Why Did Native Americans Sell Lands Including Today's Pelham First to the Dutch and then to the English?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

I have puzzled profusely regarding why Native Americans would sell lands that included today's Pelham at least twice:  first to the Dutch in 1649 and then to English settler Thomas Pell in 1654.  The possibilities, of course, seem endless.  

Perhaps local Native Americans, feeling the pressure of Dutch encroachment from the southwest and English encroachment from the northeast schemed to prompt a land war between the Dutch and the English.  Perhaps different groups of Native Americans (or, perhaps, the same group) sold the land twice, each time purely for personal gain.  Perhaps two entirely unrelated groups of Native Americans sold the land on two occasions, each unaware of the other's sale.  Perhaps two competing groups of Native Americans, both claiming title to the lands, sold those lands in the good faith belief that each was the rightful owner.  Perhaps two such groups of Native Americans, neither believing it held title to the lands, sold them anyway.  Nearly infinite speculation can run rampant.  

Perhaps, however, the historical context and 17th century colonial records can shed light on why there seems to have been two successive sales of the land.  Of course, we can only infer Native American intent based on available, incomplete, and admittedly ambiguous evidence.  Typically, in such circumstances, the end result is a hypothesis that may never be capable of being proved. But, evidence to support such a hypothesis should be documented.  

Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog is an effort to hypothesize how the Pelham sale could have happened twice in fairly quick succession (and to begin the process of documenting such a hypothesis, hopefully to prompt debate).

On July 14, 1649, local Native Americans sold lands including today's Pelham to Dutch authorities.  To learn more, see Wed., Aug. 12, 2015:  Significant Research on the First "Indian Deed" Reflecting the Dutch Purchase of Lands that Included Today's Pelham.  Only six years later, on June 27, 1654, different local Native Americans sold lands that also included today's Pelham to an English settler named Thomas Pell.  For a copy of the Pell deed and a transcription of its text, see Bell, Blake A., THOMAS PELL AND THE LEGEND OF THE PELL TREATY OAK, Appendix A, pp. 59 et seq. (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse 2004).  For an online image of the Pell Deed and a transcription of its text, click here.  There was no overlap among the Native Americans who signed the 1649 deed and those who signed the Pell Deed in 1654.  

The land sold to the Dutch in 1649, which included the eastern half of today's Bronx and Westchester County, was designated as "Wiequaes Keck" in the deed.  The name for the region at the time was "Wiechquaeskeck," a term that came to be associated with the Native Americans who lived in that region.  See Grumet, Robert S., The Munsee Indians:  A History, p. 309 n.6 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2009) ("Like Manhattan, Wiechquaesgeck is an example of a local place name that became a general term for a larger community.").

Kieft's War, named after New Amsterdam Director-General Willem Kieft, was a conflict between the Dutch and Native Americans in the region surrounding Fort Amsterdam (today's New York metropolitan region).  Kieft's War raged between 1643 and 1645.  Shortly after the beginning of the War, local Native Americans slaughtered Anne Hutchinson and most of her family in an area that later became part of the Manor of Pelham.  

The Dutch response to Native American attacks and harassment of Dutch and English settlers throughout the region was brutal.  As a consequence, the Wiechquaesgecks fled the region.  This documented fact is important to any understanding of one possible theory for why Native Americans made two successive sales of lands including today's Pelham.

A treaty formally ending hostilities between the Dutch and many of the Native American communities in the region was not signed until July 19, 1649.  The "treaty," reflected in Dutch records and transcribed at the end of today's article, indicated that Wiechquaesgecks had fled the region and, according to one of the Native American signers, they "had no chief" in attendance at the treaty parley and, thus, had to be spoken for by a representative.  Specialists who have analyzed the treaty terms have noted that the Wiechquaesgecks had fled to an area inhabited by the Raritans and that they did not return to the Wiechquaesgeck lands until after the treaty was signed and the 1649 deed selling "Wiequaes Keck" to the Dutch had been executed (only five days before the treaty was reached).  See, e.g., Grumet, Robert S., THE MUNSEE INDIANS:  A HISTORY, p. 310 n.6:  Notes to Page 47 (Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press, 2009) (hereinafter “Grumet, THE MUNSEE INDIANS”).

According to Grumet, it was not precisely correct that the Wiechquaesgecks "had no chief" at the time of the 1649 treaty ending Kieft's War and the 1649 deed coveying Wiechquaesgeck to the Dutch.  Rather:  

"[T}he Wiechquaesgecks did, in fact, still have chiefs at this time.  Most of these, however, turned out to be dispossessed Marechkawicks and other Long Islanders who had also moved to Raritan country after the war [i.e., Kieft's War that essentially ended in 1645].  One of these, the Nayack sachem Mattano, signed the July 14 deed as Megtegickhama and was noted as 'Meijterma, the Chief of Neyick' at the July 19, 1649, treaty; former Marechkawick sachem Seyseychkimus witnessed the latter agreement as a chief sachem.  Although neither man signed the July 19, 1649, treaty as a Wiechquaesgeck, Seyseychkimus in particular continued to represent their communities for many years thereafter."

Source:  Id.  

The foregoing suggests at least the following possibility.  As the response of Director General Kieft and the Dutch to Native American hostilities grew increasingly brutal during Kieft's War, the Wiechquaesgecks fled the region.  In 1649, as relations between the Dutch and local Native Americans warmed sufficiently to permit both a treaty parley and a sale of the lands on the eastern shore of the mainland adjacent to Manhattan known as "Wiequaes Keck," the Wiechquaesgecks "had no chief" to participate in either the treaty parley or the sale of the ancestral homelands.  Instead, "dispossessed Marechkawicks and other Long Islanders" including Seyseychkimus and Megtegickhama purported to represent the Wiechquaesgecks in both instances; this purported "representation" included not only the treaty ending hostilities, but also the sale of the ancestral homelands of the Wiechquaesgecks to the Dutch with no evidence (at present) that any Wiechquaesgeck signed the 1649 deed or even consented in any way to the sale.  

It is only a short leap of logic to suggest that six years later, when English settler Thomas Pell sought to acquire lands from local Native Americans, actual Wiechquaesgecks were willing to ignore any previous sale by non-Wiechquaesgecks who purported to represent them and, instead, sold the lands "on their own" so to speak.  

What is the evidence that those who sold the lands to Thomas Pell were Wiechquaesgecks?  For some of the evidence, see Wed., Apr. 02, 2014:  17th Century Record Identifies One of the Native Americans Who Signed Pell's 1654 Deed as a Wiechquaeskeck, NOT a Siwanoy.  See also  Wed., January 29, 2014:  There Were No Native Americans Known as Siwanoys.  

In other words, one hypothesis, yet to be proved or disproven, is that the 1649 sale of lands including today's Pelham to the Dutch was made by Native Americans who did not have a true claim to those lands and had no consent from its Wiechquaesgeck owners to sell those lands.  Only six years later, true Wiechquaesgecks sold the same lands to Thomas Pell.  

Munsee Family Like Wiechquaesgecks Who Once

Inhabited the Region Including Today's Pelham.

*          *          *          *          *

"PROPOSITIONS MADE BY THE CHIEFS OF THE SAVAGES LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE MANHATTANS, NAMELY SEYSEGECHKIMUS, ORATAMIN, WILLEM OF TAPPAKEN AND PENNEKES FROM 'BEHIND THE COL' IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT FORT AMSTERDAM IN PRESENCE OF Do. JOHANNES MEGAPOLENSIS, MINISTER OF RENSSELAERSWYCK, ARENT VAN CURLER AND JOHANNES VAN TWILLER.

1.

Pennekeck, the chief 'behind the Col' made a speech in the Indian tongue, which was translated and said, the Southern Miquas had asked them to live in friendship with the Dutch, which they were willing to do and for that purpose they had brought a present to the Hon ble Director.

2.  An Indian of Mechgachkamic had involuntarily or unknowingly lately done mischief at Paulus Hook, which they requested us to excuse.

3.  Pennekeck said the tribe called Raritanoos, formerly living at Wiquaeskeck had no chief, therefore he spoke for them, who would also like to be our friends and sent through him their greetings to the Hon ble General.  Throws 3 beavers to the ground as a present.

4.  Meijterma, the Chief of Neyick, was included with his people into this agreement and would be, like them, our friends.  They throw 3 beavers down.

5.  He speaks for the tribe of Remahenonc as for the above with a like present.

6.  Pennekeck threw down 2 beavers declaring in the name of all, that their heart was sincere and that they desire to live in friendship with us, forgetting on either side, what was past.

7.  Pennekeck said:  'I wish you could see my heart, then you would be sure, that my words are sincere and true.'  He threw down two beavers, saying That is my confirmation.

8.  The Hon ble Director had in former times desired to speak with them; it was done now and they had shown their good intentions; they are now waiting to see, what he would do, laying down two beavers.

9.  Pennekeck said, although the Hon ble General could not understand them, they did not doubt his good intentions.

10.  In conclusion Pennekeck said:  It is the wish of the Minquas, that we and you should be and remain friends, we are ready for it.

The Hon ble Director-General first expressed his thanks to the chiefs, that they had come to visit him with offers of neighborly friendship, and he then told them that he was pleased to hear such a request.  He promised, that nothing whatever should be wanting on our part and that he was willing to live with them in mutual friendship and intercourse.  No cause for complaints should be given and if somebody injured them, they should themselves report it to the Director, in order that they should receive justice in accordance with the case.  In token of his good will he accepted their presents on the foregoing propositions with thanks and in due time he would return the compliment.

A small present worth about 20 guilders was then given to the common savages and some tobacco and a gun to the chief Oratamin, and so the savages departed well please.

(July 19th 1649.)"

Source:  Fernow, B., "Documents Relating to the History and Settlements of the Towns Along the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers (With the Exception of Albany), From 1630 to 1684 and Also Illustrating the Relations of the Settlers with the Indians" in DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Vol. XIII, p. 25 (Albany, NY:  Weed, Parsons and Company, 1881).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."  

Is This Another Dead End in the Search for the Text of an Indian Deed to Lands That Included Today's Pelham Sold to the Dutch?

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

I warmly invite comment -- by email or by comment link below -- to this posting as it addresses an issue on which I have worked for a number of years.

Those who follow the Historic Pelham Blog, including a number of experts on early Dutch settlement of New Netherland and surrounding areas, know that I have worked for quite some time to locate the text of early deeds by which the Dutch purportedly acquired lands from local Native Americans including the area known today as Pelham. For example, see Tuesday, December 5, 2006: Where is Evidence of the 1640 Dutch Purchase from Native Americans of the Lands That Became Pelham?

In that December 5, 2006 posting, I outlined many of the references in secondary sources suggesting that on April 19, 1640 the Dutch acquired a large swath of land north of Manhattan Island that may have included today's Pelham. However, despite following up on the citations contained in the sources I studied, I found only dead ends -- never the text of any such "Indian Deed" as some sources described it.

I recently located the text of a 1649 deed by which Peter Stuyvesant, Director General of New Netherland, acquired lands north of the Island of Manhattan. The heading added to the translation of the deed published in 1881 reads: "INDIAN DEED FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY, EASTERN HALF." If that heading were accurate, then the area likely would include today's Town of Pelham.

It seems to me, however, that the heading added by the editor is inaccurate. Indeed, if I am correct, the land encompassed by the deed covers an area between today's New York / Connecticut border extending northward to Greenwich. I still have work to do to establish this. I invite comment as to whether those who review the text of the deed below agree. Assuming the accuracy of the two footnotes in the reference that identify the rivers listed in the deed by their Native American names, the deed would seem to encompass an area bordered: (1) on the south by "Byram's river"; (2) on the north by the "Maharnes river, Conn."; (3) on the west by a north/south line separating the mainland between the Hudson River and Long Island Sound into a westerly half and an easterly half; and (4) on the east by a north/south line extending southward from Greenwich.

If I am reading the text of the deed correctly, it does not encompass today's Pelham and does not even encompass the eastern half of Westchester as the heading indicates. This seems to depend, of course, on whether "Byram's river" was north or south of today's Pelham and Westchester County. My initial work tentatively indicates that Byram's river has marked the southern border of the Connecticut - New York boundary.

If my tentative conclusions are correct, this would seem to be yet another dead end that will require me to continue my search for the text of the April 19, 1640 deed. I hope those of you who read this can help by providing me with your comments! Am I reading the deed correctly?

The text of the deed appears immediately below, followed by a citation to its source.

"INDIAN DEED FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY, EASTERN HALF.

This day, date as below, appeared before the Hon ble Director-General and Council Megtegickhama, Oteyockque and Wegtakachkey, stretching in breadth through a wood to a kil called Seweyruc, * [Footnote * reads: "*Byrams river."] dividing it at the East river by a North and South line from Greenwich on a kil called Kechkawes. † [Footnote † reads: "†Maharnes river, Conn."] This land between the two kils runs to the middle of the woods between the North and East rivers, so that the westerly half remains to the abovesaid proprietors and the other easterly half is divided from it by a line drawn North and South through the centre of the wood. The aforesaid owners acknowledge in the presence of the chief Seyseychhimus and all their other friends and blood relations to have sold the said parcel of land to the Nobel Petrus Stuyvesant, Director-General of New-Netherland, in consideration of a certain lot of merchandise, which they acknowledge to have received and accepted before the passing of this act, namely 6 fathoms of duffels, 6 strings of wampum, 6 kettles, 6 axes, 6 addices, 10 knives, some iron, corals, one gun, 9 staves of lead, 2 lbs of powder, 1 coat of duffels.

Therefore the aforesaid owners of the said land transfer, cede and convey it to the said Director-General and his successors as a true and lawful property, renouncing for themselves and their descendants now and forever all claims thereupon and resigning herewith all rights and jurisdiction, delivering it to the said Hon ble General and his successors, who may do with it as they please, without being molested by them, the sellers or any one of them. It is further agreed, that the Western half may be bought for the same amount as above, when the Director-General desires to pay for it, and they, the sellers, promise to sell the part still in their possession on the North river for that price and not to sell to anybody without informing the Director-General. They further promise to maintain and uphold this contract firmly and invioably and sign it in presence of their chief the 14th of July 1649 at New-Amsterdam in New-Netherland.

This is the mark [symbol] of MEGTEGICKHAMA
This is the mark [symbol] of POMIPAHAN.
This is the mark [symbol] of WEGTAKACHKEY
This is the mark [symbol] made by the chief SEGSEYCHKIMUS as witness."

Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIII, p. 24 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company 1881).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.