Van der Capellen's
Aan het Volk van Nederland did not relate the history of the Netherlands from the perspective of the Orange family or the
regenten, but that of 'the people'. Mostly the House of Orange, but the regenten as well, had tried their best to take away the natural and historical freedoms from the people. The ancient
Batavians were free, but the inhabitants of the Netherlands had been doing worse ever since. In the
Middle Ages, counts and dukes had ruled, afterwards the
Burgundians and
Habsburgers. The
Dutch had rebelled against
Philip II, but the princes of Orange, who did save the Northern Netherlands from Spanish tyranny, were actually also seeking to enlarge their own power, the pamphlet claimed. It went on to argue that
William the Silent was almost elevated to Count of Holland,
Maurice of Nassau was a scoundrel who had
Johan van Oldenbarnevelt ("Barneveld") killed, and thanks to
Frederick Henry a marriage was arranged between
William II and
Mary Stuart, commencing the disastrous relations between the English royal house and the House of Orange. William II tried to commit a coup d'état by
attacking Amsterdam in 1650.
William III was an autocrat who imposed Regeringsreglementen in the provinces of
Utrecht,
Guelders and
Overijssel.
William IV and
William V continued down this road and were true despots. According to historians
Jan Romein (1893–1962) and
Annie Romein-Verschoor (1895–1978), Van der Capellen's assertion that ever since the marriage of William II and Mary Stuart, dynastic interests started to outweigh national interests, and that the Orange clan had made efforts to establish a monarchy ever since Frederick Henry, lies quite close to the conclusions of modern-day scholarship (referring to
Pieter Geyl's
Oranje en Stuart (1939)). But the country's history from Capellian perspective was just setting the stage for what
Aan het Volk van Nederland was really about: criticism of the ills the Republic was suffering from in 1781. The fact that the war against England was developing so disastrously was William V's fault. Van der Capellen also criticised the stadtholder's private life, his public drunkenness and his advances towards unmarried noblewoman Stijn. It was not until the end that Van der Capellen proposed practical measures, his programme for reform: :"''Assemble each and everyone in your cities and in the villages in the country. Assemble peacefully and elect from the midst of you a moderate number of good, virtuous, pious men; elect good patriots whom you can trust. Send these as your commissioners to the meeting places of the Estates of your Provinces and order them that they must assemble as soon as possible to make, together with the Estates, in the name of and on behalf of this nation, a precise enquiry into the reasons for the extreme slowness and weakness with which the protection of this country against a formidable and especially active enemy is being treated. Order them as well that they, again together with the Estates of the various provinces, elect a council for His Highness, and that they, the sooner the better, help to devise and deploy all such means as will be considered suitable for the salvation of the endangered fatherland. Let your commissioners publicly and openly report to you about their actions from time to time by means of the press. Take care of the freedom of the press, because it is the only support for your national freedom. If one cannot speak freely to one's fellow citizens and warn them in time, it is only too easy for the oppressors to play their role. That is the reason why those whose behaviour cannot endure any enquiry are always so much opposed to freedom of writing and printing and would like to see that nothing could be printed or sold without permission.''"
Aan het Volk van Nederland was written in service of Van der Capellen's personal struggle. Van der Capellen unabashedly pointed the reader to his own publications and political activities, albeit in third person (his first mention: "If thou wants to know more about this important matter, read the writings of Baron van der Capellen tot den Pol..."). His translations of
Andrew Fletcher and
Richard Price, his opposition to the reinforcement of the army, his protest against lending out the Scottish Brigade and the military jurisdiction he called a hideous monstrosity, his plea for a more strict maintenance of the regeringsreglement, and of course his struggle against the
drostendiensten are mentioned as the resistance he encountered. The pamphlet was polarising. Van der Capellen pitched two groups against each other: the corrupt Orangist regenten, called "fortune-seekers" by Van der Capellen on the one hand, against the Patriots on the other. The Patriots were dissident regenten who opposed the stadtholder's policies. Besides Van der Capellen himself, he mentioned the burgomasters of Amsterdam
Temminck, Hooft and Rendorp, the pensionaries Van Berckel and
De Gijselaar, his Guelderian cousin
Robert Jasper van der Capellen tot de Marsch and the Frisian regenten Van Aylva, Van Eysinga, Humalda,
Van Beijma, Wielinga and Van Haren. Not all of them were already cooperating with Van der Capellen in 1781, so he created the idea of an alliance that did not exist yet, thus entangling the other dissidents in his plans. His battle in Overijssel suddenly became very important, and was now part of a struggle being fought on the national level. The case of the Guelderian unmarried noblewoman
Constantia van Lynden, who might have had knowledge of classified information, was also discussed. She would have commented on the status of the island colony of
Sint Eustatius, vital for the American–Dutch commercial and military trade, which the English occupied and held since February 1781. Van der Capellen claimed Prince William was personally responsible for the huge financial losses Dutch merchants and military setbacks American rebels had suffered as a result. == Reception of the pamphlet ==