The height of the so-called ‘Dutch Revolt’ probably came in 1585 when Dutch ships were banned from Spanish ports yet the angst towards the Spanish could be seen as early as 1566 during the iconoclastic revolt. The revolt is often put forward as proof of unity within the Dutch republic, because a nation was working towards a common goal: ousting the Spanish. Unfortunately, the odium of the disgruntled Dutch fostered an aversion towards centralisation. Phillip II of Spain had attempted to centralise the Netherlands via harsh methods of Catholicism and taxation, therefore although those opposing him shared the common aim of deposing the Spanish rule, they did not share a desire for alternative centralisation. Instead the belief of many of those within the Dutch republic was that of “We who are naturally merchants must have low taxes, peace and trade as well as protection…”. An explanation can be provided here for the short lived unity of the Dutch republic, in the sense that the provinces needed to join to defeat the Spanish rule and the threat from England and France, yet they had no motive for remaining linked after the job was done. Their goal was never unification but in order to defend their own province, and hence livelihoods, they needed to unite. The trade centre of the time, Amsterdam was certainly not overjoyed about the state of affairs, with one political pamphlet emerging there in 1683 displaying resentment at having to carry the burden for itself and other provinces. “Other Dutch cities and provinces consent to a recruitment of thousands of men to fight the French. But who, other than the wealthy citizens of Amsterdam, much like a rich milk cow, is to furnish the money?”
The rivalry between provinces had always been present, and in on sense served to strengthen the Republic’s unity through disunity. For in the first half of the seventeenth century, so many of the cities and provinces were financially strong that if any one of the centres were to collapse, the Republic as a whole would not collapse simultaneously. The fact that the provinces were competitive in their ‘mother trade’ (grain) as well as the other trades meant they were inadvertently helping keep the Republic afloat.
“Much of the Dutch history can be seen as a tension between cosmopolitan and local interests”. The Dutch, although one of the most rapidly urbanising places in the world, did not see itself as united. The foremost concern of any individual in the republic in these times was himself and his province. Each Province elected a Stadhouder, who in previous days was the governor of the king. In the times of the Republic, the Stadhouder was often elected for a number of provinces and hence became the highest figure within the Republic. The family of Orange dominated this position with William I of Orange being the first to hold this position of perceived power. It is true however, that the Stadhouder had only limited power based on a number of Factors. Primarily any desire for a monarchical type position depended from individual to individual, additionally there was no system in place to implement decisions that might have come out of the Hague, the meeting place of the provinces’ representatives. Effectively influence of merchants, popular opinion, war and factions were to dictate the future of the Netherlands. No Stadhouder ever held absolute power or indeed had the means to impose it, the Republic did not unite in this way.
The Netherlands held such a hegemonic position in the early seventeenth century within Europe because of their immense trading influence. The Republic formed the core of all the major thriving centres inside of the Netherlands at this time, and was, as trade turned more to the sea and further from land, strategically and financially well placed to exploit trading options. To the Atlantic was fishing, to the Baltic grain, timber and iron and to Africa and the East Indies there lay trade in slaves, spices and luxury goods. This early success was to be the Achilles heel of the Republic as it incensed both the English and French that their domination was being challenged. “The East India Company has grown larger and causes the Dutch much anxiety. This trade competition was the real cause of the war which broke out in the 1650’s between England and the Dutch Republic. It also caused another war between the Dutch and the King of England in the 1660’s.” Instead of unity, the conflicts with other nations served only to induce disparity. Provinces were not interested in protecting other provinces, where an established nation might have united, the Dutch Republic as a whole struggled in finance and motivation to get involved with wars, as discussed above. National debt in Guilders rose from 30,000,000 to 148,000,000 between the years of 1688 and 1713. The once powerful Dutch trading slipped due to the wars, often as a result of losing ships to the English. By 1705 the Dutch Republic seemed to be in a demoralised state which in contrast to the potential it showed during its early years, appeared to be moving further and further away from any kind of expedient unity.
At the end of the seventeenth century, the Dutch Republic was officially Calvinist although it contained many differing strains of religion. Religion must not be forgotten when considering the mechanics of unity within the Dutch Republic, religion, as with everywhere else in Europe at this time, was of great importance. Many still believed that religious affiliation was inextricably linked with political affiliation and indeed in many cases it was. It is a difficult task to decipher just how much of the Dutch Revolt was in response to the religious impact Philip II was attempting to have in the Republic, or in response to the retraction of the Dutch’s freedom. In references to the events of 1566 in the Republic, it is suggested that opposition to Philip II’s religious policy was “supported by a very broad spectrum: there were convinced Protestants and genuine Catholics as well. Among the latter, there were noblemen and city fathers who acted out of political opportunity.” The Southern provinces in their willingness to initially accept Spanish rule, demonstrated that the Netherlands were never too pious in their mindset. Whilst the Northern provinces, who relied more on trade for their livelihood, used occurrences such as the iconoclastic revolt as a symbolic protest against Spanish rule, not an ideological one.
A true Republic is commonly perceived as a government that is stable, modern and democratic. However until 1650 the Dutch republic was effectively an oligarchy, with the house of Orange dominating affairs. The independence of the ‘United Provinces’ was recognised in the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which suggests that even if the Republic was not fully united internally, the image it was giving off to the rest of the world implied there was established unification. The factions within the Republic tend to propound somewhat of a different situation, upon Prince ’s death in 1650 opponents of the house of Orange were roused to reassert the rights of the provinces. Jan de , the political leader of the estates of Holland, was chosen to succeed him and went on to lead the Dutch republic for the next twenty years. In order to prevent the house of Orange regaining authority, de Witt by the Eternal Edict (1667) abolished the office of Stadholder in Holland and ensured the exclusion of the house of Orange from state affairs. This coup performed by the Orange detractors explains a lot about the state of unification in the republic. The situation of opposition to the established regime is not that dissimilar to that of the French Third Republic in the nineteenth century, in as much as constant changes and lack of centralisation led to a distinct lack of unity. Furthermore, a Dutch Republic government report from 1671 serves to underline the extent of the disunity. “Toward the end of 1671, the mutual distrust among the Dutch provinces hindered deliberations on how to oppose the violent attacks of Louis XIV”. Situations such as this were frequent in the Dutch Republic and tend to suggest a lack of cohesion at political level of the Republic.
The Dutch republic seems to somewhat break the mould where the formation of early modern states are concerned. High taxes and frequent warfare are often seen as common initiators of the development of a state existing under one powerful ruler. ‘t Hart infers that “the example of the Dutch Republic wipes out this casual regularity” and indeed it does. This non-absolutist state that developed could have both increased or decreased the unity of the Republic. If the provinces were to find common ground and goals, then an ideal situation might have developed, and unity possibly assured. And if in fact the area remained separated and linked only by a signed ‘Union’ and the occasional coming together for war, prosperity may have remained a distant dream. What the Dutch Republic actually managed to do, was find some middle ground during the seventeenth century. The provinces retained their own identity and separate goals, yet provided a support structure in case any one were to collapse. They endured many years of wars, without collapse and amazingly without unification, different provinces fulfilled different requirements, for example Amsterdam provided funds, and through the one common aim: defence of their provinces, and there for the republic, they managed to prosper during adverse times.
The unity of the Dutch Republic was not short lived it simply never existed. Unity in the sense of identity, nationalism and government were very hard to find in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century. Resilience and desires for success and peace were ever present and resulted in over two centuries of the regime.
Bibliography
‘t Hart, M. C., The Making of a Bourgeois State (Manchester 1993)
Haley, K.H.D., The Dutch in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1972)
Parker, G., Europe in crisis 1598-1648 (Sussex (1980)
Scott Amos, N., Pettergree, A. and H.V. Nierop, The Education of a Christian Society (England 1999)
Van Deursen, A.T., Plain lives in a golden age, (Cambridge 1991)
http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/dutchrep.html
Haley, K.H.D., The Dutch in the Seventeenth Century p. 195
An anonymous pamphlet published in the province of Holland 1669
Marquis de Pomponne, French ambassador to the Dutch Republic, report to the French government early 1680’s
Marnef, G, ‘The dynamics of reformed militancy in the Low Countries: the wonderyear” in N. Scott Amos, A. Pettergree and H.V. Nierop, The Education of a Christian Society (England 1999)
‘t Hart, M. C., “The Making of a Bourgeois State” p216