Howell, in his “Bi-Centennial History of the County of Albany,” gave us an excruciatingly detailed listing of the English colonial governors of New York, running from Richard Nicolls in 1664 to the final military governor, Andrew Elliott, in 1783. We’re sure there are some stories to look at here (for instance, how many times could Cadwallader Colden serve as governor?), but what makes this list invaluable and amusing is Howell’s description of the character of nearly every one of the men who served as governor. Where someone served more than once, as happened more than once, he went to the effort to provide a different description of his character for each term.
We have, partly in order to save space, given the [below] tabular history of the Colonial Governors. Dates often conflicting have been written down from sources considered most reliable. So far as Albany County is concerned, there is little more to be said about them. The official residence was in New York City, and they seldom came to Albany except for a recreation trip, or for making a show of their importance, and to receive demonstrative recognition from the well-to-do and loyal people of the second city in their government. Good policy made it best for them, sometimes, to meet the Indians here in council, to make presents and have a good talk with them. They came with pomp, dressed in blue and gold trimmed coats, with gold-laced hats and showy ruffles. They expected processions and feastings, and every demonstration of joy and respect from the people. Policy granted as much; but sensible men were glad when it was over and expenses paid.
These men were usually of intemperate and licentious habits; of weak or mediocre talents; given to their appetite; ruled by their mistresses and favorites. Dissolute in morals, they were often broken down in strength. They gave formal attention to the religion of the Church which best pleased the King.
They generally had no interest in the welfare of the people. All were foreign born; most of them incompetent pets or members of the English aristocracy. Penniless, useless and dependent at home, they were sent abroad to get rich by robbing the people, and to serve the King – whose sycophants they were – in any way to please him and aggrandize themselves. They sought to associate with themselves the wealthy and influential, from whom they received adulation and flattery, in order to secure favors in petty offices, sensual pleasures and land grants. They kept aloof as much as possible from the toiling people, and asked of them only taxes to pay exorbitant salaries and carry out selfish schemes.
Just in case you wondered where Howell, writing in 1886, was coming from, he did go on:
Most were interested specially in making land grants, because most productive of wealth. No industries were encouraged. Rents were fluctuating; lands were at low value; trade was paralyzed; taxes high and oppressive during most of these years. The official terms of most of these governors were short, and marked by few incidents of importance as proceeding from them. They were often recalled on account of manifest incompetency or glaring dishonesty and fraud. In vain the public, as they gladly saw the departure of a ruling governor, hoped that the next would be a wiser and better man.
So, from the time of the surrender of the Dutch in 1664, with the ousting of the “stubborn tyranny of the inflexible old Governor” Peter Stuyvesant, we had this impressive list of the haughty and insolent, the arbitrary and odious:
[table id=1 /]