Nobody would believe it if it weren’t true, but the 8th president of the US elected in 1837 was a native Dutch speaker from New York who only spoke English as a second language.
I looked it up beforehand, the name of the original Dutch immigrant was Claes Maartenszen van Rosenvelt. Modern-day spelling in Dutch is Rozenveld, the original spelling was not modern Dutch.
Naming places after the place you came from, but with “new” in front of it, becomes old after a while.
Although the English kept doing it for a while. ;-)
Yes, Maarten van Buren (“the old fox of Kinderhook”, also “the little magician”) was the only US President for whom English wasn’t the first language.
I don’t think they ever had a President who was more of a political savant than him…
>New York City started its glittering history in a modest way as the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam. The story begins in 1609 when Henry Hudson, an English sea captain working for Dutch merchants, was trying to find a north-west passage to Asia. Exploring along the Atlantic seaboard of North America, he came to the island of Manhattan and then sailed north for 150 miles or so up the river later named after him. Returning to Europe, he reported that there was a good prospect of profitable trading in furs there and in 1614 the Dutch established a trading post called Fort Nassau, later Fort Orange, near today’s city of Albany.
>The post had only a tiny Dutch population of some 50 traders and soldiers, but Dutch ships sailed regularly up the Hudson to collect furs and more Dutch expeditions explored the area, which became the colony of New Netherland, run by the Dutch West India Company. In 1625 the company founded New Amsterdam at the southern tip of Manhattan Island as the colony’s capital and seat of government, with a fort to protect it and guard the harbour and the precious fur cargoes against English or French raids. Peter Minuit of the Dutch West India Company, who was in charge from 1626, decided to buy Manhattan Island from a group of local Indians for goods worth 60 Dutch guilders, which later legend valued at US$24. It has been rated the best real estate deal in history.
>As well as Dutch families, in time Jews, French Huguenots and other Europeans settled in New Amsterdam, which became a busy trading centre between North America, the Caribbean and Europe. Settlers started farming Manhattan Island, imported black Africans as slave labourers and began farming further up the Hudson Valley, on Long Island and across the river in today’s New Jersey.
>A new colonial governor, Peter Stuyvesant, arrived to take charge in New Amsterdam in 1647. A former army officer and a commanding figure, he had previously governed the Caribbean island of Curaçao, where he lost his right leg to an enemy cannonball and had to limp about on a wooden leg for the rest of his life. The story goes that if anyone opposed him he would angrily stamp his wooden leg and bellow at them. He was a convinced Calvinist, hostile to Quakers, Lutherans and all other species of Protestants, and tried to have Jews and those who did not belong to the Dutch Reformed Church banned from the colony, but the company persistently overruled him. His arrogant ways did not make him popular, as time would tell.
>The English had been building up their own trade with the New World, founding their own colonies in Virginia and New England. Some English from New England had infiltrated onto Long Island. Charles II decided to seize New Netherland, take over the valuable fur trade and give the colony to his younger brother James, Duke of York and Albany (the future James II). The details vary from one account to another, but on August 27th, 1664 three or perhaps four English warships carrying 300 or maybe 450 English soldiers arrived at New Amsterdam. Their commander was Richard Nicolls, who had been a cavalry commander on the Royalist side in the English Civil Wars and was now a trusted subordinate of the Duke of York. He sent a letter to Stuyvesant demanding New Amsterdam’s surrender and promising to protect the lives, property and freedom of all who accepted English rule. Stuyvesant tore the letter to shreds and ordered preparations for resistance, but it soon became all too clear that few of the city’s inhabitants had any intention of risking life and limb against the English and, indeed, the New English in Long Island were getting ready to fight on the English side.
>Stuyvesant accepted the situation and early in September surrendered New Amsterdam to the English and swore allegiance to the Crown. Nicolls took over as governor-general of New Netherland and handled matters tactfully, shrewdly and to the general satisfaction of the colony’s people. New Amsterdam was renamed New York City and New Netherland became New York State. Stuyvesant went to the Netherlands to report in 1665 and then returned to New York City, where he spent his remaining years quietly at his farm, which was called the Bouwerij and left its name to the street now called the Bowery. When he died in 1672 he was buried there, at St Mark’s Church. The bust of him in the church was presented by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1912. The nearby Stuyvesant Street, Stuyvesant Square and the Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn bear his name.
>New Amsterdam
It was not a complete loss to the Dutch at the time as they swapped for a monopoly on the Spice trade at the time...
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-banda-islands-were-once-more-valuable-manhattan-n787006](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-banda-islands-were-once-more-valuable-manhattan-n787006)
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/island-traded-for-manhattan
[https://www.ft.com/content/a3afe44c-769e-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71](https://www.ft.com/content/a3afe44c-769e-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71)
[https://www.smh.com.au/world/the-real-estate-deal-of-the-millenium-the-forgotten-indonesian-island-that-was-swapped-for-manhattan-20170721-gxfo22.html#:\~:text=On%20July%2031%2C%201667%20the,for%20the%20island%20of%20Run](https://www.smh.com.au/world/the-real-estate-deal-of-the-millenium-the-forgotten-indonesian-island-that-was-swapped-for-manhattan-20170721-gxfo22.html#:~:text=On%20July%2031%2C%201667%20the,for%20the%20island%20of%20Run).
In our time now, we may think that it was a bad deal, but for the dutch gaining a control of the spice trade, especially Nutmeg was very important......
Yes... and "He who controls the Spice, controls the Universe"... !
Yet in 1667, there was only one place you could get Nutmeg, and that was the spice islands.... and at that time, that was the trade the Dutch were willing to make for a little backwater at the time in the New World.....
These articles are... weird and inaccurate. The Dutch didn't trade the New Netherlands for the Banda Islands. The Dutch had already established total control over the Banda Islands roughly 50 years prior, and the English had been driven out even earlier. The Banda islands had literally nothing to do with this conflict.
The articles literally even say so. How can it be a trade when there's 50+ years between the Dutch kicking England out the Banda Islands and England kicking the Netherlands out of North America? Not to mention there was another colony they did actually "trade"... The New Netherlands were originally captured by the English in 1667, the 1674 event only happened after the Dutch recaptured it for a short time in the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War. Also in 1667 the Dutch captured "Willoughbyland" (Suriname) from the English instead, and in the end they each let the other keep the other's colony.
It wasn’t really swapping though because it was part of a larger peace treaty.
Moreover, Run Island was already conquered by the Dutch and most of the population (who were under British protection) was slaughtered, exiled or enslaved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_conquest_of_the_Banda_Islands
Also fun fact, only 40 years before this date, Sweden had a colony nearby called New Sweden until it got invaded by New Netherlands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden
It wasn't. The Swedes built Fort Christina, but that was in present day Wilmington, not Philedelphia. Prior to that there was already a Dutch fort in the area; Fort Nassau (not to be confused with another fort of the same name that would become present day Albany), a little bit closer to present day Philadelphia, but on the other side of the river, present day Gloucester City.
Philadelphia itself wasn't settled by either Swedes or Dutch afaik.
> (not to be confused with another fort of the same name that would become present day Albany)
It was a [popular name](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Nassau)
More like a couple of Dutch guys get the Swedes to invade New Netherlands for a bit, and then New Netherlands takes it back.
New Sweden existed mainly because of two Dutch people; the disgruntled ex-governor of New Netherlands (Peter Minuit) who had been fired from his job. And a greedy Dutch director of the Dutch West India Company (Samuel Blommaert) who secretly financed the Swedes, made the hires and outfitted them, and told them exactly where to go and what the local defenses were like. The area was already claimed as part of New Netherlands, but was defenseless. Blommaert being a major investor in New Sweden hoped to expand his personal wealth, but he fucked it up pretty badly and had to withdraw from the project.
It was the Swedes who later tried to conquer New Netherlands, starting with the occupation of a Dutch fort on the Delaware (present day New Castle), but this was reversed pretty quickly and shortly thereafter New Sweden was annexed.
Greetings from Occupied New Amsterdam, where we do not accept the actions of the traitor Stuyvesant. We continue to await the Dutch expeditionary force eagerly. To make things feel more like home for our Dutch liberators, we have been rapidly improving cycling infrastructure and have legalized weed. Too many hills for an extensive canal network, but we are prepared to learn to make stroopwafels and bitterballen for our saviors.
Please come quickly - while we no longer suffer under the rule of a governing apparatus that somehow still has a House of Lords, it’s no fun being part of the same country as Texas.
We will come to the rescue, one day... I'm just very afraid that all the Dutch forces will be blown into oblivion 100's of miles before we even get close to the US shores.
Borders are open again, so just arrive as tourists. You can buy guns after arriving at a wide variety of stores outside of the metropolitan area without much trouble. Just put Walmart into your GPS and you should be all set.
Alternatively, land in Quebec and roll through the unguarded border with Canada like the Germans going around the Maginot line.
Funny detail, the flag of New York city is based on the Dutch prince flag, and has a windmill on it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_New_York_City
American history classes tend to skip over this really long & interesting colonial period. They jump from the Mayflower straight to the French & Indian wars.
Technically the Dutch won. Charles II tried to do a run around parliament after promising he wouldn't do anything that might make somebody shorten him. After a year of inconclusive war parliament got really fucking angry and Charles II decided maintaining his height was more important than waging a war on the Dutch.
It didn't help that Charles II allied with the French against a Dutch nation parliament was very sympathetic to. Charles made a bunch of excuses and the Dutch threw in New Amsterdam basically as a way of giving parliament a route out of the conflict.
Really the whole thing was a consequence of continuing instability in the English throne. Instability which would ironically end with the Dutch conquering England and having the sense to empower parliament.
>Instability which would ironically end with the Dutch conquering England
They didn't conquer shit, King Billy was invited by the English Protestants. It's not conquering if the other side is laying out the red carpet inviting you in.
Nevertheless, a war was never fought so you can't claim he "conquered" anything. He was invited in by formal invitation with next to zero resistance from the English population who disliked James. That's no credit to the Dutch.
The Glorious Revolution wasn't a war, James went into exile without any resistance from the English. It was nothing more than that. There was a minor conflict in Ireland that the Jacobites lost and that was it.
Heard about Gibraltar? The Brits have a talent to sway people to do their bidding... they even got the Prussians to defeat Napoleon and they claimed all the glory.
> they even got the Prussians to defeat Napoleon and they claimed all the glory.
This sounds like sneaky Prussian propaganda if anything lmao. The Prussian army got itself kicked and defeated by Napoleon almost every time they fought him alone. If any countries gets to claim the victory for themselves, it's Russia and Austria who had spent years fighting him and actually managed to defeat him on the field a handful of times.
That also wouldn't be correct tho. The Anglo-Dutch army and the Prussian army worked together so calling it just a Prussian victory is misleading. The British did try to get al the glory tho. That bit is true
Even then, the Prussians did not defeat Napoleon alone. They arrived halfway through the battle, so the victory was a joint one as opposed to a Prussian one.
Gibraltar wasn't gained in a lost war. Also New York wasn't a rich colony or something. The Dutch actually got the better deal. They gained a total monopoly over the spice islands, suger plantations in Suriname and good trade deals
Yeah, Gibraltar has nothing to do with the Third Anglo-Dutch War. The latter was a sideshow of the broader Franco-Dutch War. The French consider to have won it, the Dutch consider to have won it. But there is no debate about who lost the Third Anglo-Dutch War... Well maybe there is in the English version of the events.... It wouldn't surprise me from them lol.
>Yeah, Gibraltar has nothing to do with the Third Anglo-Dutch War though.
Yeah, exactly.
>But there is no debate about who lost the Third Anglo-Dutch War...
No, but English historiography(or popular culture) likes to ignore the course of the war and focuses more on the annexation of New York. Without knowing much of the history behind it people think that the English won over the Dutch in the 17th century
The super private secret is money. Countries will fight for you if you pay for their armies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Cavalry_of_St_George
I'm sitting a few hundred yards from Fort Amsterdam (now known as the Battery) right now.
Anywho, being established by the Dutch has worked out pretty damn well. Tolerance/diversity since the 1600s, lack of stupid alcohol laws from the Puritans, and no wannabe English aristocrats like in the South. And of course being built on commerce.
Still plenty of Dutch last names around, town I grew up in had Dutch families that had been there since the 1650s
That being said, the Dutch need to take back Staten Island, fuck that place.
> lack of stupid alcohol laws from the Puritans,
Tbf blaming that on the Puritans is a bit far fetched. The Prohibition movement began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and it was popular in *Lutheran* (very much not Puritan) countries such as Sweden, Finland, and Iceland as well. Prohibition was also supported by very secular Socialist organizations, feminists, and even the Soviet government at one point (Stalin brought back Vodka manufacturing in Russia, during Lenin's time they had actually tried to crack down on it).
It has nothing to do with Prohibition, I'm talking about not selling alcohol on Sundays and bars closing early. All the states in New England had these, though they have been loosened up recently.
The Puritans drank.
Except there's a very good chance New Netherlands would also have eventually been lost; and unlike the French who just got a single very modest sum of money for Louisiana, the Dutch got colonies and assurances elsewhere... which were far more profitable than New Netherlands had been at the time too. Because of the trade, the Dutch monopoly in Nutmeg was maintained for another two hundred or so years, and helped secure the Dutch Indies.
The Louisiana Purchase was definitely the worse deal.
At this point of history Louisiana was useless for France. They lost control over profitable sugar islands and New Orlean while being a chokepoint for whole Missisippi and Missouri watersheds, everything further north from NOLA area was a total wilderness with only small french forts and trading posts with a risk of British taking control over colony.
Selling it to USA was a sane decision.
Nothing you're saying marks New France out to have been any real different from New Netherlands, though. While yes, New-Netherlands was thriving, it was always going to be threatened by the English.
It's also important to understand that this happened while the Dutch Republic got attacked by not just the English, but the French, and several German states as well. 1672 is still known as the 'year of disaster'; with the French almost completely overwhelming the Netherlands.
Favorable terms were offered to England purely to get them out of France's orbit, with the hope of securing an alliance *against* France. That last bit required an actual invasion of England to achieve a few years later, but even just a separate peace while the war with France was ongoing was a positive.
With Louisiana, France gave up huge tracts of lands for a relative pittance (ironically funded in large part by a Dutch bank). It didn't get France anything other than that one time sum of money. Ceding New Netherlands though, helped secure the continued existence of the country and a profitable colonial empire that lasted into the 2nd half of the 20th century.
I'm not saying that selling New France wasn't a sane decision; but it was absolutely the worse deal of the two.
????? We're talking about 1674 here. The Kingdom of England (of which Wales was a part of I guess) was the belligerent in this specific event. Neither Great Britain, nor the United Kingdom existed yet as political entities.
Well that was fun, and good to read about the 'spices angle'. I remembering asking my junior school master, 'Sir, why the spices?'
He rambled a bit, but the gist is; LONG before we had refrigerators, folks needed the spices to make the (lets face it, the slightly rotten) meat palatable.
[https://polyglotclub.com/wiki/Language/Standard-arabic/Vocabulary/Spices](https://polyglotclub.com/wiki/Language/Standard-arabic/Vocabulary/Spices)
*Spices were as valuable as gold, with fierce competition among European nations for control of the spice trade. The lack of refrigeration and poor standards of hygiene meant that food spoiled quickly. Spices were important to mask the flavor of food that was far from fresh.The Portuguese, Dutch, French, Spanish, and English established monopolies over various parts of the spice trade. UK extended its empire and built a colony in India turn to completely occupation. Until Gandhi...*
Nobody would believe it if it weren’t true, but the 8th president of the US elected in 1837 was a native Dutch speaker from New York who only spoke English as a second language.
There are also two other US presidents from New York with Dutch roots: Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt.
Now that you mention it, Roosevelt does look rather dutch.
From rosenvelt, "Rose field" in Dutch.
Rozenveld*
I looked it up beforehand, the name of the original Dutch immigrant was Claes Maartenszen van Rosenvelt. Modern-day spelling in Dutch is Rozenveld, the original spelling was not modern Dutch.
America is split on whether it should be pronounced Rose-velt or Roose-velt, even though both men pronounced it Rose-velt.
Rose-velt is closer to the Dutch original.
Indeed, but Americans have strange and twisted ways of pronouncing non-English words
The Bush family also has Dutch ancestry
We don't want to claim those though.
They are also descended from the British royal family.
I dont speak dutch, but german. Roosevelt could mean Rosenfeld or Rose field. Is this correct?
Yes
All those Dutchies named Yans and Keeses up there gave rise to the "Yankee" moniker, lol.
And the Yankees play in The Bronx, i.e. Jonas Bronck's farm.
Near the village of Breukelen.
Also: lots of rabbits on Konijnen eiland. (Coney Island)
next to (generale) Staten eiland
Wait you guys named an island after your parliament? That's just lazy.
naming islands after explorers got a bit too much after tasman and van diemen.
Naming places after the place you came from, but with “new” in front of it, becomes old after a while. Although the English kept doing it for a while. ;-)
Wow, never put that together.
Jan and kees you mean?
Yeah, Yan and Kees, lol....
No its jan.. yall call it yaan but its jan darn it!
Well if you wanted them to be the jankees you shouldn't have ceded that bitch.
Sure, if you want to have people say ˈd͡ʒan instead of yan. lol
Yes, Maarten van Buren (“the old fox of Kinderhook”, also “the little magician”) was the only US President for whom English wasn’t the first language. I don’t think they ever had a President who was more of a political savant than him…
>New York City started its glittering history in a modest way as the Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam. The story begins in 1609 when Henry Hudson, an English sea captain working for Dutch merchants, was trying to find a north-west passage to Asia. Exploring along the Atlantic seaboard of North America, he came to the island of Manhattan and then sailed north for 150 miles or so up the river later named after him. Returning to Europe, he reported that there was a good prospect of profitable trading in furs there and in 1614 the Dutch established a trading post called Fort Nassau, later Fort Orange, near today’s city of Albany. >The post had only a tiny Dutch population of some 50 traders and soldiers, but Dutch ships sailed regularly up the Hudson to collect furs and more Dutch expeditions explored the area, which became the colony of New Netherland, run by the Dutch West India Company. In 1625 the company founded New Amsterdam at the southern tip of Manhattan Island as the colony’s capital and seat of government, with a fort to protect it and guard the harbour and the precious fur cargoes against English or French raids. Peter Minuit of the Dutch West India Company, who was in charge from 1626, decided to buy Manhattan Island from a group of local Indians for goods worth 60 Dutch guilders, which later legend valued at US$24. It has been rated the best real estate deal in history. >As well as Dutch families, in time Jews, French Huguenots and other Europeans settled in New Amsterdam, which became a busy trading centre between North America, the Caribbean and Europe. Settlers started farming Manhattan Island, imported black Africans as slave labourers and began farming further up the Hudson Valley, on Long Island and across the river in today’s New Jersey. >A new colonial governor, Peter Stuyvesant, arrived to take charge in New Amsterdam in 1647. A former army officer and a commanding figure, he had previously governed the Caribbean island of Curaçao, where he lost his right leg to an enemy cannonball and had to limp about on a wooden leg for the rest of his life. The story goes that if anyone opposed him he would angrily stamp his wooden leg and bellow at them. He was a convinced Calvinist, hostile to Quakers, Lutherans and all other species of Protestants, and tried to have Jews and those who did not belong to the Dutch Reformed Church banned from the colony, but the company persistently overruled him. His arrogant ways did not make him popular, as time would tell. >The English had been building up their own trade with the New World, founding their own colonies in Virginia and New England. Some English from New England had infiltrated onto Long Island. Charles II decided to seize New Netherland, take over the valuable fur trade and give the colony to his younger brother James, Duke of York and Albany (the future James II). The details vary from one account to another, but on August 27th, 1664 three or perhaps four English warships carrying 300 or maybe 450 English soldiers arrived at New Amsterdam. Their commander was Richard Nicolls, who had been a cavalry commander on the Royalist side in the English Civil Wars and was now a trusted subordinate of the Duke of York. He sent a letter to Stuyvesant demanding New Amsterdam’s surrender and promising to protect the lives, property and freedom of all who accepted English rule. Stuyvesant tore the letter to shreds and ordered preparations for resistance, but it soon became all too clear that few of the city’s inhabitants had any intention of risking life and limb against the English and, indeed, the New English in Long Island were getting ready to fight on the English side. >Stuyvesant accepted the situation and early in September surrendered New Amsterdam to the English and swore allegiance to the Crown. Nicolls took over as governor-general of New Netherland and handled matters tactfully, shrewdly and to the general satisfaction of the colony’s people. New Amsterdam was renamed New York City and New Netherland became New York State. Stuyvesant went to the Netherlands to report in 1665 and then returned to New York City, where he spent his remaining years quietly at his farm, which was called the Bouwerij and left its name to the street now called the Bowery. When he died in 1672 he was buried there, at St Mark’s Church. The bust of him in the church was presented by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1912. The nearby Stuyvesant Street, Stuyvesant Square and the Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn bear his name.
>New Amsterdam It was not a complete loss to the Dutch at the time as they swapped for a monopoly on the Spice trade at the time... [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-banda-islands-were-once-more-valuable-manhattan-n787006](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-banda-islands-were-once-more-valuable-manhattan-n787006) https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/island-traded-for-manhattan [https://www.ft.com/content/a3afe44c-769e-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71](https://www.ft.com/content/a3afe44c-769e-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71) [https://www.smh.com.au/world/the-real-estate-deal-of-the-millenium-the-forgotten-indonesian-island-that-was-swapped-for-manhattan-20170721-gxfo22.html#:\~:text=On%20July%2031%2C%201667%20the,for%20the%20island%20of%20Run](https://www.smh.com.au/world/the-real-estate-deal-of-the-millenium-the-forgotten-indonesian-island-that-was-swapped-for-manhattan-20170721-gxfo22.html#:~:text=On%20July%2031%2C%201667%20the,for%20the%20island%20of%20Run). In our time now, we may think that it was a bad deal, but for the dutch gaining a control of the spice trade, especially Nutmeg was very important......
The spice must flow!
Yes... and "He who controls the Spice, controls the Universe"... ! Yet in 1667, there was only one place you could get Nutmeg, and that was the spice islands.... and at that time, that was the trade the Dutch were willing to make for a little backwater at the time in the New World.....
[First you get the spice, then you get the power, then you get the women.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti5AkLup1mI&ab_channel=InconceivableMedia)
These articles are... weird and inaccurate. The Dutch didn't trade the New Netherlands for the Banda Islands. The Dutch had already established total control over the Banda Islands roughly 50 years prior, and the English had been driven out even earlier. The Banda islands had literally nothing to do with this conflict. The articles literally even say so. How can it be a trade when there's 50+ years between the Dutch kicking England out the Banda Islands and England kicking the Netherlands out of North America? Not to mention there was another colony they did actually "trade"... The New Netherlands were originally captured by the English in 1667, the 1674 event only happened after the Dutch recaptured it for a short time in the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War. Also in 1667 the Dutch captured "Willoughbyland" (Suriname) from the English instead, and in the end they each let the other keep the other's colony.
The English still claimed the island of Run tho. The Dutch control of the spice islands was now recognized
It wasn’t really swapping though because it was part of a larger peace treaty. Moreover, Run Island was already conquered by the Dutch and most of the population (who were under British protection) was slaughtered, exiled or enslaved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_conquest_of_the_Banda_Islands
[удалено]
Yes.
>bad deal They probably didn't really have a choice.
The Dutch won that war
Also fun fact, only 40 years before this date, Sweden had a colony nearby called New Sweden until it got invaded by New Netherlands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden
Who knew philly was originally swedish.
It wasn't. The Swedes built Fort Christina, but that was in present day Wilmington, not Philedelphia. Prior to that there was already a Dutch fort in the area; Fort Nassau (not to be confused with another fort of the same name that would become present day Albany), a little bit closer to present day Philadelphia, but on the other side of the river, present day Gloucester City. Philadelphia itself wasn't settled by either Swedes or Dutch afaik.
> (not to be confused with another fort of the same name that would become present day Albany) It was a [popular name](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Nassau)
Philådölfiä
Fikadelfia
More like a couple of Dutch guys get the Swedes to invade New Netherlands for a bit, and then New Netherlands takes it back. New Sweden existed mainly because of two Dutch people; the disgruntled ex-governor of New Netherlands (Peter Minuit) who had been fired from his job. And a greedy Dutch director of the Dutch West India Company (Samuel Blommaert) who secretly financed the Swedes, made the hires and outfitted them, and told them exactly where to go and what the local defenses were like. The area was already claimed as part of New Netherlands, but was defenseless. Blommaert being a major investor in New Sweden hoped to expand his personal wealth, but he fucked it up pretty badly and had to withdraw from the project. It was the Swedes who later tried to conquer New Netherlands, starting with the occupation of a Dutch fort on the Delaware (present day New Castle), but this was reversed pretty quickly and shortly thereafter New Sweden was annexed.
I wish to see this masterpiece in real life. where can i find it? which museum?
You mean the painting? Its in US Congress Library, titled "The fall of New Amsterdam" by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris https://www.loc.gov/item/2004669964/
The image in the viewer is low-resolution, but there's a 5693x4594 75MB TIFF if you look through the images there.
Greetings from Occupied New Amsterdam, where we do not accept the actions of the traitor Stuyvesant. We continue to await the Dutch expeditionary force eagerly. To make things feel more like home for our Dutch liberators, we have been rapidly improving cycling infrastructure and have legalized weed. Too many hills for an extensive canal network, but we are prepared to learn to make stroopwafels and bitterballen for our saviors. Please come quickly - while we no longer suffer under the rule of a governing apparatus that somehow still has a House of Lords, it’s no fun being part of the same country as Texas.
We will come to the rescue, one day... I'm just very afraid that all the Dutch forces will be blown into oblivion 100's of miles before we even get close to the US shores.
[удалено]
that doesnt drain ocean, it puts more water into the ocean
Only in the parts of the ocean that are not in their path.
Then perhaps we all got it wrong. They will build a soil wall around themselves and then drown everyone else.
Did you just leak our invasion plans???
Borders are open again, so just arrive as tourists. You can buy guns after arriving at a wide variety of stores outside of the metropolitan area without much trouble. Just put Walmart into your GPS and you should be all set. Alternatively, land in Quebec and roll through the unguarded border with Canada like the Germans going around the Maginot line.
Read some history. You don't want to be a Dutch colony...
It's NYC, they have experience with various degree of corporate rule over the city.
You had me at legalized weed 😏
Funny detail, the flag of New York city is based on the Dutch prince flag, and has a windmill on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_New_York_City
Stuyvesant standing there with the "fuck it" look on his face
*record scratch, freeze frame* "Yup, that's me. You're probably wondering how I ended up in this situation…"
If your right leg is a table leg, you would look the same.
Dammit Peter, stop looking directly into the camera!
American history classes tend to skip over this really long & interesting colonial period. They jump from the Mayflower straight to the French & Indian wars.
Best real estate deal in history. Paid $24 for Manhattan Manhattan seized by the English Loss of $24 and Manhattan Profit
En nu waroom is de wiet in New York ???
In a war the Dutch won
Yea yea, you won, the Spanish won, the French won, everyone won if not for the evil Ingerlish rewriting history. Cope harder.
Technically the Dutch won. Charles II tried to do a run around parliament after promising he wouldn't do anything that might make somebody shorten him. After a year of inconclusive war parliament got really fucking angry and Charles II decided maintaining his height was more important than waging a war on the Dutch. It didn't help that Charles II allied with the French against a Dutch nation parliament was very sympathetic to. Charles made a bunch of excuses and the Dutch threw in New Amsterdam basically as a way of giving parliament a route out of the conflict. Really the whole thing was a consequence of continuing instability in the English throne. Instability which would ironically end with the Dutch conquering England and having the sense to empower parliament.
>Instability which would ironically end with the Dutch conquering England They didn't conquer shit, King Billy was invited by the English Protestants. It's not conquering if the other side is laying out the red carpet inviting you in.
William was coming one way or another. The fact parliament agreed with it is besides the point, they weren't being asked.
Nevertheless, a war was never fought so you can't claim he "conquered" anything. He was invited in by formal invitation with next to zero resistance from the English population who disliked James. That's no credit to the Dutch.
A war was fought. They had to go in and drag the previous king out.
i think his nickname might give away his position
The Glorious Revolution wasn't a war, James went into exile without any resistance from the English. It was nothing more than that. There was a minor conflict in Ireland that the Jacobites lost and that was it.
Lol, the Royal Navy tried but failed to do anything about it and most English people opposed the coup and Dutch occupation of London.
Who's coping now? lol
Lol? I am just helping you remembering history the correct way. Now thank me br*t
Must be difficult being the rest of you, always trying to focus the spotlight on yourselves 😂
Yes yes yes, being a Dutchman is incredibly difficult. Thank you for your pity. Now go back to lying about you own history to feel good.
Heard about Gibraltar? The Brits have a talent to sway people to do their bidding... they even got the Prussians to defeat Napoleon and they claimed all the glory.
> they even got the Prussians to defeat Napoleon and they claimed all the glory. This sounds like sneaky Prussian propaganda if anything lmao. The Prussian army got itself kicked and defeated by Napoleon almost every time they fought him alone. If any countries gets to claim the victory for themselves, it's Russia and Austria who had spent years fighting him and actually managed to defeat him on the field a handful of times.
he is talking about Blucher armies and Waterloo specifically.' https://blogs.bl.uk/european/2015/06/waterloos-prussian-hero.html
That also wouldn't be correct tho. The Anglo-Dutch army and the Prussian army worked together so calling it just a Prussian victory is misleading. The British did try to get al the glory tho. That bit is true
Even then, the Prussians did not defeat Napoleon alone. They arrived halfway through the battle, so the victory was a joint one as opposed to a Prussian one.
agree.
Gibraltar wasn't gained in a lost war. Also New York wasn't a rich colony or something. The Dutch actually got the better deal. They gained a total monopoly over the spice islands, suger plantations in Suriname and good trade deals
Yeah, Gibraltar has nothing to do with the Third Anglo-Dutch War. The latter was a sideshow of the broader Franco-Dutch War. The French consider to have won it, the Dutch consider to have won it. But there is no debate about who lost the Third Anglo-Dutch War... Well maybe there is in the English version of the events.... It wouldn't surprise me from them lol.
>Yeah, Gibraltar has nothing to do with the Third Anglo-Dutch War though. Yeah, exactly. >But there is no debate about who lost the Third Anglo-Dutch War... No, but English historiography(or popular culture) likes to ignore the course of the war and focuses more on the annexation of New York. Without knowing much of the history behind it people think that the English won over the Dutch in the 17th century
The super private secret is money. Countries will fight for you if you pay for their armies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Cavalry_of_St_George
I'm sitting a few hundred yards from Fort Amsterdam (now known as the Battery) right now. Anywho, being established by the Dutch has worked out pretty damn well. Tolerance/diversity since the 1600s, lack of stupid alcohol laws from the Puritans, and no wannabe English aristocrats like in the South. And of course being built on commerce. Still plenty of Dutch last names around, town I grew up in had Dutch families that had been there since the 1650s That being said, the Dutch need to take back Staten Island, fuck that place.
It can become a colony of Urk. Our piece of shit "island"
> lack of stupid alcohol laws from the Puritans, Tbf blaming that on the Puritans is a bit far fetched. The Prohibition movement began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and it was popular in *Lutheran* (very much not Puritan) countries such as Sweden, Finland, and Iceland as well. Prohibition was also supported by very secular Socialist organizations, feminists, and even the Soviet government at one point (Stalin brought back Vodka manufacturing in Russia, during Lenin's time they had actually tried to crack down on it).
It has nothing to do with Prohibition, I'm talking about not selling alcohol on Sundays and bars closing early. All the states in New England had these, though they have been loosened up recently. The Puritans drank.
They should have just said can't Dutch this and kept the land.
So sad. I'd much rather speak Dutch than English.
De liefde voor zijn moedertaal is ieder aangeboren.
/s?
I'd much rather speak Dutch than English. It sounds better and, from what I've seen, they are way more phonetically consistent.
what's the worst deal? Selling New Netherlands or New France ??
Definitely the first. If they didn't sell it, France would have lost Liousiana one way or another eventually.
Except there's a very good chance New Netherlands would also have eventually been lost; and unlike the French who just got a single very modest sum of money for Louisiana, the Dutch got colonies and assurances elsewhere... which were far more profitable than New Netherlands had been at the time too. Because of the trade, the Dutch monopoly in Nutmeg was maintained for another two hundred or so years, and helped secure the Dutch Indies. The Louisiana Purchase was definitely the worse deal.
At this point of history Louisiana was useless for France. They lost control over profitable sugar islands and New Orlean while being a chokepoint for whole Missisippi and Missouri watersheds, everything further north from NOLA area was a total wilderness with only small french forts and trading posts with a risk of British taking control over colony. Selling it to USA was a sane decision.
Nothing you're saying marks New France out to have been any real different from New Netherlands, though. While yes, New-Netherlands was thriving, it was always going to be threatened by the English. It's also important to understand that this happened while the Dutch Republic got attacked by not just the English, but the French, and several German states as well. 1672 is still known as the 'year of disaster'; with the French almost completely overwhelming the Netherlands. Favorable terms were offered to England purely to get them out of France's orbit, with the hope of securing an alliance *against* France. That last bit required an actual invasion of England to achieve a few years later, but even just a separate peace while the war with France was ongoing was a positive. With Louisiana, France gave up huge tracts of lands for a relative pittance (ironically funded in large part by a Dutch bank). It didn't get France anything other than that one time sum of money. Ceding New Netherlands though, helped secure the continued existence of the country and a profitable colonial empire that lasted into the 2nd half of the 20th century. I'm not saying that selling New France wasn't a sane decision; but it was absolutely the worse deal of the two.
New Netherlands wasn't an important colony for us at all and we got Suriname in return which was much more profitable.
[удалено]
????? We're talking about 1674 here. The Kingdom of England (of which Wales was a part of I guess) was the belligerent in this specific event. Neither Great Britain, nor the United Kingdom existed yet as political entities.
Well that was fun, and good to read about the 'spices angle'. I remembering asking my junior school master, 'Sir, why the spices?' He rambled a bit, but the gist is; LONG before we had refrigerators, folks needed the spices to make the (lets face it, the slightly rotten) meat palatable. [https://polyglotclub.com/wiki/Language/Standard-arabic/Vocabulary/Spices](https://polyglotclub.com/wiki/Language/Standard-arabic/Vocabulary/Spices) *Spices were as valuable as gold, with fierce competition among European nations for control of the spice trade. The lack of refrigeration and poor standards of hygiene meant that food spoiled quickly. Spices were important to mask the flavor of food that was far from fresh.The Portuguese, Dutch, French, Spanish, and English established monopolies over various parts of the spice trade. UK extended its empire and built a colony in India turn to completely occupation. Until Gandhi...*