Politics and government of the Dutch Republic

When several provinces and cities in rebellion against Philip II of Spain declared themselves independent in 1581 with the Act of Abjuration, they initially aspired to appoint another prince as head of state. The sovereignty of the provinces was first offered to Francis, Duke of Anjou, but his 1583 coup d'état was foiled and he was ousted. After the assassination of rebel leader William the Silent, it was offered in turn to and declined by Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England. Elizabeth did make the provinces an English protectorate and sent over the Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester as governor-general (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585). For many reasons, it was not a success, and Leicester left in 1588. This left the provinces in rebellion without a head.

The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order: the duchy of Guelders (Gelre in Dutch), the counties of Holland and Zeeland, the former bishopric of Utrecht, the lordship of Overijssel, and the free (i.e. never feudalised) provinces of Friesland and Groningen. In fact there was an eighth province, the lordship of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying confederal taxes and, as a corollary, was denied representation in the States-General. The duchy of Brabant, the county of Flanders and the lordship of Mechelen were also among the rebelling provinces, but were later completely or largely reconquered by Spain. After the Peace of Westphalia, the parts of these provinces that remained in the Dutch Republic's hands, as well as several other border territories, became confederally governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden). They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Overmaas (around Maastricht) and Staats-Opper-Gelre (around Venlo, after 1715).

The republican form of government was not democratic in the modern sense; in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, the "regents" or regenten formed the ruling class of the Dutch Republic, the leaders of the Dutch cities or the heads of organisations (e.g. "regent of an orphanage"). Since the late Middle Ages Dutch cities had been run by the richer merchant families. Although not formally a hereditary "class", they were de facto "patricians", comparable in some sense to that ancient Roman class. At first the lower-class citizens in the guilds and schutterijen could unite to form a certain counterbalance to the regenten, but in the course of the 16th, 17th and 18th century the administration of the cities and towns became oligarchical in character, and it became harder and harder to enter their caste. From the latter part of the 17th century the regent families were able to reserve government offices to themselves via quasi-formal contractual arrangements. Most offices were filled by co-option for life. Thus the regent class tended to perpetuate itself into a closed class. However, in practice they had to take into account the opinions of the man on the street, otherwise they ran the risk of being dislodged by political upheavals, like the Orangist revolutions of 1672 and 1747 and the Patriot revolt of 1785.[1] ^:78 · [2] ^:94

Historically, Holland was by far the most populous and prosperous of the provinces north of the rivers. Even today people use the term Holland colloquially to refer to the provinces of North Holland and South Holland as well as the Kingdom of the Netherlands in general. This was true in the past also, and is due to the predominance of the province of Holland in population, resources and industry north of the great river estuaries of the Rhine and the Maas.[3]^:277

Holland's hegemony over the other provinces north of the Rhine and the Maas that would form the Dutch Republic is a culmination of trends reaching back to the thirteenth century.[3]^:277 (see also Northwestern Regional Center and Amsterdam-region) The Dutch Revolt removed the counterweights that had historically kept Holland in check from the fifteenth century: the relatively more prosperous commerce of Flanders and Brabant/Antwerp and the centralizing tendencies of the Burgundian and Habsburg rulers.[3]^:277 Hollandish hegemony north of the Rhine/Maas delta was contested for a while by the Duchy of Gelderland (see Guelders Wars), but was unsuccessful due to the resources of Holland and their Habsburg rulers.

The center of the Dutch Revolt was initially in the southern Netherlands. The influence of William the Silent and Leicester also checked Holland. With Leicester's departure, and the reconquest of the southern Netherlands as well as large parts of the north by the Duke of Parma, there was no longer any countervailing influence.[3]^:277 Much of the commerce that had fueled the growth of Flanders and Brabant also fled north to Holland during the upheavals of the revolt. So, at the formative stages of the Dutch Republic's institutions, from 1588 through roughly the next 20 years there was no other power that had any leverage over Holland.[3]^:277 Holland built the Republic and its institutions on the basis of sovereign provincial rights. However, only Holland could fully utilize them. It employed the lesser provinces, as they were reconquered, to bolster her defenses and economic resources. The States General had powers over foreign policy, and war and peace. It extended its decisions, especially after 1590, to inter-provincial matters such as regulation of shipping, administration of the conquered lands, church affairs, and colonial expansion. This framework was largely built and imposed by Holland, sometimes over the objections of the other provinces.[3]^:277

This is not to say that the institutions of the Republic were completely Holland centric. In matters of form and ceremony the seven voting provinces were equal and sovereign in their own houses. The Union of Utrecht and the States General that gave it substance and form were not intended to function as a federal state. The provinces were supposed to take important decisions unanimously. So the intent of the Union of Utrecht was a confederacy of states. What emerged due to circumstances after 1579 was more a sovereign federation of sovereign states (a formulation borrowed by the United States of America). The rule of unanimity was largely unworkable: the decision to back William III's invasion of England in 1688 was a notable exception. Principle decisions, however, were seldom, if ever, taken over the objections of Holland. In the same way, Holland, in the interests of harmony, would not try, once the other provinces were reconstituted and rejoined to the Union, to take a decision over the strenuous objections of the other provinces, but would try to build a majority consensus on major decisions.[3]^:277;[1]^:64 Within these constraints, as seen below, a persuasive Councilor Pensionary of Holland and/or a Stadholder/Prince of Orange could move the provinces to a consensus.[1]^:83 · [2]^:134–135 · [4]^:56

Map showing the political makeup of the provinces and the rotation of the stadholdership amongst the different lines of the house of Orange and Nassau.

The governments of the remaining provinces, except for Friesland, tended to follow the pattern of Holland with some local variations.

The form of government of Zeeland was almost identical to that of Holland. It had six representative cities: Middelburg, Vlissingen, Ter Veere, Zierikzee, Goes and Tholen. William the Silent had bought the Marquisate of Veere and Flushing in 1582, giving him the right to appoint the government (regents) in the first three cities, and making him First Noble (actually the only noble) in the province. He thus controlled four of the seven votes, and thus the province. William the Silent had been promised the countship of Holland and Zeeland before his death. This was not granted to his heirs. However, this was another version of it, writ small, and a thorn in the side of the regents of Holland from that day to the end of the Republic.[6]^:pp.29–30 · [9]

Utrecht had a States consisting of the cities of Utrecht, Amersfort, Montfoort, Rhenen and Wijk, as well as the Clergy, as the province had been governed by its bishop in the Middle Ages.

Guelders' States included delegates from Arnhem, Den Bommel, Doesburg, Elburg, Groenlo, Harderwijk, Hattem, Lochem, Nijmegen, and the Nobility, which was very numerous there.

Groningen functioned as a city-state based on the city of Groningen. All representation flowed through there.

Overijssel had a States consisting of three representative towns, Deventer, Kampen, and Zwolle, as well as the Nobility.

The form of government of Friesland, as mentioned above, differed from that of the other provinces. The province had its own language, Frisian, more akin to old English than to Dutch. Its government was based on universal male suffrage and had a large dose of democracy surviving from the Dark Ages. It was organised into four quarters, three of which were further divided into local subdivisions known as grietenijen and governed by a grietman. Eastergoa was divided into eleven grietenijen, Westergoa was divided into nine grietenijen, and Zevenwouden was divided into ten grietenijen. The fourth quarter consisted of the eleven towns of Friesland, of which Leeuwarden was the largest, functioning as the seat of the States of Friesland. Each grietenij and each town sent two delegates to the States. Unlike the rest of the Generality, these delegates did not need to recourse to those who elected them to make a decision on how to vote.[2]

Arms of Voting Provinces:

• 
  Arms of the Province of Holland and West Friesland.
• 
  Arms of the Province of Zeeland.
• 
  Arms of the Province of Gelderland.
• 
  Arms of the Province of Utrecht.
• 
  Arms of the Province of Friesland.
• 
  Arms of the Province of Groningen.
• 
  Arms of the Province of Overijssel.

Arms of Non-Voting Provinces:

• 
  Arms of Drenthe (it was not a province and had no representation in the states General).
• 
  Arms of North Brabant (the lands of the Generality). It was governed by the States General as conquered territory and had no representation in the States General.
• 
  Arms of States Flanders: the part of the county of Flanders conquered by the armies of the Republic and administered as part of Zeeland.

Arms of the City of Amsterdam in the 17th Century. The crown of the Holy Roman Emperor was awarded to it by Maximilian I.

The coat of arms of Amsterdam is the official symbol of the city of Amsterdam. Several heraldic elements have their basis in the history of Amsterdam. This version shows the motto of Amsterdam awarded for the city's bravery during World War II.

Arms of the City of Amsterdam

Just as the delegates to the States-General of the Generality could not make any decisions without consulting back with their principals at the States of the provinces, so the delegates to the states of the provinces could not make major decisions without consulting back with their principals in the various cities and towns. As noted above, this lack of delegation of sovereignty led to a fair degree of inertia and would have been unworkable in a larger country less well connected with transport (albeit waterborne canals and shipping) links. It did, however, give the cities and towns a large amount of freedom. Also, the sovereignty of the provincial states was in practice dependent for its exercise on the magistrates of the cities.[1][2][4]

Each of the towns and cities in the seven provinces had its own differences and peculiarities. However, as a general rule, the government of the city of Amsterdam was fairly standard. Also, as noted above, in the 17th and 18th century, the wealth that Amsterdam generated from commerce made it the most powerful city in the province of Holland, accounting for half of Holland's revenues and taxes and through that a full quarter of the Generality's. Because of this economic weight, it was the most influential voice in the councils of the province and the Generality.[4]

The Royal Palace of Amsterdam was built as a town hall and was as such opened on 20 July 1655 by Cornelis de Graeff, the political and social leader of Amsterdam. It was built by Jacob van Campen.

The central hall of the Royal Palace of Amsterdam is 120 feet long, 60 feet wide and 90 feet high. On the marble floor there are two hemispherical maps of the world on which the colonies of Amsterdam are detailed. They were made in the mid-18th century and replaced an earlier pair made in the late 1650s. The originals showed the regions explored by the Dutch East India Company.

City Hall of Amsterdam, now the Royal Palace

The government of the city was from a very early time in the hands of four Burgomasters (Burgemeesters in Dutch, but better translated to English as "mayors"), largely for the same reason that Rome had two consuls: deconcentration of power. Originally, the burgomasters were appointed by the lord or the province, the Count of Holland and their successors, the Duke of Burgundy. As the Burgundian Dukes tended to have national interests to occupy them, the appointments were often left to their stadtholders. From the 15th century on, however, their election was by a complex system. An electoral college was formed yearly, made up of the outgoing burgomasters, the aldermen (City Councilmen), and all those who in the past had held the post of burgomaster or alderman. The burgomasters are chosen by simple majority. In the second stage of the election, the three newly elected burgomasters "co-opted" (chose) one of the outgoing four to stay on for a second one-year term. This way, one of the burgomasters stayed in office two years to provide continuity.[1] · [2]^:95

The three newly chosen were called "Reigning-Burgomasters" for that year. For the first three months after a new election, the Burgomaster of the year before presides. After that time, it was supposed the new ones had learned the "Forms and Duties of their Office", and acquainted with the state of the city's affairs, so the three new burgomasters had the privilege to preside by turns.[2]^:96

The burgomasters functioned as the executive of the city government. They were in command of the civic guard (the famous militia companies of the Dutch paintings) and troops stationed in the city. They appointed the city functionaries such as the administrators in charge of the welfare of orphans and of vacant succession, charitable institutions, and the captains of the companies of the civic guard. issue out all Monies out of the common Stock or Treasure, judging alone what is necessary for the Safety, Convenience, or Dignity of the City. They also kept the Key of the Bank of Amsterdam, which at the time functioned as one of the central banks of the nations of Europe. The vaults were never opened without one of them present. They were also in charge of all the public works of the city, such as the ramparts, public buildings (for example the great Amsterdam City Hall, now a Royal Palace).[2]^:96

Courtyard of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, 1653, which underpinned a large part of Amsterdam's wealth.

The salary of a Burgomaster of Amsterdam was 500 guilders a year, though there are offices worth ten times as much at their disposal. None of them was known to have taken bribes: a credit to the integrity of the system.[2]^:96

Most cities, Amsterdam being no exception, employed a pensionary. He was the leading functionary and legal adviser of the principal town corporations in the Netherlands. They received a salary, or pension, hence the name. The office originated in Flanders, and was originally known by the name of clerk or advocate. The earliest pensionaries in Holland were those of Dordrecht (1468) and of Haarlem (1478). The pensionary conducted the legal business of the town, and was the secretary of the city council. He was also one of the city's representatives and spokesman at the meetings of the provincial States. The post of pensionary was permanent. As the official who kept a large part of the town's business in his hands, and had the most knowledge and experience, his influence was as great on the city level as the corresponding office, the Councillor Pensionary of Holland, was at the provincial and national level. Johan de Witt was originally pensionary of Dordrecht before he was appointed Councillor Pensionary of Holland.[2]^:99–100

The official responsible for the administration of justice was the schout. In former times he was the representative of the count of Holland. During the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, he was appointed by the burgomasters. In other towns and cities in Holland, this appointment was the prerogative of the States of Holland. The schout was the chief of police and the public prosecutor ("district attorney" in the US, Crown Prosecutor in the UK). The schout, through the colony of New Netherland (the present New York and New Jersey), is the origin of the American institution of district attorney and attorney general.[10] · [2]^:98

The schout also functioned as president of the Tribunal of Aldermen (Schepen), which sat as judges in the cases brought before it by the schout. They were the court of last appeal in criminal cases. They did not pass a death sentence without first advising the burgomasters of the possibility of that decision. Other than that, the burgomasters had no role in the process. In civil cases, after a certain value, there was a right of appeal to the Court of Justice of the province in The Hague. The Tribunal consisted of nine aldermen. The schepen were chosen annually by the stadtholder from a list of fourteen presented to him by the Vroedschap. In the absence of a stadtholder, as in 1650–72 and 1702–48, the aldermen were chosen by the burgomasters. Seven are chosen annually, two from the previous year continued in office. The list is compiled by the Vroedschap.[2]^:97–98

The Vroedschap, or city council was really a Senate in the ancient Roman republican sense. As a fourth branch of the city government, it was a direct backup to the power of the burgomasters. It was a college of 36 members, "men both rich and wise" whose task was to "counsel" the burgomasters. Its members were called vroedman, literally a "wise man". An honorific title of the vroedschap was the vroede vaderen, or the "wise fathers". This practice was reminiscent of the ancient Roman Senate, the modern word senate being derived from the Latin word senātus (senate), which comes from senex, "old man". The influence of the Vroedschap on the city government had its precedence again in that of the Roman Senate.

In the past, election to the Vroedschap had been by majority of citizens gathered in a large assembly, usually at a large church, upon the death of a member, by a majority of the voices present.[2]^:94 This practice was discontinued in favour of the co-option system around the year 1500, when the towns became too large to assemble the people in one place without tumult.[2]^:94 By resolution of the burghers, vacancies to the Vroedschap were filled by co-option from that time forward, i.e. by vote of the members of the Vroedschap. Members were elected for life. As the members of the city government who were burgomasters, aldermen, and other city officials were chosen for the Vroedschap, and the vroedemen tended to choose each other for these offices without intervention from the burghers, city governments developed an oligarchy.[1]^:65–74[2]^:95

The members of the four colleges above that constituted the city government were dominated by a relatively small group of rich merchant, financial or land-owning families, many closely interrelated, called the "regents", or regenten. A list of them can be found here and along with some that were later ennobled, here. It was not impossible to gain access, by success in business and being co-opted into the Vroedschap and the other colleges. This was most likely to happen when the stadtholder at that time appointed a new person into one of the colleges by choosing from the lists presented to him or making his own choice (the latter was called "changing the government").[3]^:305 The system was not immune to popular pressure, as events of the age showed, but it became tighter and more closed as time went on until the Republic fell. A son of family belonging to the regent class there opened up an equivalent of the Roman cursus honorum where he could show his talents and make the connections that would serve him and his city. As these same officials were appointed to provincial offices (e.g. delegate to the States of Holland, member of one of the admiralty boards) or offices under the Generality (ambassadors), the councils of local power perpetuated themselves into the regional and national levels.[1]^:72–74

The First Stadtholderless Period or Era (1650–72; Dutch: Eerste Stadhouderloze Tijdperk) is the period in the history of the Dutch Republic in which the office of a Stadtholder was absent in five of the seven Dutch provinces (the provinces of Friesland and Groningen, however, retained their customary stadtholder from the cadet branch of the House of Orange). It happened to coincide with the period when it reached the zenith of its economic, military and political Golden Age.

Great Assembly of 1651 by Dirck van Delen showing the interior of the Ridderzaal at the time.

Politically, the Staatsgezinde (Republican) faction of the ruling Dutch Regents, led by such talented men as Johan de Witt, his brother Cornelis de Witt, Cornelis de Graeff, Andries de Graeff and Andries Bicker (the last three uncles of Johan de Witt's wife) dominated. It was fortunate for the Republic that capable leadership arose in the absence of a Prince of Orange. The faction even thought through an ideological justification of republicanism (the "True Freedom") that went against the contemporary European trend of monarchical absolutism, but previewed "modern" political ideas that eventually found their fullest expression in the American and French constitutions of the 18th century. There was a "monarchical" opposing undertow, however, from the adherents of the House of Orange that wanted to restore the young Prince of Orange to the position of Stadtholder that his father, grandfather, great-uncle, and great-grandfather had held. The republicans attempted to rule this out by constitutional prohibitions, like the Act of Seclusion, but were eventually unsuccessful in the crisis of the Rampjaar (Year of Disaster) of 1672, that brought about the fall of the De Witt-regime.[6][4][9]

The Gecommitteerde Raden (executive committee) of the States of Holland moved immediately to reassert their authority over the army and convened a plenary session of the States. Next Holland proposed in the States General that a so-called Great Assembly (a kind of constitutional convention) should be convened at short notice, to amend the Union of Utrecht.[3]^:702–703

The States of Holland did not wait for this Assembly, however, but for their own province immediately started to make constitutional alterations. On December 8, 1650, the States formally took over their Stadtholders' powers. The eighteen voting towns in the States were given the option to apply for a charter that enabled them to henceforth elect their own vroedschap members and magistrates, under ultimate supervision of the States, but otherwise without the usual drawing up of double lists, for outsiders to choose from. This did not apply to the non-voting towns, however, that still had to present double lists, but now to the States, instead of the Stadtholder. The States also assumed the power to appoint magistrates in the unincorporated countryside, like drosten and baljuws.[4]^:40–57 · [3] ^:703–704

This did imply a significant change in the power structure in the province. The position of the city regents was improved, while the ridderschap (the oligarchical representative body of the nobility in the States, that had one vote, equal to one city) lost influence, especially in the countryside. The change also diminished the power of the representative bodies of the guilds in the cities, that had often acted as a check on the power of the vroedschap with the help of the stadtholder. The change therefore did not go unopposed, and caused some rioting by the groups being disenfranchised.[4][3] ^:704

It was clear that the leadership of the republic was now in the hands of Holland. The other power center, the House of Orange, was out of the way, at least until William III came of age. The constitutional conflict between central authority, represented by the Princes of Orange, and provincial particularism, as represented by the States of Holland, had largely been a false one. Since the beginning of the Republic, these two institutions had largely exercised leadership in cooperation, with the two notable exceptions of Maurice and Oldenbarnevelt in 1618–19 and between William II and Holland in 1650. It had been one more of form instead of the deeper underlying one of function: who was to lead the Republic. For the present, the answer was clear. The leadership of the state and the aims of national policy would be led by the States of Holland.[4]^:47 The Great Assembly sealed the transfer of leadership to Holland alone.[4]^:56 In the institutes of the state, the new patterns soon showed themselves. The States General, where the deputies of the other provinces were so recently subservient to the Prince of Orange, now deferred to the judgment of Holland.[4]^:47

There was a periodic power struggle between the Orangists, who supported the stadtholders of the House of Orange-Nassau, and the States Party, who supported the States-General and sought to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure. It would be a mistake to think of either of these factions as political parties in the modern sense, as they were really loosely aligned groupings of interests and families that sought power in the States. Many of the people and groupings that were part of one faction could as easily be found at later times in different factions as their interests and family alliances changed.[6][4][9]

As noted above, the States Party, or Staatsgezinden developed out of the Loevestein faction of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt.[4] Behind the theological debate of the Remonstrant–Counter-Remonstrant clash lay a political one between Prince Maurice, a strong military leader, and his former mentor Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Land's Advocate of Holland and personification of civil power. Maurice desired war with Holland's enemy, Roman Catholic Spain. War would preserve his power and influence in the State. There was also no small part of revenge against Spain for assassinating his father. As Maurice is purported to have said, "I know not whether predestination is black or white, but I will make it orange."[8] Van Oldenbarnevelt, along with Arminius and his followers, desired peace. They saw no great benefit to the continuation of war and real danger to Holland's developing trade. They also saw the sovereignty of the States of Holland as paramount. In their eyes, this meant state supremacy over the church.[4][7][8][3][11] Personally, many of the regents were Counter-Remonstrant minded, but the coalition suited their political interests at the time.[12]

Because of this, an influential part of the regents had never been reconciled to Maurice's treatment of their colleagues, in part because they were related to them. When William II died in 1650 with only a posthumous son, William III, the regents of Holland and the States Party stepped into the vacuum. The States Party at the height of the Republic in the First Stadholderless Period were led by such talented men as Johan de Witt, his brother Cornelis de Witt, Cornelis de Graeff, Andries de Graeff and Andries Bicker. During the Second Statholderless period, the States Party were again led by the Raadpensionaris of the time. As also noted above, the faction even thought through, at least during De Witt's time, an ideological justification of republicanism Ware Vrijheid (the "True Freedom") that went against the contemporary European trend of monarchical absolutism. De Witt and his allies primarily defended Van Oldenbarnevelt's and Grotius' claim to supremacy of (Holland's) provincial sovereignty over the sovereignty of the Generality. But the doctrine went further. "True Freedom" implied the rejection of an "eminent head", not only of the federal state (where it would have conflicted with provincial sovereignty), but also of the provincial political system. De Witt considered Princes and Potentates as such, as detrimental to the public good, because of their inherent tendency to waste tax payers' money on military adventures in search of glory and useless territorial aggrandisement. As the province of Holland only abutted friendly territory and its interests were centred on commercial activities at sea, the Holland regents had no territorial designs themselves, and they looked askance at such designs by the other provinces, because they knew they were likely to have to foot the bill.[4][9]

This doctrine was formalised in works by De Witt himself on economics as well as his cousin's (also John de Wit) work on the "Public Gebedt" (Public Debt). By far the most complete reasoning behind the Republican regime came from Peter de la Court. The most famous of these, "The Interest van Holland" was published in 1662 and immediately became a bestseller in Holland and later also elsewhere. The book contained an analysis of the miraculous economic success of Holland, the leading province of the Dutch Republic, and then set out to establish the economic and political principles on which that success was based. De la Court identified free competition and the republican form of government as the leading factors contributing to the wealth and power of his home country. The book was written in an outspoken and polemic style and went through eight editions in 1662. A revised luxury edition appeared in 1669. It was translated into German in 1665, English in 1702 and French in 1709. A new English translation appeared as late as 1746. The text of the last English edition of the Interest can be downloaded from the website of the Liberty Fund: Pieter de la Court, The True Interest and Political Maxims, of the Republic of Holland (1662).

There was a "monarchical" opposing movement, however, came from the adherents of the House of Orange, loosely grouped into the "Orangist" faction, that wanted to restore the young Prince of Orange to the position of Stadtholder that his father, grandfather, great-uncle, and great-grandfather had held. Their adherence to the Prince of Orange's dynastic interest was partly a matter of personal advancement, as many Orangist regents resented being ousted from the offices they had monopolized under the Stadtholderate. Many adherents were also relatives of the House of Orange (i.e. the House of Nassau) and minor nobles whose influence would be greater under an "eminent" head such as a Prince of Orange, who could be a prime mover in the State and the Army and thus a dispenser of patronage. It was also, for members of the lower nobility, perfectly reasonable that they should be led by the fairly royal Prince of Orange in an age when all other nations were led by Kings and Emperors.[4][9]

Many people also had a genuine ideological attachment to the "monarchical" principle. As the analogy of the Dutch Republic with the biblical People of Israel was never far from people's minds, this helped to give an important underpinning for the Orangist claims in the mind of the common people, who were greatly influenced from the pulpit. The Prince of Orange was seen in his traditional role as the leader of the nation in its independence movement, and its protector from foreign threats.[9] References to biblical kings were never far from most of the Calvinist preacher's sermons. Other favourite metaphors were the likening of the Princes of Orange to Moses leading the people of the Netherlands out of the Spanish "house of bondage". Given the prevalence of dangers from floods, the Lord was seen as having placed the protection of the Dutch people from inundation, both physical and metaphysical religious terms in the hands of the Princes of Orange.[11] Of course, the conservative Calvinist Reformed Church thought its interests best served by the Stadtholder from the House of Orange who had served them in the Remonstrant–Counter-Remonstrant controversy in 1619 under Maurice of Orange that culminated in the Synod of Dort. The Erastianism of the Holland regents was seen as a constant threat to its independence and orthodoxy.[4]

The Republicans attempted to rule out the return of the House of Orange and cement their rule by constitutional prohibitions, like the Act of Seclusion (demanded by Cromwell, but not resisted by the Republicans). They were eventually unsuccessful in the crisis of the Rampjaar (Year of Disaster) of 1672, as the majority of the people turned to the Prince of Orange, William III, in the crisis. That brought about the fall of the De Witt-regime. Similarly, in the crisis of the French invasion of 1747, the Republican regime collapsed and brought about the installation of William IV as Stadholder. During the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), the internal territory was divided into groups: the Patriots, who were pro-French and pro-American and the Orangists, who were pro-British.[13]

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces. They took from the Dutch Republic the idea of a "sovereign union of sovereign states". They also took from the Dutch example the need for political and administrative power to be exercised and interlocked at different levels: local, regional and national. The other great example taken from the Dutch was the ability to compromise in order to achieve a goal for the common good. However, the Dutch Republic, as cited in the Federalist papers by Hamilton, provided an example to be avoided of not allowing the (Con)Federal national government sufficient power to carry out its duties, collect its revenue, and come to decisions in a timely manner as set down in law.[14]

In addition, the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, is strikingly similar to the later American Declaration of Independence,[15] though concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.

• History of the Netherlands
• Union of Utrecht
• Eighty Years' War
• Dutch Golden Age
• List of Grand Pensionaries
• Land's Advocate of Holland
• Stadholder
• List of stadtholders for the Low Countries provinces

• Ertl, Alan W. (2008). Toward an Understanding of Europe: A Political Economic Précis of Continental Integration. Universal-Publishers. ISBN 978-1-59942-983-0.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
• John Lothrop Motley, "The Rise of the Dutch Republic". New York: Harper & Brothers, 1855.
• John Lothrop Motley, "History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Synod of Dort". London: John Murray, 1860.
• Herbert H. Rowen, John de Witt, grand pensionary of Holland, 1625-1672. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, which is summarized in
• Herbert H. Rowen, "John de Witt: Statesman of the "True Freedom"". Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Herbert H. Rowen, The princes of Orange: the stadholders in the Dutch Republic. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Herbert H. Rowen, The princes of Orange: the stadholders in the Dutch Republic. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Petrus Johannes Blok, "History of the people of the Netherlands". New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1898.
• Pieter Geyl, "Orange and Stuart, 1641-1672". Scribner, 1970.
• Jonathan I. Israel, "The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806" Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-19-820734-4
• Reynolds, Clark G. Navies in History. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1998
• Schama, Simon The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. New York: Random House USA, 1988
• Sir William Temple: Temple, Sir William (1705) [1668]. Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands (7th ed.). London: Jacob Tonfon within Grays-Inn Gate next Grays-Inn Lane, and Awnfoam and John Churchill at the Black Swan in Tater-No/ler-Row*. Retrieved October 18, 2011.