Talk:Dutch Raid on North America

Some critical but hopefully constructive remarks

You asked for some assistance with this draft article. I have provided a number of relevant wikilinks and did a copy edit, realizing that the choice of words is always subjective :-) My main criticism up to this point concerns the title. I think that the title "Dutch Raid on North America" would raise too many eyebrows. I mean "Dutch raid"? On "North America"? It certainly would raise a number of Anglophone hackles. After all, was one "Medway" not enough? It certainly is not a title that people would recognize (and, more importantly, search for). So I suggest you substitute something that sounds more familiar, like the title of one of your sources: De Zeeuwsche expeditie naar de West onder Cornelis Evertsen den Jonge 1672-1674. That would become Cornelis Evertsen the Youngest's naval expedition to the West Indies and English North America 1672-1674 (because it was Cornelis Evertsen the Youngest, not Cornelis Evertsen the Younger who led the expedition). But this is just a suggestion, of course. I think it is an important subject. Are you sure it was not already covered elsewhere? Apparently not, judging by the New Netherland and New Amsterdam articles that mention the expedition in passing without referring to a competing article. Ereunetes (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was indeed not sure about the title so I am probably gonna change that.

And please feel free to add more text to it ;). Because it will probably take a long time if I have to finish this on my own lol. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As to the title: I think what interests most people is the part of the expedition that resulted in the recapture of New Netherland/New Amsterdam. Why not make that the title: The Dutch recapture of New Amsterdam in 1673? Ereunetes (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I have written an article on Justus de Huybert, but I am missing stuff on his role in sending out the expedition, though I suspect he did this as secretary of the Zeeland Admiralty. The latter fact was not mentioned in the sources I used, so I need a reference for that also. Maybe you could add the necessary information to the article (with reference)? Ereunetes (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The source I used actually writes Caspar de Huybert, but I thought it was wrong and wrote Justus. Might be wrong myself tho. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No it is Justus. See the Dutch sources I used. He was secretary of the States at the right time, so it must be him. The sources in question are unfortunately very sparse with information. They don't mention the secretary of the Admiralty Board office, unfortunately, though it stands to reason that he combined that function with all the other functions. And that explains why he played such a big role in the preparation of the expedition (he was the Zeeland equivalent of Samuel Pepys in this respect). I'll see if I can find one or more of your sources for this article online. Ereunetes (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Shomette and Haslach book appeared to be accessible online via the link you provided, but it turned out I could only access the blurb of the book. In any case the 1928 memoir by De Waard is the really valuable source, at least for the Dutch part of the narrative. Shomette and Haslach are more bellyaching about the harassment of the English colonists. I could not access the De Waard book directly, but with some probing I found that Justus, as secretary of the Admiralty, wrote two "Secrete instructien voor het Esquader" to Evertsen, both of the same date: 21 Nov. 1672 (page 76). More importantly, the second instruction contains a memorandum by Pieter de Huybert, who was raadspensionaris of Zeeland at this time, and according to what I could glean from the De Waard book, the"motivating power" not only behind the expedition, but behind all of the colonial ambitions of Zeeland at the time (page LXI). Pieter was the uncle of Justus, so I think he should be mentioned also.

In any case if you need a "skeleton" for your narrative the following book review by J.R. de Bruyn [https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/247531 D.G. Shomette, R.D. Haslach, Raid on America. The Dutch naval campaign of 1672-1674 (uu.nl) Bruijn, J.R.

(1990) BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review, volume 105, issue 3, pp. 430 - 431

(Book review)] of the Shomette and Haslach book might be useful (I copy and past it here)

RECENSIE S D. G. Shomette, R. D. Haslach, Raid on America. The Dutch Naval Campaign of 1672-1674 (Studies in Maritime History; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988, xiii + 386 blz., $32.95, ISBN 0 87249 565 5). Sedert de lagere school is menig Nederlander ermee bekend dat New York vroeger Nieuw Amsterdam heeft geheten. Daarmee houdt meestal de kennis op. De Engelsen veroverden in 1665 de nederzetting aan de Hudson en behielden haar bij de vrede van Breda in 1667. Weinig bekend is evenwel dat een klein eskader oorlogsschepen uit Zeeland en Amsterdam in 1673 deze verovering ongedaan heeft gemaakt en New York omdoopte in Nieuw Oranje. Het duurde slechts kort, want in de Republiek bestond maar weinig interesse voor deze matig renderende bezitting (hooguit ƒ40.000,-, per jaar). Bij de vredesonderhandelingen in februari 1674, die de derde Engelse oorlog zouden afsluiten, werd Nieuw Nederland zonder aarzeling opgegeven. Er was ook weinig tijd geweest om de herovering militair te consolideren. Het bericht had de Republiek pas in het late najaar van 1673 bereikt en was voor iedereen een complete verrassing geweest. Het enige oorlogsschip dat uiteindelijk naar de Hudson vertrok, had de vredesbepalin�gen aan boord en de instructie Nieuw Oranje te ontruimen, hetgeen in november 1674 gebeurde. Een kortstondige periode van Nederlands machtsvertoon in Noord-Amerika. Het was ook de laatste maal dat het gebeurde. Maar het was in feite een niet gepland machtsvertoon. Twee eskadertjes oorlogsschepen waren onafhankelijk van elkaar uit de Republiek in december 1672 vertrokken: het een uit Amsterdam onder leiding van Jacob Binckes, het ander uit Zeeland onder Cornelis Evertsen (de Duivel). Binckes zou na een konvooireis naar Cadiz op jacht gaan naar Engelse en Franse buit in het Caraïbisch zeegebied. Evertsen had nog ambitieuzer instructies: het verschalken van de Engelse Oostindische retourvloot bij het verversingseiland St. Helena. Indien dit niet lukte moest hij de toestand bij Suriname en Cayenne opnemen en buit zoeken op een tocht van West-Indië naar de visgronden bij Newfoundland. Een herovering van New York stond bij geen van beide commandanten in de instructie vermeld. Evertsen kwam zelfs niet aan het begin van uitvoering van de plannen bij St. Helena toe. Tot groot misnoegen van zijn Zeeuwse opdrachtgevers, die hun vrijwel lege kas met buitgeld wilden vullen. Al bij de Kaap Verdische eilanden passeerde hem een veel sterker Engels eskader, op weg naar hetzelfde doel en het gemunt hebbend op de retourvloot van de VOC. Wellicht iets te lichtvaardig schakelde Evertsen op het Westindisch alternatief over. Cayenne kon niet veroverd worden, Suriname was nog in Zeeuwse handen en vervolgens op rooftocht bij de Bovenwindse eilanden ontmoette hij de schepen van Binckes. Er werd besloten verder gezamenlijk te opereren; het commando zou van week tot week rouleren. Op het westelijk halfrond was zo een scheepsmacht van betekenis ontstaan, één waarop de tegenstanders niet waren voorbereid. In de Engelse koloniën op de oostkust van Amerika veroorzaakte zij grote paniek. De onbekendheid in hun eigen land van de activiteiten van Binckes en Evertsen en de drang de gevolgen ervan in de Engelse koloniën te willen uitzoeken, waren voor de twee Amerikanen Shomette (verbonden aan de Library of Congress en auteur van boeken over zeerovers en scheepswrakken in Amerikaanse wateren) en Haslach (tot voor kort werkzaam bij de Neder�landse ambassade in Washington en auteur van Nishi, no kaze hare, de Nederlands-Indische Inlichtingendienst tegen Japan) de drijfveren te zamen het boek Raid on America te schrijven. En met een goed resultaat. Zij slaagden erin een prettig leesbaar en goed gedocumenteerd boek te maken. Zij werden daarbij wel geholpen door het feit dat de Zeeuwse archivist C. de Waard in 1928 als deel 30 van de Werken van de Linschoten-Vereeniging liet verschijnen: De Zeeuwsche expeditie naar de West onder Cornelis Evertsen den Jonge 1672-1674. De Waard 430 RECENSIE S publiceerde naast een uitvoerige inleiding het journaal van Evertsen en zeer vele documenten betrekking hebbend op de voorbereiding en afwikkeling van de expeditie en het bestuur van Nieuw Nederland. Niet alleen de inleiding, maar ook deze gedrukte bronnen hebben Shomette en Haslach uitputtend gebruikt en op de voet gevolgd als basis voor hun verhaal. Daarnaast zochten zij met succes in Engelse en Amerikaanse bronnenpublikaties informatie over de 'andere kant' van het verhaal. Te zamen is aldus een vrij volledig beeld ontstaan, dat voor de Nederlandse lezers veel nieuws bevat over de Engelse acties en reacties in Londen en in de koloniën. Wat de Nederlandse kant betreft biedt Raid on America na De Waard vrijwel geen andere zaken. Er is niet gepoogd meer licht te werpen op het eskader Binckes of op de opbrengst van de buit, waarvoor in de archieven van de Rekenkamer in het Rijksarchief te Zeeland materiaal ligt. Evenmin is alle relevante Nederlandse literatuur verwerkt. Met liefde voor het detail en sfeertekeningen niet schuwend, schetsen Shomette en Haslach de toestand waarin de Engelse koloniën zich bevonden. Interne politieke en religieuze spanningen deden zich volop voelen. Diverse gouverneurs leefden in onmin met hun kolonisten. Van een gemeenschappelijke band tussen de verschillende gebieden van Virginia tot New England toe was geen sprake. Virginia troffen Binckes en Evertsen in juli 1673 totaal onvoorbereid, maar onbekendheid met de navigatie in de kustwateren en riviermondingen belemmerden hun operaties. Maar onder de tabaksvloot konden ze flink huishouden. New York bood in augustus geen enkel verzet en zo viel tegen de bedoeling in Nieuw Nederland in handen van de twee zeeofficieren. Het bestuur droegen zij spoedig op aan de bekwame militair Anthony Colve, die in de navolgende maanden geconfronteerd werd met de wisselvallige of kordate houding van Engelse bestuurders in de aangrenzende gebieden (met name op Long Island) die echter nooit één front maakten. De beide auteurs maken hier goed duidelijk hoe kwetsbaar de positie van Colve en de zijnen was na het vertrek van het eskader. Eind september 1673 vertrokken Binckes en Evertsen via de Azoren en Cadiz met hun omvangrijke buit naar patria. Enkele van hun schepen hadden nog geducht huis gehouden onder de vijandelijke Terreneufvaarders. Evertsen werd na thuiskomst door de gecommitteerde raden (tevens bestuurders van de admiraliteit) duchtig aan de tand gevoeld over het niet nakomen van zijn instructies. Hij moest spijt betuigen eer hij weer voor een nieuw commando in aanmerking kwam. Binckes werd in Amsterdam vriendelijker ontvangen. Het blijft een intrigerende periode in onze geschiedenis, waarin zelfs een tweegevecht tussen een Zeeuws en een Engels oorlogs�schip op de neutrale rede van Cadiz 'om te toonen, dat niet voor den Engelsman bevreest ofte ingeweecken was', niet ontbreekt en waarin overal telkens weer kaperschepen actief blijken te zijn. Shomette en Haslach confronteren ons Nederlanders door hun aardige boek opnieuw met deze episode en bieden hun landgenoten een ongekend stuk geschiedenis. J. R. Bruijn Ereunetes (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I found the book by De Waard online at Delpher. Waard, C. de. "De Zeeuwsche expeditie naar de West onder Cornelis Evertsen den Jonge 1672-1674". Delpher (in Dutch). Retrieved 20 June 2023. I hope this is helpful.I'll put the url in the draft. Ereunetes (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now written the companion article on the uncle, Pieter de Huybert and mentioned the naval expedition in both articles. But as the name of the article has not been decided, I could not yet put in a wikilink. Ereunetes (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A number of things that are unclear in the section about the engagement with Munden

I have meanwhile bought the Shomette-Haslach book and read the chapter on the engagement at Sao Tiago island (modern Santiago, Cape Verde; maybe we should use the old name, like in the book and put the wikilink underneath). There are a number of things unclear in the narrative (and conseqently in the draft). The article gives the impression that the Dutch ships were anchored in some kind of bay with a narrow neck, so that it was easy to "lock them in". But if one looks at the map of the island there seems to be no bay answering to this description. Only near the town of Praia a bay-like indentation in the coastline appears. I presume therefore that Praia is indeed the location of the first encounter, though this is not clearly indicated in the book. But this is a relatively "open" bay. The book also describes the battle as more or less a race along the coast in which the Dutch were eventually able to outrun their English (not British yet) pursuers. Munden eventually gave up, and left for St. Helena, not without having taken time out to fish up the Dutch anchors, however :-) I think we should follow the narrative in the book more closely (also because we need references) and emphasize important details like the absence of the ship Schaeckerloo under captain De Witte (p.70) during the engagement. I think it would be prudent to give a list of the Dutch ships in the squadron and their captains (I was personally happy with the fact that the authors obey the Dutch capitalization conventions for Dutch surnames :-)

In the narrative it is unclear why Munden hoped to intercept the VOC homeward-bound fleet at Saint Helena, as the Dutch ships would normally give this island a wide berth. It was however an important "watering place" for the EIC ships going to the East and returning home, as they could not use the Dutch facilities at the Cape of Good Hope. But this fact explains why Evertsen planned to waylay the EIC fleet at St. Helena originally, as it was a "virtual chokepoint" on the English route. We might point this out in a note. The book is unclear about all of this. But the article on Richard Munden (Royal Navy officer) gives a full explanation. That article makes clear that Munden may not have planned an ambush at all at St. Helena, but just lucked out (see the article on Munden). I am afraid Shomette-Haslach were not aware of all this. But we are :-) Ereunetes (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I was just struggling myself, because I didn't know how much details I should include. I also remember that I was searching for the bay as well when I edited that part lol. When I have some time again I will start editing this page again, but in the mean time I won't stop you from adding new information. Consider this page just as much yours as it is mine. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I myself am currently a bit constrained for time. Besides, you are further along with the research for the article, so I gladly defer to you to direct the course. I see my role more as a helpmate in suggesting wikilinks and other details. The danger for the both of us is that we spread ourselves too thin (see what is currently happening around the Battle of Malplaquet article. And I have the problems with the issue of capitalization of personal names, as you know.) But because you have chosen the "draft" approach here there is no reason for undue hurry. Ereunetes (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. I appreciate your help. Tomorrow I probably will add some content again DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now also rewritten the Anthony Colve article, as I happened to find a good (well, riddled with errors, actually, but it was written by an American, so what can you do :-) source for it. I think that like the Pieter de Huybert and Justus de Huybert articles it might be useful to "weave" into the draft. But I would have liked to put a wikilink into it, which I can't do as the title of the draft is still uncertain. Not that I want to press you, of course :-) Ereunetes (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I will edit the article in the upcoming days, so don't worry. Just been a bit busy. Maar lekker bezig DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am hopelessly addicted. Now fleshing out the Colve article with stuff from Shomette and Haslach Ereunetes (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now finished with Anthony Colve. It was a kind of carnival ride during which I discovered a lot of facts new to me (and probably also to most other people). I recommend the article and its sources to your attention; it might come in useful :-) Ereunetes (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I started this draft exacltly because this is a great story that nobody knows about (weirdly enough). It just was a little bigger than I expected and it is just a bit out of my actual historical interests.

Anyway, the page of Colve looks great. Will definitely use it. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I just finished Jacques-Louis Comte de Noyelles which is more in your direct sphere of interest ("Veertigjarige oorlog"). Also kind of a dark horse. He may be taken for a "Huguenot", but he was not. He was a protestant Walloon. There is a difference :-) He is indirectly relevant for Colve, as he succeeded Caspar de Mauregnault as colonel of the regiment on the Zeeland "repartitie" that Colve joined after his return. That regiment was therefore first known as "Mauregnault" and later as "Fallais" (the alias of Noyelles). Ereunetes (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw it. I hoped somebody would make a page for him. I couldn't find much Dutch sources describing his life. But I now found out that Wijn describes some of his actions, so I will edit the page probably a bit more in the upcomming days DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

We almost got into each other's way :-) Fortunately nothing went wrong, but the danger was that we would delete each other's work that way. Better make sure we are not working on the article at the same time. In any case, yours was a valuable addition. But I think you might now also edit Battle of Elixheim accordingly. I have a lot of egg on my face as I misread the stuff in the Luik Bulletin and mistakenly swapped the grandparents for the real parents including the no-good father Eugene-Eustace. But I have corrected that. Hopefully nobody noticed :-) Ereunetes (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I already did an edit on Elixheim just now. But more is to come :) DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Page name

So what should the name of the page be. I am struggeling with this question. The obvious one would be "The Dutch recapture of New Netherland," but I feel that it ignores the first part of the mission. The raid didn't start out with that goal in mind. What do you guys think? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that they didn't start out with the objective of recapturing New Amsterdam does not impress me; that is the story of most military conquests. My reason for preferring "The Dutch recapture of New Netherland" is that this fortuitous result draws people's attention. "Notability" in other words (there is some kind of Wiki term for this, no doubt). Crijnssen did something similar, and even captured the Guyanas, but is far less well known. Both naval expeditions were examples of a guerre de course, usually conducted by the underdog (France during the Napoleonic wars; Hitler Germany in WWII). That is fodder for the cognoscenti, but most consumers of Wikipedia couldn't care less. But if another title has to be found one should look at analogous situations. For instance Francis Drake's expedition of 1572–1573 or Drake in California. De Ruyter's expedition to recapture the slave forts in 1664, followed by his excursion to the Caribbean also comes to mind, but there apparently is no article about that. Ereunetes (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Another thing: I think we shouldn't lean too heavily on Shomette and Haslach. They are not infallible, as witnessed by a number of howlers like using the singluar "State" where they clearly mean "States" (they appear not to know that the word is a Plurale tantum both in Dutch and in English). Also "capers" is not a good translation of "kapers", it should be "privateers". So Anglophone readers will be mystified by their frequent use of the word when they refer to Dutch privateers. But this is quibbling. More important is that we have their sources available, such as De Waard. I think we should switch more between them. I also think we should think about a division of labor between this general article and individual articles about aspects of the subject matter. We don't have to repeat exactly what is in articles like the Second Battle of the James River (1673) which I have suggested as a "Main article". On the other hand, this article could become a "main article" for such articles if we put "general" information in it, like a table with the names etc. of the ships in the two squadrons. In that respect: Shomette and Haslach give full data on the Zeeland squadron, but far less on the Amsterdam squadron. I only found Noordhollandt for Binckes flagship, and also De Dolphijn, but the two other big Holland ships remain nameless (though their captains are mentioned). If these names are not available in our current sources, they should be available elsewhere, I suspect. Ereunetes (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf I copy-edited the valued submissions of Fxzeds, and I think we now have a rough draft, which still needs a lot of polishing, though. In view of the fact that the proposed new title of Recapture of New Netherland has been pre-empted by Fxzeds, I suggest we use either the current title, or change it slightly to "Naval expediton of Evertsen and Binckes in 1673 to English North America". I am bad at making tables so I hope someone else will make a list of the ships in the two squadrons, with their particulars (see Shomette and Haslach). Ereunetes (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ze zijn gauw tevreden. Ik voorzie moeilijkheden over die slavenhandel na de tijdelijke herovering van St. Eustatius. Arme Cornelis wordt vermoedelijk onmiddellijk gecancelled als de Nederlandse pers daarvan lucht krijgt. Ik denk dat we iets vrooms in een voetnoot moeten toevoegen over het feit dat slaafgemaakten helaas als oorlogsbuit werden gezien. Of zo. Ereunetes (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The page-title issue has been resolved by others. No need to be wiseacres and move it to something more acceptable, although I still think it is unfortunate that the title is so close to the title of the Shomette and Haslach book. I have used the title now for a number of "main article" insertions in the related articles (see "what links here"), so it is no longer an orphan article. Ereunetes (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Ik denk dat zo'n voetnoot een beetje overbodig zou zijn. Maar als we kunnen voorkomen dat Cornelis gecancelled wordt dan ben ik voor ;) DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Te laat, vrees ik. Het gaat me meer om de reputatie van het artikel. We kunnen de passage niet meer schrappen, wat misschien het beste zou zijn geweest. Maar In Het Huidige Tijdsgewricht moeten we wel laten blijken dat we dit "nu niet meer zo zouden doen". Want dit is natuurlijk een mooi voorbeeld van het als Koopwaar (Chattels) gebruiken van Slaafgemaakten. Voor je het weet moet WA weer excuus aanbieden :-) Ereunetes (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should rename it to either Dutch raid on America, or Dutch naval campaign of 1672-1674, tough i think Dutch raid on America seems better. Fxzeds (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Alas, it is too late now. Renaming it is not worth the trouble it would cause. Ereunetes (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

350 year jubilee of the Liberation of New Netherland on 9 August is close

While we are dithering here the 350 year commemoration of the Liberation of New Amsterdam is very near. That should be 9 August, as that is the New Style date (see De Waard, pp. 39-44, where the pages of Evertsen's ship's log are given). The Old Style date Shomette and Haslach give should not be used, as we now all live under NS, even the British, so the Jubilee should follow the NS dates. I think we should get a move on, and alert DYK. And edit the relevant articles, to give decently presented information. Without typos. Ereunetes (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Reconquest of New Netherland for DYK with a reference to the NS date of 9 August 1673 (and the 350 year anniversary, for whomsoever might not immediately get the import). Of course with Fxzeds as first author. Ereunetes (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Success! @Fxzeds congratulatiuons with your first DYK-award! And may many follow. Ereunetes (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)