Talk:New Netherland

message: The insertion of information in infobox that insinuates that New Sweden PRECEDED New Netherlands is inappropriate. Djflem (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't it conqured in 1655 Kanto7 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is in the article.Djflem (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So it preceded new netherland Kanto7 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: New Sweden did not precede New Netherland. The Swedes established it in 1638 (see the New Sweden article and also the Fort Casimir article) so several years after New Netherland was founded and Manhattan was purchased. Besides, New Sweden was only a small part of the territory of the New Netherland colony, after the conquest by Stuyvesant. So I think the info box should indeed be amended. I don't know how to do it, so I leave the edit to people that are better equipped.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sweden did not precede NNL 

message: The article mentions in the section on the 1664 capitulation the depredations of Sir Robert Carr, knight (there is an article on a Sir Robert Carrr, bart, but that is a different person) in the New Amstel part (in present day Delaware) of New Netherland (see also the Delaware Colony article.) Among those depredations was the enslavement of the garrison of fort New Amstel (apparently they were sold into slavery in the Virginia colony). Apparently this assertion does not meet with much skepticism (other than in the Delaware Colony article, where someone put up a demand for a citation, which I have provided there). Still, it should raise a few eyebrows, as these soldiers were presumably free white Europeans. Before I edited the Delaware Colony article I did some research into the matter, and found a number of references in rather obscure 19th-century local Delaware histories (the references provided in the New Netherland article are even more obscure). So I decided to dig a little deeper. I think the American references ultimately go back to a deposition made by the sheriff of New Amstel, Gerrit van Sweeringen, made shortly after the event, which may be found in . But I also found the same assertion being made in a deposition about the capitulation and his role therein by none other than Peter Stuyvesant himself after his return to the Dutch Republic in 1665 (available in the Amsterdam City Archives). In other words, there seems to be good evidence that these assertions were indeed made from the Dutch side, shortly after the event. But that does not make them true, of course. So I wondered if a sale into slavery of Dutch prisoners of war would even have been legal in the colonial Virginia of the time. I found several wiki articles on subjects related to slavery in Virginia that give a partial account. Let me for brevity refer to the Partus sequitur ventrem article that appears to contain the most relevant information, although it chiefly pertains to the legal developments in 1662 that made chattel slavery more convenient in the English colonies in North America. Reading between the lines of that article I understand that under English common law foreigners (i.e. not-English-subjects) had no rights and could indeed be sold into slavery without objection, though this could not happen to English subjects (before 1662 these could only be held in indentured servitude).
Still, it would be interesting to find archival material about slave sales in Virginia of the period to find out what happened to these former Dutch soldiers. Has anybody information on this matter?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch soldiers sold into slavery in Virginia 

message: May I ask why isn’t Massachusetts listed as part of “today part of” listing. The areas including southwestern cape cod were part of new Netherlands, which is in Mass. Please correct the issue 2603:9001:600:24AA:89B0:555F:E090:FBF0 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Land was claimed but never settled. Djflem (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southwestern Cape Cod, MA 

message: The statement "The descendants of the New Netherlanders are the New York Dutch".
Should read "were" or were known as (since it is an archaic term). Belongs in the legacy section which clearly discusses the impact of the colony and its residents AFTER the colony had come into the possession of English, but remained a vital force in the region. 
Besides, the name is NOT supported by any sources other than that of a private club. Djflem (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Dutch 

message: New Sweden was established on Lenape territory not Susquehannock (Minquas) territory.  
Most reliable sources use Peach War not Peach Tree War to describe the September 1655 one-day occupation of New Amsterdam by several hundred Munsee, and the subsequent raids on Staten Island and Pavonia. Describing it as retaliation for the conquest of New Sweden is problematic since the two events occurred concurrently. Of the two sources cited, Shorto calls the Peach War a retaliation orchestrated by the Susquehannock, while Trelease notes that direct action by the Susquehannock against the Dutch on the Delaware River would have been more to the point. Meanwhile, in Brothers among Nations, historian Cynthia van Zandt argues that the Susquehannock encouraged the Munsee to occupy New Amsterdam in order to force Stuyvesant to abandon the attack on New Sweden. Text has been changed to "an attempt to disrupt the attack on New Sweden." Griffin's Sword (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  South River and New Sweden