flanders and to pay all costs... for the second time, he shall pay double amende, and for the third time to be banished out of the province.”

This penalty appears to be in line with those proposed in the 1656 Ordinance Against Conventicles. Unlike the targeted Quaker bans that followed their 1657 arrival in New Netherland, this earlier law imposes a more general ban on all unauthorized religious gatherings outside the Dutch Reformed Church, which was the official public church of the Netherlands and its colonies. (Read a translation of the text. ) Despite the authorities’ extreme antipathy to the Quakers, and Bowne’s personal confrontation with Stuyvesant over his refusal to doff his hat, he does not seem to have been singled out for unusually harsh treatment.

Bowne and the government had arrived at a stalemate. Even if he had been willing to pay the fine, he would have been forced to discontinue his Quaker worship, or risk the larger fine and ultimately exile. He was left to languish in the Barracks of Fort Amsterdam and contemplate his future. Meanwhile, the dragnet was about to tighten around other Quakers on Long Island- a part of the story that is not often mentioned in accounts of Bowne’s trial.

Coming next: More Long Island Quakers are caught up in the purge.

SEPTEMBER 14, 1662 New Style (September 14, 1662 Old Style): John Bowne on Trial

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE: FOLIO 50, recto & verso (front and back)

—Continued from September 13, 1662- Bowne at Fort Amsterdam

“Then the next day being the Court day, the Scout fetched me to the Court, where I think before my body was in their view within the Chamber door the Governor bade me put off my hat, but before I could make answer he bade the Scout take it off. Then he asked me about meetings, and after some words said I had broken the law. So he called for it and read it to me, wherein he termed the servants of the Lord to be heretics, deceivers, seducers, or such like…”

“…and then asked me if I would deny that I kept meetings. I answered I should not deny meetings, but that I had kept such meetings or entertained such persons as he there read of, I did deny, for I could not own them to be such. But he would not reason it at all. Then he said, but will you deny meetings? I answered, I shall neither deny nor affirm. - Will you put us to prove it? said he. I said nay, I shall not put you to proving, but if you have anything against me you may act: here I am in your hands, ready to suffer what you shall be suffered to inflict upon me, or [something] to that purpose. So the Governor put by all reasoning, and they spake to me to pass forth. I said I was willing first to give them to understand the Condition of my family and the Cruelty of bringing me so from them. So when I had declared it to them I said, Now do you Judge at whose hands it will be required if they suffer in my absence. The governor said: At yours. So being spoken to, I was going away and two or three of them spake to me to take my hat, which I did not intend to leave, so it lying by the door I took it and went to the Cort a gard again, and the Scout came and told me when I had paid a hundred and fifty guilders I might go home. I asked him what I must do till then. He said I must tarry there in that place.”

To be continued on September 15, 1662

Illustration from Scribner’s Magazine.

Portrait of Director Peter Stuyvesant. Attrib. Hendrick Couturier, circa 1663. (NY Historical Society)

the Court: The Court consisted of the Director and Council of New Netherland. It heard serious criminal cases, civil cases for large amounts of money, and appeals. Bowne does not mention the presence of the Council, although they presumably were in attendance. The accused is not supplied with a lawyer, nor does he ask for one. No witnesses are called by either side. The sentence is pronounced after Bowne’s dismissal from the courtroom and relayed to him by the Schout.

put off my hat: doff his hat in deference to the Court. Quakers believed that the “hat honor” was idolatrous and refused on principle.

the law: The ordinance against Quakers has not survived. Stuyvesant may be reading from a 1656 law against “conventicles,” which predated the Quaker presence in the colony. This ordinance simply restated New Netherland’s long-standing but unevenly observed ban on all religious meetings outside the Reformed Church, and on preaching by “unqualified” persons.

seducers: refers to spiritual, not physical, seduction by unorthodox preachers with attractive yet forbidden ideas

“at whose hands it will be required”: who will bear the blame; who will be held to account

Cort a gard: a term Bowne uses for “jailhouse”

a hundred and fifty guilders: 25 pounds Flemish, the standard fine for attending conventicles.

This scene marks Bowne’s second attempt at defending himself, the first being his protest to Resolved Waldron the Schout at the time of his arrest, when he pointed out that the warrant referred to “people taken in meetings,” and Waldron “found me in none.” At this stage of the proceedings, Bowne does not refer to the Charter or Patent of Flushing, which promised liberty of conscience. Instead, he tries another legalistic strategy: that while he has attended conventicles, they do not involve the “heretics, deceivers and seducers” that the language of the ordinance refers to. Therefore, he is not guilty of any offense. He may have violated the letter of the law by hosting a conventicle outside the Reformed Church, but not the spirit, as Quakers are true Christians and pose no threat to the community. To Stuyvesant, this distinction is sophistry. He asks Bowne point-blank if he admits to “meetings”, shorn of any modifiers that might invite argument. Having already said “I should not deny meetings,” Bowne now resorts to stonewalling, refusing to either confirm or deny his participation. He knows that the government’s case is weak, as the evidence against him is hearsay, and there are no witnesses present. However, when Stuyvesant asks if Bowne is going to make him prove the case, Bowne demurs and demands that the Court judge him on the facts at hand. Maybe he hopes that the Court will drop a weak case to spare themselves the work of proving it; conversely, maybe he suspects that the outcome is predetermined. Stuyvesant “puts aside all reason” and dismisses him, having heard quite enough. Bowne finally makes a last-ditch emotional appeal to the Court, pleading with them to consider the sufferings of his family. Unmoved, Stuyvesant fires back that Bowne himself is to blame for their suffering.

Bowne is so rattled by this reception that he almost leaves without his hat and has to be handed it by the soldiers who took it from him. The matter of the hat no doubt disposed Stuyvesant against him before he ever entered the courtroom. Following the incident the day before, The Director-General gave Bowne no chance to deny him the “hat honor,” the respectful doffing of the hat in the presence of authority figures or one’s social superiors. Indeed, Bowne was fortunate that Stuyvesant confined his reaction to forcibly stripping him of his headwear. Quakers in England were routinely fined, imprisoned, beaten, and in a few cases even killed for refusing to observe this formality in the courtroom. Often this secondary offense took precedence over the actual crime or misdemeanor that brought them before the court in the first place.

The scholar Susan Wareham Watkins writes that due to the extreme reaction that this particular breach of etiquette provoked, refusing the hat honor served as an initiation rite for recent Quaker converts. It set them apart from the rest of the community and thus cemented their new-found group identity. By courting persecution and suffering for their beliefs, they became more invested in their spiritual journey. Meanwhile, their status was correspondingly elevated among more established Quakers. Thus Bowne willingly embraced the confrontation over his broad-brimmed felt Quaker hat, even knowing that it would damage his chances of a favorable verdict. It was the first public step on a longer spiritual journey.

Next: September 15, 1662- John Bowne is delivered his Sentence.

REFERENCES

Watkins, Susan Wareham. Hat Honour, Self-Identity and Commitment in Early Quakerism. Quaker History, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 1-16

SEPTEMBER 13, 1662 New Style (September 3, 1662 Old Style): Bowne at Fort Amsterdam

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE: FOLIO 49, VERSO (back)

—Continued from September 12, 1662- The Arrest of John Bowne, Day Two

“So the next day, seeing the Governor about to take horse, I sent the Sergeant of the company to tell him I did desire to speak a few words with him. So the man came and told me in Dutch, and shewed me by his actions, that the General said if I would put off my hat and stand bare-headed he would speak with me. I told him I could not upon that ground. So he sent me word again: then he could not speak with me. So the soldiers did break out in laughter at it.”

(Red star marks the beginning of today’s passage.)

Journal of John Bowne, photostatic copy (Bowne House Archives). Original at N.Y. Historical Society.

Notes on the Text

the Governor: Director-General Peter Stuyvesant, sometimes called “Governor” of New Netherland.

the General: abbrev. of “Director-General”

“if I would put off my hat”: Quaker men were infamous for refusing to doff their wide-brimmed felt hats in deference to their superiors, a custom called the “hat honor.”

This refusal stemmed from their belief in the “Inward Light,” or the spiritual equality of all people, and the corresponding conviction that honor is due only to God. The hat honor was part of an elaborate system of etiquette that also included bowing or curtsying, called “scraping,” and addressing people with honorifics according to their rank and class. These practices governed comportment in the courts, at church, and even in the privacy of the home, which was seen by early Protestants as a microcosm of society. So pervasive was the hat honor in the 17th century that adult sons were expected to always remove their hats in the presence of their fathers, who in turn were expected to keep their heads covered even indoors. Such observances were seen as necessary to uphold the European social order in the 1600s, a time of civil and religious war and social unrest. The Quaker failure to show due respect enraged the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence Stuyvesant’s refusal to speak to Bowne. The question of hat honor would also loom over Bowne’s trial, set for the following day.

George Fox in his Quaker hat. (Library of Congress)

““Hat, Curtesie, Scraping and Complements … are Customs and Fashions of the World, which will pass away … not that which comes from God.””

— George Fox, founder of the Religious Society of Friends, 1661

Such incidents were very much the product of a fleeting historical moment. By the 1680s, people had come to understand that this peculiar stance of the Quakers was not necessarily intended as disrespect or provocation- simply as fidelity to their reading of the Scriptures. No longer a gesture of subversion, it was regarded as merely eccentric.

Next: September 14, 1662 - John Bowne’s trial before Director-General Stuyvesant

REFERENCES

Watkins, Susan Wareham. Hat Honour, Self-Identity and Commitment in Early Quakerism. Quaker History, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 1-16

SEPTEMBER 12, 1662 New Style (September 2, 1662 Old Style): The Arrest of John Bowne, Day Two

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE: FOLIO 49, VERSO (back)

Continued from September 11, 1662: The Arrest of John Bowne

“So the next day like a wicked hard-hearted man he carried me in a boat to Monhatons, leaving my family in that condition, and put me in the Cort a gard before the Governor’s door…”

Journal of John Bowne, photostatic copy (Bowne House Archives). Original at N.Y. Historical Society.

To be continued September 13, 1662.

Notes on the Text

he carried me: “He” being Resolved Waldron, the Schout of New Amsterdam

Monhatons: Manhattan (also known as “Mannados,” “Manahatta,” “Manatus”, “Manhados,” etc.)

leaving my family in that condition: At the time of his arrest the previous day, Bowne and others were nursing his sick wife and child at home. As it was too late in the day to depart for Fort Amsterdam, Waldron left his company of soldiers behind to stand guard over the sickbed scene, while he went drinking in the town until evening. Presumably he and his men then bedded down for the night in this house of contagion. We can only speculate how the soldiers felt about being confined for so many hours in a one-room farmhouse in proximity to two patients “so ill that we kept watch two and three together.”

the Cort a gard: apparently an archaic word for “jail”

the Governor’s door: Peter Stuyvesant was often called “Governor,” though his actual title was “Director-General.” His house is shown just down the street from the Fort on the map below.

“The Towne of Mannados or New Amsterdam,” aka “The Duke’s Plan.” circa 1664. (British Museum)

This map, known as “The Duke’s Plan,” shows the layout of New Amsterdam at the time of the British takeover in 1664; it was based on a Dutch original dating from circa 1661. The quadrangular structure at the tip of the island is the Fort where Bowne was taken. Stuyvesant’s nearby residence is labeled as “Governor’s House.” (Note that the top of the map faces East, not North.) “Longe Isleland” barely appears in the frame, illustrating its socially and geographically marginal status in New Netherland. Virtually the only feature identified along its shoreline is the “Passage” through which Waldron would have brought Bowne via the boat, namely the East River. The remoteness of the so-called “out-plantations” left the settlers vulnerable, but also more remote from central authority, leaving room for the smugglers of Oyster Bay and the Quakers of Flushing alike to take root.

Next: September 13, 1662: John Bowne at Fort Amsterdam

SEPTEMBER 9, 1662: Warrant for the Arrest of Persons Holding Illegal Meetings

Director and Council of New Netherland - Notice to magistrates of English towns to assist Sheriff Resolved Waldron in arresting persons at unlawful meetings.

“By these presents are all Magistrates and Inhabitants off the English Townes in the jurisdiction of the New Netherlands ordered & Required to assist the bearer, our Schout* Resolved Waldron, for to imprison all such persons, which shall be found in a prohibited or an unlawful meeting. Given under our hand this 9th of September, A°: 1662.”

*Schout roughly translates to Sheriff.

Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. Volume 10 Part 1, p.208. (New York State Archives Digital Collections) - View and download in hi-res

Note: The above document was damaged in the 1911 Capitol Fire in the State Archives at Albany.

Written nearly two weeks after the initial complaint was lodged against John Bowne by the magistrates of Rustdorp, this was the order that sealed his fate. Although it never mentions his name, given the timing of its issue the document is a de facto arrest warrant for Bowne. Resolved Waldron, the “Schout” referred to, held an office equivalent to Sheriff or Chief Constable of the colony. Resolved was a Dutch native of English parentage- ironically, his family probably numbered among the Protestant English who had resettled in the Netherlands for greater religious freedom in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He began life in Holland as a printer’s apprentice, but upon emigrating found his calling in law enforcement, working his way up from the lowly position of “Nacht-Schout” or night watchman to be Stuyvesant’s right-hand man.

Note that the document is written in English (unusually for the Council of the New Netherlands) and addressed specifically to the magistrates, or judges, of the English towns on Long Island where Quaker missionaries from England were focusing their activity. Above and beyond authorizing the Sheriff to arrest all participants in illicit meetings, the order compels local authorities and even ordinary residents to assist him in doing so. No one is allowed to remain a neutral bystander in this battle over Christian souls: citizens must either choose rebellion or complicity.

This was consistent with Director Stuyvesant and the Council’s previously demonstrated desire to dragoon all residents into their law enforcement priorities. In 1661, the previous year, they had demanded that the citizens of Rustdorp commit in writing to inform on any Quaker meetings, and then quartered soldiers for over two months in the homes of holdouts who declined to sign- at the occupants’ expense. (See an account of this episode taken from the Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York.) Genuine prejudice against the Quakers was widespread among the English, but no doubt this recent experience of coercion also factored into the Rustdorp magistrates’ August 1662 denunciation of Bowne.

REFERENCES

Damaged text reproduced from: Documents Relating to the History of the Early Colonial History of New York, Principally on Long Island, ed. & trans. Berthold Fernow. Vol. XIV of Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Albany, N.Y.: Weed, Parsons, and Co., 1883. https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ14brod/mode/2up

“Council Minute. Proceedings Against the Quakers at Jamaica, Long Island, 1661.”  In Documents Relating to the History of the Early Colonial History of New York, Principally on Long Island, ed. & trans. Berthold Fernow. Vol. XIV of Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, (Albany, N.Y.: Weed, Parsons, and Co., 1883) 489-93.

AUGUST 24, 1662: Complaint of the Magistrates Against John Bowne

Minutes of the Council of New Netherland. Quakers in Flushing - Thursday, August 24th 1662

“The magistrates of Rustdorp came here to-day and in form of complaint reported to the Director-General, that the majority of the inhabitants of their village were adherents and followers of that abominable sect, called Quakers, and that a large meeting was held at the house of John Bound [Bowne] in Vlissingen every Sunday. They requested that this might be prevented one way or another. Date as Above.”

View fullsize

Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. Volume 10 Part 1, p.199 (New York State Archives Digital Collections) View and download in hi-res

This complaint from the neighboring town of Rustdorp launched Bowne’s ordeal. (Rustdorp was the Dutch name for present-day Jamaica, Queens, while Vlissingen was the Dutch name for Flushing.) Note that the impetus for his arrest came not from the Dutch authorities, but from the magistrates of another English town. Director Stuyvesant was not uniquely intolerant; Quakers, formally known as the Religious Society of Friends, were regarded as nuisances and threats to social order wherever they went. The English authorities, both in England and the Colonies, were actually harsher than the Dutch in their treatment of Friends. The Massachusetts Bay Colony executed four Quakers known as the Boston Martyrs in 1660, while New Netherland never executed any. It’s ironic that in persecuting John Bowne, Stuyvesant was doing something he often drew criticism for not doing- responding to the concerns and petitions of outlying communities on Long Island.

---

Translation from: Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York Vol. XIV, ed. & trans. B. Fernow (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons, and Company, 1883), 515. Read on Internet Archive