There is a Stuyvesant Square in Manhattan at 16th Street and 2nd Avenue with a statue of Peter Stuyvesant, the last Dutch governor of its New Amsterdam colony, a Stuyvesant High School, and a Stuyvesant Town residential development.
At least one group wants these places renamed and the statue removed. According to Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the head of the Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center “Peter Stuyvesant was an extreme racist who targeted Jews and other minorities including Catholics and energetically tried to prohibit them from settling in then New Amsterdam.”
In 1647, Peter Stuyvesant, became the Director General of New Netherland. Stuyvesant increased the number of enslaved Africans in the colony and became the largest owner of enslaved African in New Netherland. Under Stuyvesant’s direction, enslaved Africans labored as caulkers, blacksmiths, bricklayers and masons to make improvements to the slow-growing colony. In some cases, the enslaved were given “half-freedom,” meaning when their labor was not needed and in order to cut expenses for the company, they would be given their freedom. However, this freedom was contingent on the fact that they were bound to provide labor upon demand. and that their children were not born free.
Towards the end of Dutch control over New Amsterdam, most Africans in the colony continued to be owned and work for the Dutch West Indies Company. Stuyvesant, who owned forty slaves, was the largest private slave owner. In 1660, he supervised what was probably Manhattan’s first public auction of human beings. The largest cargo of enslaved Africans, 290 people, arrived in New Amsterdam in 1664 on the Gideon, just before the colony was taken over by the British. Peter Stuyvesant and company officials in the Netherlands corresponded about the need for additional labor and the importing of more enslaved Africans.
Correspondence between Peter Stuyvesant and Dutch West Indies officials over the enslavement of Africans
Director Stuyvesant To Vice-Director Beck (1660)
In regard to the negroes which the hon’ble directors ordered to be sent hither, they ought to be stout and strong fellows, fit for immediate employment on this fortress and other works; also, if required, in war against the wild barbarians, either to pursue them when retreating, or else to carry some of the soldiers’ baggage; it being very apparent that we shall be constrained to wage a righteous and offensive war against them, for the peaceable possession once of the land, and the avenging of numerous suffered affronts and murders. An important service would be conferred on the company, on us and the country if there were among the sold negroes, some of experience who have resided a certain time at Curacao.
Director Stuyvesant To Vice-Director Beck (1660)
We hope and trust that by complying with such price and terms, we shall avoid all suspicion of self interest. I am willing to take my share of the expence and risk of their passage hither, because I desired the negroes for my own service and the promotion of agriculture
Director Stuyvesant To The Directors At Amsterdam (1664)
This day fortnight arrived here your Honors’ Vessel, the Musch [Sparrow], with forty head of slaves, sent to us by Vice Director Beck to procure provisions and all sorts of timber work, fix ox carts and a new rosmill. The negroes and negresses have all arrived safely and in health, but were, on an average, quite old, and as the skipper alleges, rejected by the Spaniards. The product of the greater part appears by the accompanying account of the public vendue. They would have brought more, had they not been so old.
Five of the negro women, who were, in our opinion, unsalable, have been kept back and remain unsold. In like manner, six negroes also, to help to cut the required timber and to perform some other necessary work for the honorable company.
Director Stuyvesant To The Directors At Amsterdam (1664)
Messrs, the directors, and the Commissioners of the Colonie on the South River, have entered into a contract with Simon Cornelissen Gilde, skipper of the Gideon, to transport hither a lot of negroes for agricultural purposes. These negroes will, we hope, have arrived before this letter reaches your Honor, or, at least, be embarked after its receipt. We shall therefore recommend that, being properly provided, they may be dispatched hither as speedily as possible. If it happen that Simon Gilde should arrive with the negroes at the island of Curacao three weeks or a month later than the charter party provides, say, the middle of August, the first installment might reach here before or by the middle of September from Curacao, and the remainder by the middle of October. In that event a fair price might be realized for them.
In 1654, 23 Jewish men, women and children arrived in New Amsterdam after fleeing from the former Dutch colony of Recife in Brazil. When the ship docked, Stuyvesant seized their possessions and ordered they be sold at auction. When this failed to raise enough to meet their debts, Stuyvesant jailed two members of the group and wrote to the Dutch West India Company in Amsterdam asking permission to expel the Jews. Stuyvesant told the company that he “deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart.” However, the company granted Jews permission to emigrate to and live in the colony, “so long as they do not become a burden to the company or the community.”
Not discouraged, Stuyvesant barred Jews from the colonial militia and charged them a special tax because they were not serving. He also refused to issue Jewish merchants trade permits. The company agreed that Jews in the colony could be banned from holding public office, opening a retail shop, or establishing a synagogue.
In 1654, Stuyvesant wrote to Dutch West India Company in 1654 officials that “the deceitful race, — such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ, — be not allowed to further infect and trouble this new colony.” He referred to Jews as a “repugnant race” and “usurers”, and was concerned that “Jewish settlers should not be granted the same liberties enjoyed by Jews in Holland, lest members of other persecuted minority groups, such as Roman Catholics, be attracted to the colony.”
When, in December 1655, Dutch troops captured the Swedish territory along the Delaware River, Stuyvesant refused to issue trade permits to Jewish settlers in the new territory. Levy and others wrote to their associates in Holland protesting this discrimination, and the company disciplined Stuyvesant for his actions. The company specified that, from then on, Jews in the colony were allowed to trade and own real estate, but not hold public office, open a retail shop, or establish a synagogue.
Photo of Peter Stuyvesant statue in Manhatten.
Oh sweet Jesus can we please STOP putting 21st century values on actions and ideas that were perfectly acceptable 400 years ago!
You fail to appreciate that these actions were not perfectly acceptable 400 years ago, just unpunished.
Not “perfectly acceptable” by whom, may I ask? (please be specific) Then, again, is/was anything ever perfectly acceptable?
You can answer this question for yourself. Who were the people who opposed Stuyvesant’s bigotry?
Those are the people who did not find his actions “perfectly acceptable”.
Obviously, you don’t have any specifics John. When one answers a question, with a question, it’s because they don’t have an answer.
I answered your question. The people who didn’t find Stuyvesant’s support of slavery and bigotry against Jews “perfectly acceptable” were those who were his victims.
You apparently see their opposition as meaningless, as if they were not humans in the city opposing their own repression, and therein lies the need to hear this history and right these wrongs.
FYI, for 300 years before Stuyvesant there were people who saw this kind of bigotry as wrong outside those who it directly impacted. Slavery was abolished in France in 1315, Charles the 5th opposed slavery in 1540s, and the Catholic Church finally officially denounced slavery in 1686.
You may want to query the Haitians about their feelings toward the French abolition of slavery in 1315, they may have a completely different take on your opinion.
It is self evident that slavery being opposed by some and not others does not mean that slaves in New Amsterdam did not oppose slavery, and Jews in New Amsterdam did not oppose their own repression.
That is a basic fact of history.
I am simply telling to you get all of your facts correct (not just a some of them) prior to hitting “enter,” if that’s not too difficult!
You don’t tell me anything. You will be polite, or I will simply ban you permanently.
Which facts do I have incorrect? You asked: “Not ‘perfectly acceptable’ by whom, may I ask? (please be specific)”
And I responded that the people who were enslaved and repressed did not find it “perfectly acceptable,” nor did numerous others going back 300 years or more.
So this is your idea of politeness? Obviously.
I am A Roman Catholic.Would I have the right to kill Stuyvesant because he didn’t like people of my religion.should I have the Dutch because they took a territory from Sweden in Dec,1655.I am part Swedish.I am proud a niece graduated Stuyvesant H.S. and is now a nurse who specializes in cancer patients.Stuyvesant showed how we can be better human beings than he was.I still want to know about people in history.I’ll make my own judgement call.Thank You.
It is unacceptable to call on the name of Jesus when you are promoting or condoning discrimination.
Acceptable to you. Not acceptable to blacks and Jews at that time, but you’re not thinking about their opinions.
Very interesting excerpts, Alan. Are you familiar with the first synagogue to be established in New York? here Is a link to their history, including mention of their refusal of entry in 1654: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_Shearith_Israel
I’ve seen one unreproducible account that the first synagogue was burned (that would be the original Mill (William) St. Building) but so far find no evidence that this is true (I have to check S. Grayzel about that “A History of the Jews” once I locate my copy again.
Also, there’s interesting antique vocabulary (what is a rosmill?).
Thanks again for an interesting read!
It was burned with most of Lower manhattan in the great fire of 1835
I graduated from Stuyvesant HS and I remember the painting of Peter Stuyvesant – tall and imposing on his wooden leg. I am bothered by my initial reaction – No! Don’t remove the statue! Don’t rename the park! Then I asked myself, how is this different than [white] citizens of southern cities who want to maintain statues of their civil war heroes and plantation owners?
I am bothered by an attempt to diminish history by removing people from it – who had repugnant views, but are also remembered for what they did that was important. I would rather see an expansion. So, for example, add displays in the park that explain his legacy, good and bad, in the context of New Amsterdam. I didn’t realize he owned slaves. This needs to be part of the picture, as well as his discrimination against Jews (of which I was also unaware).
I agree that history is important and we should know Peter Stuyvesant as an important person in the founding of America. But we honor people by erecting large statues and naming schools and institutions after them. I don’t think Stuyvesant should be honored in this way. For too long his entire history was covered up, it should be exposed, and his statues removed and Stuyvesant High renamed. Hitler has not been forgotten but he is not honored with statues and schools named after him.
Even the Dutch grew tired of Stuyesant’s autocratic rule, which aided the capitulation to the English
I will never smoke his cigarettes again.
Historical revisionists included such nobles as Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. There is a lot of this going on at this time. One’s efforts should be concentrated on today. The past is there to learn from…
Well, they could have gone back to Portugal?
As a graduate of Stuyvesant High School, I am perfectly happy to see every reference to this man eradicated.
” in war against the wild barbarians, either to pursue them when retreating…” and “we shall be constrained to wage a righteous and offensive war against them, for the peaceable possession once of the land, and the avenging of numerous suffered affronts and murders”
What’s not to like? Kill the barbarians while they retreat… wage a righteous and offensive war for the PEACEABLE possession of he land and avenge affronts and murders.
He was peaceful, and simply want to kill the barbarians as they retreat, take a righteous offense and avenge affronts and murders. Sound reasonable to me.
Stuyvesant Class of ’86.
I had been told by a Alum of the 1950’s that P. Stuy was not a very likable person, was a racist and somewhat offensive. This is the first time I’ve seen specifics, and I appreciate that most of the article recites the honorable Mr. Stuyvesant’s own words.
That said, I don’t think we can remove all traces of every person who we find offensive… that serves little purpose to me. Confederate soldiers, on the other hand. They were treasonous separatists who’s rebellion was crushed. You don’t get to lose the war, and write the history.
If the Confederated States of America were a country, they could honor and celebrate their own “George Washingtons” and other heros, but you don’t get to lose your uprising, AND publicly honor the losers.
There is no national holiday for Adolf’s birthday, because his side lost. That’s the way it works, and everyone who doesn’t know the rules should learn them!!!
— End of Rant — but also my rationalization for supporting some sanitizing and opposing others…. sarcasm aside, I do really think there is an important distinction.
Does anyone know if slaves were buried in St. Mark’s church graveyard? Did the congregation include slaves?
Reading that Stuyvesant took the Jewish people possessions and tried to sell them at auction. Hmm when was the precedence of selling Jewish people’s at auction. How many where sold in auction prior to this threat? That is interesting.
A few years ago I read about the Flushing Remonstrance of 1657. Dutch citizens protested, in writing, to Peter Stuyvesant for minority rights in response to his treatment of Quakers and other minorities including Jews, Turks, and Egyptians. There was no mention of Africans who were enslaved.
The Stuyvesant Park on 15th and 16th Street, Stuyvesant Town, and down to the East Village is the part of the city where Peter Stuyvesant had his large farm and where he retired after his failed attempt to keep the city from the British.
Maybe going forward monuments will present the full history of people and protest movements will also be equally honored in such places.
From what I’ve read, Stuyvesant was an all out bigot,this doesn’t excuse his actions. However these statues shouldn’t be removed from the public . They should be used as anopportunity to continue the discussion. In the same placeyou see a statue of a Colson, Stuyvesant or a Rhodes. Upon the otherside of the site, there should be a Sojourner Truth, Sacajewawa,or a Boudicea , to represent the First Nations , Women,African and African Americans. History books need to be revised to include all people,but however bigoted our ancestors were, they still have a place tohelp us move forward. History is complex. We all need to see how we will be reflected,warts and all.
Statues are meant to honor people, they are not meant to simply mark the lives of important historical figures. This is why there are no statues to Hitler in Germany. Yet his name and life is well known. So we can discuss and remember the importance of certain people to America without erecting statues to their memory.
Very focused on ONE group of chit on people of the time.Not one mention of the Quakers having to live outside the city.Someone here is trying to start another fire for Manhattan’s umpteen burning.Poor O pete was turned on by his own merchants and resident Dutch did not care who they paid their taxes to so the English took rule with out a shot.There were more languages spoke than @ the UN on the streets,now that’s diverse.