On the River

Poughkeepsie

Reviving Hudson Maritime Industry?

War and the Hudson

The Hudson River proved to be a crucial part of the quest for freedom among American colonies. George Washington realized the importance that the Hudson River and the Hudson River Valley would play in the war against the British, and he defended the region accordingly. After Burgoyne's victory at Saratoga, General Washington ordered General Vaughn to build West Point on the most narrow part of the Hudson River, which Washington called the 'key to America.' This is interesting because Washington knew that the British would try to come as far up the Hudson as they could, for the river was rich with trade opportunities. West Point took two years to build and cost $3 million, and fortress that seemed impossible to infiltrate stood on the Hudson. West Point, however, would be the center of the most infamous case of treason in American history. Benedict Arnold, an officer under Washington, sold the plans of West Point and the battle plans of the Continental army to a British officer. Personally, I did not realize that the Hudson was part of the foundation that built America. Washington's foresight as to the importance that the Hudson would play in the war saved the colonies, and his construction of West Point created a great fortress, which transformed into the U.S. army's university/college. What is most impressive about West Point is that it truly could not be penetrated by English forces. Not until an officer of the U.S. army decided to betray his country did the fort seem vulnerable to attack. This is truly amazing. Yet this story about the revolutionary war is not as well known as Gettysburg or Lexington. If Washington did not protect the Hudson, we may all be speaking in English accents and drinking tea in the late afternoon. The Hudson was one of the most, if not the most important trade regions in colonial America. The fur trade was booming, and the colonies could not lose such an important part of their new economy. The Hudson was vital to America before it became a free, democratic society - and the Hudson would shape the economic structure of the northeast and the rest of the country for years to come. Washington's efforts to protect the river from the British proved to be just as important as the famous battles that we have read about throughout High School and College.

Hudson and the Revolutionary War

While reading Tom Lewis' section on the impact of the Hudson on the Revolutionary War from his book I was intrigued at how much of an impact the river had on the outcome and strategy of the war. When thinking of the Revolutionary War I think of many important battles, but i never thought about the location of the battles in relationship to the Hudson River. The Hudson River, according to Lewis, was instrumental to many of the decisions that generals and George Washington made throughout the war. George Washington knew that the river valley would be important and "kept a wary eye on the valley knowing that 'passage of the Enemy up the North River, is a point big with many Consequences to the public interest." The English were considered to have the best navy in the world, and the fact that a militia army was able to hold the river amazes me. One of the aspects of George Washington's military intelligence that impresses me is that he knew that it was imperative that the English did not control the river with their navy and he constructed a remarkable fortress in West Point. The fortress consisted of a massive chain that went across the river as well as a fortresses that altogether consisted of sixty cannons. The river now became in control of the rebels and only sabotage from the inside it seemed, would allow the English to take control of the river. The fortress of West Point served its purpose in the Revolutionary War and would continue to be a landmark in the US military. Another battle in the Hudson River Valley that intrigues me is the battle of Saratoga. The American forces were able to us their knowledge of the land and we were able to surround the British on three sides with the river as the fourth and 'cork the bottle' on the British troops and not allow them to retreat. The American army used its knowledge of the river to build a fortress at a key location on the river and its knowledge of the landscape to win an important battle at Saratoga

The Steamboat...

While the concept of a steam powered vessel was not new, it was the ingenuity and perseverance of Robert Fulton and Chancellor Robert R. Livingston that would bring the first vessel to the Hudson and forever change the face of boating on the river.
Fascinated by mechanics at a young age, Fulton dabbled in the design of various machines such as a mill for cutting marble. His more interesting designs, however, followed a maritime theme. He made designs of various crafts, including submarines, and a vessel with a salmon tail-inspired propulsion system. While none of these designs ever produced a viable prototype, it was his interest in canals that brought him to France, where he met Livingston, who was serving as America's minister to France.
Both Fulton and Livingston had interest in steamboats, and each had dabbled with designs prior to the establishment of their formal partnership in 1806. With Livingston handling the financial and political business, and Fulton creating the first prototype vessel, they formed a seemingly unstoppable force. In 1798, Livingston had convinced the New York state legislature to give him a "exclusive rights to operate steamboats on the Hudson River," provided he manufacture a craft that could meet what the legislature believed to be an impractical set of requirements.
The vessel was completed in 1807, having survived both financial strain and attempted sabotage by local boatmen threatened by what they saw as the end of their era. With their monopoly in place, Fulton and Livingston's steamboat entered regular service on the Hudson River later that year, traveling regularly between New York and Albany. The steamboat forever changed the concept of maritime transportation, in that its travel time between ports could be roughly predicted, unlike sail powered vessels. By establishing a scheduled service, vast numbers of people were able to access the region and move efficiently and predictably between it's key ports.
Not suprisingly, many challenged the monopoly as Fulton and Livingston's enterprise grew, amounting to a series of legal actions that would continue long after their deaths. While neither Fulton or Livingston ever achieved the true success they both lusted for, their actions and achievements paved the way for numerous entrepreneurs and the future of the transportation industry as a whole.

Information gathered from Tom Lewis's "The Hudson: A History"

Pete Seeger

Hudson River Ramble

High Tech Subs to Monitor Hudson

Native Americans in Shorto's work

Shorto’s work encompasses many different aspects of New York’s discovery and settlement by Europeans. The author does a fantastic job of illustrating the tumultuous relations between European nations, namely England and the Netherlands, which helped shaped the small outpost into the thriving metropolis that it is today. Furthermore, Shorto acknowledges to the many Native American nations whose influence on New York is of vital importance. Often times the history of the Americas is examined through a Eurocentric lens where the influence of native peoples is largely ignored. The Island at the Center of the World not only illustrates the importance of these people but also does justice to their diverse cultural heritage and tragic down fall.
There are two separate groups of Indians that Shorto discusses at length. These groups are defined not by culture but merely geography. The tribes to the north, specifically the Mohawk and Mahican, were very different culturally and linguistically but are often grouped together by Shorto because there geography afforded them similar treatment from the Europeans to their south. The tribes to the South, specifically the Wickquasgeck, Tappan, Raritan and Hackinsack, were embroiled in conflict with Dutch settlers because of their proximity to Manhattan.
Shorto points out that there are two stereotypes that make it difficult for us to understand these people, “The one arose from the long cultural dismissing of American Indians as ‘primitive’, and the modern dogma that sees them as Noble and Defenseless” (50-51). He goes on to illustrate that neither or these perceptions is correct. His examples of Native American culture show how these people were just like us in their capacity to be benevolent, vengeful, rash and intelligent as any European. Although they may not have been technologically advanced by European standards, these people had a profound effect on the history of New York.
The southern group of Indian’s that inhabited the area served as invaluable guides in the very early years of Dutch settlement. They were involved in the exchange of land all around Manhattan including the Island itself. These peoples understanding of real estate, which Shorto explains in great detail, indicates that they were not duped into selling their land at unreasonably low costs but in fact benefited from the protection and trade with Europeans that came back to them via these exchanges. The many conflicts between these groups and the European settlers also had a profound effect on the area. Kieft’s war and the Council of Blood “became ingrained in the national psyche” (125). The opposition of many Dutch settlers to war with the Native Americans would have profound effects throughout Dutch states.
The northern group of Indians was also very important to the development of New York. Shorto points out that the trade of Beaver pelts was extremely important to the early economy of New Amsterdam. It was the Mohawk and Mahican tribes that were responsible for trapping the Beavers and shipping the pelts to the Hudson River where they could be exported. Without the contributions of these peoples, it is likely that the economic history of New York would have been profoundly different.
In reading this work I was struck by Shorto’s treatment of the many Indian nations around Manhattan. He gave a detailed account of their cultural diversity and ways of life. His discussion of the many conflicts with Europeans illustrated not only the tragic bloodshed, most notably Kieft’s war and Peach war, but also the unique place of Native Americans in helping to shape modern day New York.

Now I Have to Go to The Netherlands

About midway through Island at the Center of the World, I had the inexplicable urge to go to The Netherlands (which I'd been calling Holland - Holland is actually just a part of The Netherlands, like a county or state), and I began researching Study Abroad opportunities. I'd been planning on going to Vienna for a year now, but I was really, really tempted to change my application destination to Leiden. I didn't in the end, but I do know I will be heading north, towards Scandinavia, for Spring Break, and not south to Ibiza.
But that's all anecdotal - there's a particular passage in Chapter 13 about the linguistic contributions of the Dutch that fascinated me. Specifically, the words "boss" (which, as Shorto points out in a footnote referencing Bruce Springsteen, is a classically American word), "cookies" (without which Girl Scout Cookies would not be the phrase it is), and "cole slaw" (essential to all good BBQ - essentially the cuisine of America). Shorto also spends a mere paragraph on the Dutch origins of the American celebration of Christmas, which, by now, has not only completely forgotten its Eurpoean roots, but is synonymous with American consumerism, since the Christmas shopping season begins about two months before thre actual holiday.
Previous to reading this book, I had never given much thought to the Dutch in general - I couldn't point out The Netherlands on a map, and I was pretty sure Dutch was spoken in Denmark. I was wrong, of course.
I'd be interested to learn if there were any linguistic similarities between the Indian languages spoken at the time and Dutch, since so much of New York is named after either. I also wonder whether there are words in our vernacular that originated in Indian languages, or if Europeans so thoroughly dessimated the culture as to ensure that even the tiniest remnant - like "cookie" - could not permeate.
Overall, Shorto's book was very lively and edifying.

Do The Dutch Care?

In my American arrogance, I had always believed our country laid the unique framework for its political focus on liberty, justice, and equality from a unique balancing act of fundamental Judeo-Christian values, Greco-Roman values for the city-state, as well as the Enlightenment. We had drawn from ancient political ideals to create our distinctive system of religious tolerance, due process, and limited government that was unheard of in other parts of the world. The textbooks of today fail to mention a society with “American ideals” appearing before us.
The chapter titled “The Lawman” discusses the many components of the Dutch Republic’s ideology that appear remarkably similar to the American political ideals I conceived were our own. The town of Leiden was a sanctuary of religious freedom where “Brownists, Baptists, Walloons, Huguenots, Fifth Monarchy Men, and Ashkenazic Jews came … to live and worship” (95). The magistrates of the town voiced their openness to William Bradford and Pilgrims who had no choice but to escape discrimination in England, declaring the only requirement to live in the city was [honest behavior and submission to all laws]. Even the 1579 Dutch provincial de facto constitution guaranteed that “each person shall remain free, especially in his religion” (96). The Framers of the American Constitution believed religious diversity would strengthen the state, however, the common conception that they discovered this idea is incorrect.
In the Dutch Republic, the “age of the individual was at hand” and the “modern concept of a state as an independent political entity was coming into being” (98-99). Privacy became an unwritten right as the home redefined itself as a “personal, intimate space.” People even understood the strength of the people and the importance of the common man. One of Grotius’s followers, Piet van Cunaeus, established the idea that a “republican form of government was morally superior to a monarchy, and that enterprises like the West India Company enriched a wealthy few to the detriment of both the state and ordinary people” (100). These ideas molded the Dutch generation, but are also fundamental to American politics today.
These components imbedded in our political ideology have gained immeasurable amounts of exposure as America’s distinct values, while people ignore the Dutch history that clearly displayed these principles 200 years before. With the loss of this recognition and the lack of acknowledgement for their role in Manhattan’s growth, the Dutch surprise me. I wonder what is going on in their minds. Few Americans understand the role they have played in the physical and ideological foundation of our nation. Do the Dutch care?

FDR's Secret Friend

Holly Hill

Monitoring Hudson

Bass Fishing Tour Comes to Hudson

Desalination Plant Proposed for Hudson

Networking the Hudson