In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

k Chapter 4 Trading Sovereignty: The Fur Trade and the Freedom of the Seas In early summer 1632,the Dutch commercial trader Eendracht sailed cautiously into the harbor at Plymouth Sound after being blown off course in the English Channel. The ship, whose name, meaning “harmony,” would later prove ironic, was not the first vessel to seek refuge in the harbor. Ships under many flags had retreated there for protection from the chaotic weather of the narrow passage.But the atmosphere aboard the Eendracht was even tenser than might be expected. Drenched and beleaguered—and perhaps doubtful of their survival—the crew had taken advantage of the Plymouth landing to demand immediate payment of their wages. More ominously still, there were rumors that the ship’s provost, angry with the captain, had begun to whisper to Plymouth authorities about the possibility that contraband goods were aboard. Soon, English port controllers swooped in, seizing the Eendracht on the accusation that the ship had traded beaver pelts with Delaware groups along part of the North American coast claimed by the English. As Dutch diplomats voiced their indignation in a flurry of written protests, a dispute about wages quickly escalated into an international controversy over clashing Dutch, English, and Native concepts of sovereignty.1 Three years later, another trader sparked an international controversy by running afoul of English authorities. This time it was an English ship, the Longtail, owned by William Claiborne, a fur trader who operated a post at Kent Island. Near the waters disputed in the Eendracht case, authorities from the colony of Maryland seized the Longtail and confiscated the cargo, which Claiborne had intended to use as currency in trade with the Susquehannocks , an economically powerful tribe that controlled the fur market north Trading Sovereignty 159 of the Chesapeake Bay. Unlike the Eendracht, the Longtail was ready for the authorities. Commandeered at cannon point by Henry Fleet, a captain in the employ of Maryland, the ship’s crew produced a sheaf of documents that included trading licenses stating that they “in no sort be interrupted in their Trade.”2 Despite their legal diligence, though, they met the same fate as the owners of the Eendracht. Fleet seized the ship’s cargo and claimed it for Maryland.3 Though powerless to protect their goods, the captains of the impounded vessels were not without recourse. After the seizure of the Eendracht, Dutch ambassadors quickly submitted appeals to the English crown, demanding the release of the ship and its cargo. The Longtail, too, was the subject of heated correspondence. For years its owners had been engaged in a running war with the proprietors of Maryland over trading rights, and Fleet’s act sparked a fresh round of pleas and remonstrances that reached Charles I about the same time as the Eendracht appeals.4 Yet the two groups of aggrieved petitioners had something more in common than a shared means of redress. In their petitions to the king, both grounded their trading rights in commercial exchanges with the Native polities that controlled the coast. The Dutch shippers claimed rights on the basis of their trade with the Delawares, while Claiborne pointed to his friendship and long history of commerce with the Susquehannocks. Denied redress under European law, both cited their participation in Native politics as a source of rights to trade and travel. In the previous chapters, I have examined how colonial governors (and their rivals and enemies) negotiated the possession of territory by publishing Native treaties. While the governments of chartered colonies derived their rights from the crown, treaties with Native peoples demonstrated control of territory. These treaties usually took the form of diplomatic relations or reports, though they often found their way into print. In this chapter, I consider how the documentary genres of the fur trade, such as trading licenses and receipts, served as a means of publicizing Native treaties.The legal needs of fur traders differed from those of settlers. Settlers were primarily interested in demonstrating control of territory. They used treaties to show that they were secure from challenges or attacks by Indians. Fur traders, however, rarely cared about owning the land beyond their trading posts. Instead, they sought trading rights, or the right to travel particular areas of the coast and engage in commerce with Native groups. Both the English crown and the United Provinces controlled trading rights through the granting of monopolies to companies. However, the ownership of [18.188.175.182] Project MUSE (2024-04-25...

Share