Some Thoughts on Theory: New Netherland Emerging Scholars Roundtable Takeaway

I do not consider myself to be a "theory-driven" historian. Theory influences the way I read and think about primary and secondary sources, but I don’t write about how specific theories apply to my argument. Or so I thought.

New Netherland Emerging Scholars Roundtable

On Friday October 5, I attended the inaugural New Netherland Emerging Scholars Roundtable. Sponsored by the Dutch Consulate, the Nederlandse Taalunie, and the New Netherland Institute, the Roundtable convened for a full day of discussion about the scholarship on New Netherland by “emerging” scholars.

Eight emerging scholars and eight established scholars participated. The work of the emerging scholars explored the history of New Netherland from the vantage points of architecture, art, objects, ideas, culture, and trade. As the last presenter, I collected nearly 7 pages of notes about the history of New Netherland before the Roundtable turned its attention to my project.

I participated in the Roundtable with the hope that the other scholars would assist me with sources and ideas for how I could study the influence of Native Americans and non-Dutch Europeans on the development of the New World Dutch identity that developed in Beverwyck/Albany between 1614 and 1664. Although I began with this request, conversation quickly turned to my use of "identity" as a theoretical concept.

Roundtable Discussion

Initially, the Roundtable seemed to support my ideas about identity. Participants asked questions about how the concept worked in the 17^th century, whether I had looked at religion as a major influence in identity creation, or if I had studied the contribution of African slaves to the New World Dutch Identity of Beverwyck. As I considered these questions, Walter Prevenier raised his hand: “I don’t get identity.”

I explained that I understood identity to be the way a person understood their relationship with their ethnicity, religion, community, region, and nation. I also explained that the word “identity” was fraught with ambiguity, which is why I avoid using the word in my written work as much as possible. Instead, I use “self-understandings” or refer to specific subjects of my study.

Prevenier pressed further: “How can you tell how the Dutch colonists identified unless they tell you in the written record ‘I identify as Dutch’?”

Great point.

Without intending to, I had latched on to "identity" as a theory and centered the argument of my dissertation on it. Subconsciously I knew I stood on shaky ground, but the urge to make a grand argument that would contribute to the historiography overwhelmed my objections.

REVELATION

Historical arguments do not have to be steeped in theory to be interesting or compelling.

Prevenier’s point seemed obvious. In fact, as soon as he articulated it, I understood his confusion and realized that it mirrored my own, hence why I used the terms “identity” and “self-understandings” sparingly in my written work.

Prevnier’s remarks helped me to admit that I was trying to force a modern-day concept (albeit a popular one) on my historic subjects who would not have understood “identity” the way I do.

Once I stated this realization out loud, I felt free to leave the theory of “identity” behind me.

Book Proposal Tweaks 

The Roundtable scholars supported my decision to abandon "identity." No one advocated a complete overhaul of my project. Instead we discussed different ways I could reframe the argument I want to make, which is something along the lines of "early Americans used cultural adaptation as a mechanism for surviving life in a sparsely-settled frontier, war, intercultural diplomacy, politics, and economic and demographic change."

I am still working on my new 1-2 sentence explanation of my project, but once I have it, I will tweak my book proposal to reflect it.

I am grateful for the New Netherland Emerging Scholars Roundtable participants for their conversation and ideas. They provided me with invaluable insight that will improve my book.

What Do You Think?

What do you think about using theory to make a historical argument? Do you think theory is necessary to answer our questions about the past? Do you think historians overuse theory?

New Netherland Seminar: Emerging Scholars Roundtable

In July, the New Netherland Institute invited me to participate in its new Emerging Scholars Roundtable. The roundtable will foster interaction between graduate students, junior scholars, and established scholars. I jumped at the opportunity to participate because my dissertation-to-book revision project extends my period of study backward to 1615. As a scholar of Revolutionary and Early National America, I need all the advice I can get about New Netherland.

Emerging Scholars Roundtable

The Roundtable will take place on October 4, the day before the Annual New Netherland Seminar (October 5). Ruth Piwonka, Jaap Jacobs, Firth Fabend, David W. Voorhees, Janny Venema, Charles Gehring, and Walter Prevenier will serve as the panel of established scholars.

The emerging scholars submitted 5-7-page project descriptions to the roundtable participants. The descriptions outline each emerging scholar’s area of research and the conceptual and/or research problems they face.

My Proposal

What did I put in my proposal?

I asked the established scholars for assistance with the first chapter of my book.

In my first chapter, I will discuss the characteristics of the New World Dutch identity created by the people of Beverwyck (Albany, pre-1664). Roughly 51% of the colonists in New Netherland were born in the Netherlands, the remaining 49% came from all over Europe. Many scholars use “Dutch” to describe the 7,000-8,000 colonists who settled in New Netherland. I have never been comfortable with that.

New Netherlanders were Dutch in the sense that they lived under Dutch authority, but culturally they comprised something different. Wherever they settled, New Netherlanders created community identities that allowed them to avoid cultural disputes. In the case of those who settled in Beverwyck, the colonists developed highly adaptable self-understandings that allowed its diverse population to live and trade with each other and the Native American peoples who lived around them.

The secondary-source literature states that Dutch culture inalterably changed the cultures of Native Americans and non-Dutch colonists. Dutch culture profoundly influenced the self-understandings of the people of Beverwyck. However, the culture of Native Americans and non-Dutch colonists also inalterably changed the culture of the Dutch colonists. The secondary-source literature does not discuss these cultural contributions.

My Book

In my book, I would like to mention how Native Americans and non-Dutch colonists affected the creation of New World Dutch cultures. Admittedly, this topic deserves more than a mention and could fill many dissertations and books.

I hope to gain ideas from the scholars on the roundtable about the cultural contributions Native Americans and non-Dutch colonists made to New World Dutch cultures.

Understanding these contributions is crucial because New Netherlanders handed down a flexible culture that informed how the people of Albany adapted old self-understandings to create new self-understandings as New Yorkers, Britons, and citizens of the United States.

1763: A Revolutionary Peace Exhibit

I have a new article at the Journal of the American Revolution: "1763: A Revolutionary Peace Exhibit."

The Treaty that Redefined North America

On Wednesday August 10, 1763, crowds of Bostonians gathered after nightfall and stood watch over the harbor. Under the glow of the bonfires that lined the town’s shoreline, the people assembled to view a fireworks display, which signified the importance and special nature of the occasion: Earlier that afternoon, at one o’clock, Governor Francis Bernard read King George III’s proclamation of peace. The Treaty of Paris 1763 had ended the French and Indian War (1754-1763).[1]

The peace negotiators called the Treaty of Paris 1763 the “Definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship.” The Treaty redrew the physical map of North America and changed the way the British Empire governed its colonies. The Treaty also prompted King George III to issue a royal proclamation that redefined relationships between Europeans and Native Americans. Bostonians greeted the Treaty of Paris 1763 with exuberant fanfare because it promised a lasting peace.[2]

For the first time ever, Great Britain’s copy of the Treaty of Paris 1763 is on display in North America.[3] In honor of the 250th anniversary of the Treaty, the 1763 Peace of Paris Commemoration—a coalition of partners and funders including state and national chapters of the Society of Colonial Wars—joined forces with the Bostonian Society to bring the victor’s copy of the Treaty to Boston. The Treaty that redefined North America will be on display at the Old State House through October 7, 2013.

Continue Reading

The American Revolution: Coming to Terms with its Loyalist & Disaffected Legacies

This week, the Journal of the American Revolution featured three articles I wrote about my quest to find out why so few Boston historic organizations offered Loyalist-related events during the 32^nd Annual Harborfest festivities. (Searching for Loyalists Part 1, Part 2, & Part 3) My search for Loyalists began as an academic exercise. However, after I wrote my conclusion, “Americans must hear and consider all sides of the Revolution to truly appreciate just how dangerous, dramatic, and revolutionary the Revolution really was,” I realized that it had also been about my personal journey. Personal experience rather than the evidence I collected informed my conclusion. When I turned 18, I joined the Daughters of the American Revolution. My mother helped me fill out my membership application. I had several ancestors to choose from, but we focused our attention on two men because our family Bible made the lineages easiest to prove. In the end, we chose to file my membership with Michael Hess. The other easy-to-prove ancestor turned out to be a Loyalist. Mortified, I have kept the existence of this part of my family tree a secret.

Coming to Terms with My Loyalist Ancestor

When my graduate school advisor suggested that I research Albany, New York for my dissertation, I did not know that I had ancestral roots to Dutch Beverwijck. Nor did I remember that Michael Hess had served New York State as a member of the Albany County militia. However, this happy coincidence has helped me to appreciate the Patriot and Loyalist legacies of my ancestors. Albany began and ended the War for Independence as a Patriot base of military operations. However, not every Albanian wholeheartedly supported the Patriot cause. The historical record indicates that with the exception of a few Patriot firebrands, most Albanians approached the war with caution. (Much to the chagrin of hawkish New Englanders.) The historical record also suggests that the Albanians sided with the Patriots in 1775 because of their bad experiences with the British Army during the French and Indian War. A lack of information makes it impossible to determine the percentage of Patriot, Loyalist, and Disaffected Albanians. However, enough people supported the latter two positions that the Albany Committee of Safety and the Commissioners for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies felt compelled to enforce policies of imprisonment and banishment to keep would-be dissenters quiet. While researching at the David Library of the American Revolution, I took the time to look up the pension record of my DAR-approved Patriot ancestor Michael Hess. Like many Albany County residents, Hess was a lukewarm Patriot. His pension record indicates that he served in the Albany County militia between 1775 and 1780. Hess did not volunteer. New York State drafted him. The fact that Hess turned out for duty more than ten times tells me that he leaned towards the Patriot cause. Just as the fact that he did not enlist in the Continental Army tells me that his patriotism did not prove strong enough to draw him from home for years on end. Hess spent a total of ten months away from home during the war. He spent most of his time “hunting Robbers & Tories” throughout the countryside of Albany and Dutchess counties. Hess’ regiment left New York only once. In June 1778, they marched 144 captured “Robbers & Tories” from Dutchess County to Exeter, New Hampshire. The historical records for the city and county of Albany have helped me to appreciate the nuances of Patriot, Loyalist, and Disaffected political thought. The Revolution did not occur as the black-and-white event that many histories portray it as. Instead, the period stands as one of the most tumultuous and dangerous times in North America. No one knew which side would win the war and for most, politics came second to survival. In fact, people changed their allegiances as often as the armies marched. The Patriots and Loyalists who did not alter their views stand as the exception, not the rule. Today, I appreciate the circumstances my ancestors faced. Loyalty to family, community, and North America informed their political choices. Michael Hess served in the Albany County militia and cautiously supported the Patriots because he felt that approach offered his family the best protection. This same logic informed my Loyalist ancestor’s decision to remain loyal to Great Britain and my other Patriot ancestors’ commitment to the Continental Army. Scholars will never know how many North Americans counted themselves as Patriots, Loyalists, or Disaffected nor the number of Americans who altered their loyalties with the tide of war. The roots of my family tree span the gamut of revolutionary political opinion. My ancestors left me a truly American legacy. I am proud of this heritage, and when I get the opportunity, I intend to research the histories of both my Loyalist ancestor and my more steadfast Patriot forefathers. I hope my fellow Americans have a similar opportunity to come to terms with the non-Patriot legacies of the American Revolution and War for Independence. No one political point of view should dominate our historical narrative because privileging one dilutes the struggles of the others and diminishes the most revolutionary aspect of the Revolution: The Patriots won the war with a minority of the North American population behind them. This true narrative sounds a lot more amazing than the romanticized version where the Patriots won the war with the support of a majority of the people.

What do you think?

Have you come to terms with the Loyalist & Disaffected legacies of the American Revolution? How do you think Americans can best grapple and come to terms with these legacies? Leave a comment or send me tweet.  

The American Revolution: Searching for Loyalists Parts 2 & 3

Americans like to remember the American Revolution as a Patriot movement, but are they hostile to the memory and viewpoints of Loyalists? Check out Parts 2 & 3 of my 3-post series: "Searching for Loyalists: Boston Harborfest," which appeared in the Journal of the American Revolution.  

"No Tax on Tea! A Colonial Tea Debate” (Part 2)

On Friday July 5, I returned to the Old South Meeting House for the “No Tax on Tea! A Colonial Tea Debate” program. Unlike “Whispers of Revolution: Plotting the Boston Tea Party,” this event invited audience members to “[assume] the role of a Patriot or Loyalist to debate the tax on tea!” A Meeting House docent handed each visitor a blue or yellow piece of paper. The slips contained the name and occupation of a colonial Bostonian and their position on the Tea Act. Blue papers described Patriot positions, yellow pieces Loyalist positions.

A museum educator began the program by setting the scene. On December 16, 1773, Patriots and Loyalists gathered at the Old South Meeting House to debate whether they should unload the cargoes of the three tea ships anchored in Boston Harbor or send them back to England fully loaded. The assembled colonists chose Samuel Savage of Weston, Massachusetts to moderate the meeting. A re-enactor playing Savage ascended the pulpit stairs.

Click here to continue reading.

"Tory Stories" (Part 3)

After attending the “No Tax on Tea!” program at the Old South Meeting House, I walked to nearby King’s Chapel, the first Anglican Church in Massachusetts.[1] The steeple-less, hand-hewn, granite-block church sits on the edge of Boston’s first burial ground. In 1686, Governor Edmund Andros thwarted the Puritans’ refusal to sell land to non-Puritans by using eminent domain to take part of the public burial ground for the construction of King’s Chapel. In 1749, the Chapel’s congregation commissioned Peter Harrison of Newport, Rhode Island to design a new, stone church to replace the wooden chapel Andros built. The church has always been steeple-less, at first because the congregation lacked the funds to build one, and later, because the steeple-less façade had become a defining feature of the church.[2]

During Harborfest, King’s Chapel staff offers “Tory Stories.” The program consists of two female re-enactors; one portrays Baroness Agnes Frankland (née Surriage), the Marblehead, Massachusetts barmaid who married Sir Charles Henry (“Harry”) Frankland, Baronet and the other plays Lady Margaret Gage (née Kemble), wife of Lieutenant-General Thomas Gage.[3] In the 1770s, both women worshipped at King’s Chapel. Together, Ladies Frankland and Gage regaled visitors with tales of the most famous King’s Chapel congregants.

Click here for "Tory Stories."