New Amsterdamn never ceded
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:16:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History
  Alternative History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  New Amsterdamn never ceded
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: New Amsterdamn never ceded  (Read 1003 times)
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 22, 2010, 06:48:32 PM »

How would colonial history change, if at all, if New Amsterdam was never ceded to the British? Would the Dutch have created a foothold in the colonies? Would the city have been ceded at a later point? Would their have been a war later down the road?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2010, 07:19:38 PM »

The taking of the New Netherlands by the English was one of the primary causes of the Second Anglo-Dutch War.  It was facilitated by the Dutch West India Company (GWIC) deciding that they didn't need to bear the expense of garrisoning the colony with troops.  They correctly assessed that the New Englanders would not be interested, but the English themselves sent troops and ships to take New Amsterdam in 1664.  The colonists were not displeased by this because they had been having Indian problems and the Company had been deaf to their complaints and desire for troops.

The Dutch did briefly retake New Orange (as they renamed New York) during the Third Anglo-Dutch War, but they were bankrupt at the end of that war and were forced to give it up.

So much for history, now for alternating.

Even if one has the GWIC be less foolishly frugal, for the Dutch to keep New Netherlands into the 18th century requires at a minimum for them to do considerably better in the Franco-Dutch War (of which the Third Anglo-Dutch War was a sideline) or have that war never happen.

The simplest butterflies involve changing what Charles II decides to do.  If he never instigates the Second Anglo-Dutch War (and thus never has reason to engage in the intrigues that led to the Franco-Dutch War).  But even then, that only delays when the English take control.  While the New Englanders weren't eager for war, they were eager for land and even before New Amsterdam had been taken in 1664, they'd already settled on Long Island and the portion of Connecticut west of the Connecticut River which was claimed by the GWIC.

The simple fact is that out of the Dutch, the English, and the French, only the English were really interested in settling.  The other two were in much more interested in trade.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.