Why is New York New York and how can we replace it?

[Orioes]

So, while I have been contemplating the Universe in general and writing a timeline in particular it occurred to me to wonder why New York became the definitive American city as well as one of the most influential cities on the planet instead of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston or any other New World city. So I put it to you. Why is New York New York and how can we replace it?

[Solomaxwell6]

A few reasons. Two of them are especially important.

First, is its location. It's a very nice spot or real estate. Lots of natural harbors, lots of nearby natural resources (for early growth), and the Hudson river means easier shipping upstate. Any towns along the Mohawk or Hudson rivers (or any other offshoots) are going to be guaranteed business for NYC.

Second, the Erie Canal. This allowed an easy connection between the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes. Once the Erie Canal was built, a huge, huge amount of trade going to the Midwest and western New York went through NYC first. Want to send something from England to Buffalo? Send it through NYC. Detroit? Send it through NYC. Chicago? You get the picture. Before the Erie Canal, NYC was rivaled by several other cities. Manhattan only became the largest American city in 1800 or so. With the Erie Canal and the guaranteed trade profits it offered, NYC became the definitive land of opportunity.

[False Dmitri]

A few reasons. Two of them are especially important.

First, is its location. It's a very nice spot or real estate. Lots of natural harbors, lots of nearby natural resources (for early growth), and the Hudson river means easier shipping upstate. Any towns along the Mohawk or Hudson rivers (or any other offshoots) are going to be guaranteed business for NYC.

Second, the Erie Canal. This allowed an easy connection between the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes. Once the Erie Canal was built, a huge, huge amount of trade going to the Midwest and western New York went through NYC first. Want to send something from England to Buffalo? Send it through NYC. Detroit? Send it through NYC. Chicago? You get the picture. Before the Erie Canal, NYC was rivaled by several other cities. Manhattan only became the largest American city in 1800 or so. With the Erie Canal and the guaranteed trade profits it offered, NYC became the definitive land of opportunity.

Without the canal, New Orleans would probably be the natural port of entry to the interior US (being at the gateway to the entire Mississippi watershed).

[yourworstnightmare]

If the British for some reason think the place stinks and don't want it, could it go on being New Amsterdam???

[Mussleburgh]

If the British for some reason think the place stinks and don't want it, could it go on being New Amsterdam???

No. It didn't work like that anyway.

I can't remember the exact dates but their was a war between the UK (or England) and the Netherlands and Spain. One of the things the English fleet was very good at at this time was piracy and taking others colonies with little fuss.

So there was a Captain of a British (or English) frigate and they approached the town of New Amsterdam. The captain had orders to seize shipping and gold along the East Coast and it just so happened that their was a small Spanish ship in the harbor. Unfortunately for the Dutch the crew were all hung over and couldn't do a thing. The English captain demanded the immediate surrender of the town. The mayor said no so the English fired two shots towards the town. One hit a couple of ducks and the other hit the well. The Dutch were getting worried by this point. The mayor thought they could fight the English off despite having only one cannon. The local populace were against this so took the mayor and tied him up before entering negotiations with the Captain. The captain asked for three things.

1. That the Town be called New York as York was the city the Captain was from and it was his second name.

2. They hand over the Spanish ship and it's crew.

3. They become a English colony.

The towns people could see little difference between being a English subject and a Dutch subject and so they agreed and became New York.

It wasn't really a question of being bothered or wether the Dutch defense could hold up. You could butterfly it so that the Frigate was in a different place at a different time but they had a Spanish ship in port so I think it would be quite hard to do. Maybe have a different commander that names New Amsterdam Ethal after his favorite grandmother?

[maverick]

I thought New York was named after the Duke of York:confused:

[False Dmitri]

I thought New York was named after the Duke of York:confused:

...Who was also the future King James II, yes. I'm not sure where the captain story came from.

[Mussleburgh]

...Who was also the future King James II, yes. I'm not sure where the captain story came from.

I heard it on a 200 parter BBC radio program about the history of The USA. I'll have a look but I do think that the captain story is right.

[Mussleburgh]

On August 27, 1664, in a surprise incursion when England and the Dutch Republic were at peace, four English frigates sailed in New Amsterdam's harbor and demanded New Netherland's surrender, whereupon New Netherland was provisionally ceded by director-general Peter Stuyvesant. This resulted in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, between England and the Dutch Republic.

In 1667, the Dutch did not press their claims on New Netherland (but did not relinquish them either) in the Treaty of Breda, in return for an exchange with the tiny Island of Run in North Maluku, rich in nutmegs and the guarantee for the factual possession of Suriname, that year captured by them. The New Amsterdam city was subsequently renamed New York, after the Duke of York (later King James II)—brother of the English King Charles II—who had been granted the lands with the kingly stroke of an armchair pen (similar to the Spanish claim to the entire western hemisphere).

Looks like I must have misremembered.

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

Just to clarify things:

a 1950's popular song went:

Even old New York
Was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it
I can't say
people just liked it
better that way!

So there's your answer!

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

So, while I have been contemplating the Universe in general and writing a timeline in particular it occurred to me to wonder why New York became the definitive American city as well as one of the most influential cities on the planet instead of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston or any other New World city. So I put it to you. Why is New York New York and how can we replace it?

Actually, one of the reasons that New York is pre-eminent was that Philadelphia suffered a horrible Yellow Fever epidemic in 1793, which scared off shippers, immigrants, etc.

[Orioes]

A few reasons. Two of them are especially important.

First, is its location. It's a very nice spot or real estate. Lots of natural harbors, lots of nearby natural resources (for early growth), and the Hudson river means easier shipping upstate. Any towns along the Mohawk or Hudson rivers (or any other offshoots) are going to be guaranteed business for NYC.

Second, the Erie Canal. This allowed an easy connection between the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes. Once the Erie Canal was built, a huge, huge amount of trade going to the Midwest and western New York went through NYC first. Want to send something from England to Buffalo? Send it through NYC. Detroit? Send it through NYC. Chicago? You get the picture. Before the Erie Canal, NYC was rivaled by several other cities. Manhattan only became the largest American city in 1800 or so. With the Erie Canal and the guaranteed trade profits it offered, NYC became the definitive land of opportunity.
Short of a major geologic event we can't change the course of the Hudson but perhaps in addition to the Erie Canal they build a Hudson-Boston-Providence Canal Network connecting those cities into the NYC-Hudson-Great Lakes system and by extension the Mississippi-Missouri system. It would probably be profoundly expensive even on the scale of major infrastructure projects but it does connect markets as far as New Orleans and the Continental Divide with some the early industrializing portions of the States.

[Solomaxwell6]

Actually, one of the reasons that New York is pre-eminent was that Philadelphia suffered a horrible Yellow Fever epidemic in 1793, which scared off shippers, immigrants, etc.

I doubt that made a huge difference. NYC had a yellow fever epidemic as well; while not as bad as the Philadelphia one, it sent New Yorkers running. There were just too many reasons NYC became such an important city; removing Philadelphia's yellow fever epidemic would certainly slow NYC's early growth, but wouldn't keep Philadelphia the preeminent American city.

[Melvin Loh]

quote
On August 27, 1664, in a surprise incursion when England and the Dutch Republic were at peace, four English frigates sailed in New Amsterdam's harbor and demanded New Netherland's surrender, whereupon New Netherland was provisionally ceded by director-general Peter Stuyvesant. This resulted in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, between England and the Dutch Republic.

In 1667, the Dutch did not press their claims on New Netherland (but did not relinquish them either) in the Treaty of Breda, in return for an exchange with the tiny Island of Run in North Maluku, rich in nutmegs and the guarantee for the factual possession of Suriname, that year captured by them. The New Amsterdam city was subsequently renamed New York, after the Duke of York (later King James II)—brother of the English King Charles II—who had been granted the lands with the kingly stroke of an armchair pen (similar to the Spanish claim to the entire western hemisphere).


Well, boys, this story is discussed in HISTORY'S WORST MISTAKES- on the premise that the Dutch traded what was to become the most prosperous metropolis in the world for a spice island which gradually ran out of spice & whose commodity was so devalued anyways within the space of a few yrs...

[pompejus]

quote
On August 27, 1664, in a surprise incursion when England and the Dutch Republic were at peace, four English frigates sailed in New Amsterdam's harbor and demanded New Netherland's surrender, whereupon New Netherland was provisionally ceded by director-general Peter Stuyvesant. This resulted in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, between England and the Dutch Republic.

In 1667, the Dutch did not press their claims on New Netherland (but did not relinquish them either) in the Treaty of Breda, in return for an exchange with the tiny Island of Run in North Maluku, rich in nutmegs and the guarantee for the factual possession of Suriname, that year captured by them. The New Amsterdam city was subsequently renamed New York, after the Duke of York (later King James II)—brother of the English King Charles II—who had been granted the lands with the kingly stroke of an armchair pen (similar to the Spanish claim to the entire western hemisphere).


Well, boys, this story is discussed in HISTORY'S WORST MISTAKES- on the premise that the Dutch traded what was to become the most prosperous metropolis in the world for a spice island which gradually ran out of spice & whose commodity was so devalued anyways within the space of a few yrs...


I am not too sure about it being a mistake (at least in the Netherlands it is never seen that way). Surinam (and eastern british Guyana wich was also included in the deal) together with that spice island was a worth a lot more than a couple of small Dutch settlements placed right between two English colonies. It is very doubtfull that New Amsterdam would have become the important city New York is. It would have been the major city of only Dutch America, not all of British (and later US) American. It would probably have become a relatively important and large city (I am still of the opinion that New Amsterdam and the rest of the New netherlands becoming British isn't inevitable), but not as big as New York. If you look at most Dutch cities none of them have a million inhabitants, so I can certainly see New Amsterdam remaining relatively small.

[DuQuense]

If the US get Nova Scotia/Quebec during the ARW, Then the St Lawrence becomes the main route into the Interior, and the Er-i-e is never built.

[Metro]

To replace NY would be difficult.

Philadelphia you must go up the delaware river. Straight line overland via New Jersey the closest Philadelphia is to the Atlantic Ocean is 50 miles (81KM)

Map of Delaware bay going up to the Delaware river to Philadelphia.



http://www.geology.udel.edu/%7Ejmadsen/delaware_bay_regional.gif
Boston unlike Philadelphia is next to the Atlantic Ocean.

See map of Boston Bay:



http://www.new-england-vacations-guide.com/images/harbor-islands-map.jpg


NY Harbor is next to the Atlantic Ocean. It is strategically located in between Philadelphia and Boston. The Harbor is better protected then Boston Bay. Its also much larger. And deep since in Boston there are sandbars.

Map: http://transit-trash.org/rh/50.jpg

[Baskilisk]

Without the canal, New Orleans would probably be the natural port of entry to the interior US (being at the gateway to the entire Mississippi watershed).
Ugh...I pity the ATL where New Orleans has 6 million people...
And I pity the residents who have to live in 50-story apartments built in the mud...

[Onyx]

Delaware River would've been hard too if the Delawarens were getting the imports and exports, ports would've been built in Delaware mostly in Wilmington Delaware could've been a much more wealthy state than it is today. But because all of the other states are Jealous of Delaware being the 1st state in the Union, then they just deprived the poor state........

Don't worry Delaware, karma will get to them, as soon as those Russian nukes go up in the sky

[Jaded_Railman]

Another thing that vaulted New York ahead of Philadelphia was the Free Banking laws and the note clearing system adopted early on in New York State, while Pennsylvania retained a comparatively ancient legislative charter system (and only handed out a handful of charters). The bust of the Bank of the United States of Pennsylvania in the early 1840's also contributed to the transfer.

[Onyx]

Didnt the Dutch colonized New York City, but gave it to the British, from I read, Dutch New York City was corrupt and the only things it had to trade were Furs and other NE products, once they gave it to the Brits, they of course do give a **** on corruption and such existing in there cities back in the 1700s and improved the city so no corruption or poor tax use existed in it, not to mention the colonies Britain had at the time.

[Solomaxwell6]

I am not too sure about it being a mistake (at least in the Netherlands it is never seen that way). Surinam (and eastern british Guyana wich was also included in the deal) together with that spice island was a worth a lot more than a couple of small Dutch settlements placed right between two English colonies. It is very doubtfull that New Amsterdam would have become the important city New York is. It would have been the major city of only Dutch America, not all of British (and later US) American. It would probably have become a relatively important and large city (I am still of the opinion that New Amsterdam and the rest of the New netherlands becoming British isn't inevitable), but not as big as New York. If you look at most Dutch cities none of them have a million inhabitants, so I can certainly see New Amsterdam remaining relatively small.

With New Amsterdam staying Dutch, there might not even be a US. Think about it: the main British strategy was to take New York, cutting off New England from the South and the rest of the Midatlantic colonies. With New Amsterdam, this is already accomplished with exactly 0 casualties. This also gets rid of the Battle of Saratoga, meaning no support from France and Spain.

If the US get Nova Scotia/Quebec during the ARW, Then the St Lawrence becomes the main route into the Interior, and the Er-i-e is never built.

Eh. The Erie Canal was built from state and local funds, not federal. The state might still decide to build it, knowing it'd be a fantastic investment for improving western New York, as well as bringing in a ton of money, even if they're only getting a relatively small piece of the pie this time around.

[Kevin R.]

I was thinking: could it be possible that the St. Lawrence Seaway is built before the Erie Canal? Maybe you could have the British winning the ARW or the War of 1812 (or at least have them hold onto/seize the Midwest), or America conquering Canada in the early-mid 19th century. Or, just give the British in Canada a lot of foresight. Either way, if the Seaway is built before the Canal, then is it conceivable that Montreal, Quebec City, or even Halifax takes the place of New York as the big city of the East Coast?

[Solomaxwell6]

I was thinking: could it be possible that the St. Lawrence Seaway is built before the Erie Canal? Maybe you could have the British winning the ARW or the War of 1812 (or at least have them hold onto/seize the Midwest), or America conquering Canada in the early-mid 19th century. Or, just give the British in Canada a lot of foresight. Either way, if the Seaway is built before the Canal, then is it conceivable that Montreal, Quebec City, or even Halifax takes the place of New York as the big city of the East Coast?

Possibly, yes. I've read of Montreal and New York being sort of rivals prior to New York's eventual dominance.

[pompejus]

With New Amsterdam staying Dutch, there might not even be a US. Think about it: the main British strategy was to take New York, cutting off New England from the South and the rest of the Midatlantic colonies. With New Amsterdam, this is already accomplished with exactly 0 casualties. This also gets rid of the Battle of Saratoga, meaning no support from France and Spain.



True, a Dutch New Netherlands splitting the English colonies would completely alter north american history. The wars between England and France on the continent would be completely different. Maybe the British aren't as succesful as OTL in defeating the French, leaving a French Quebec, that alone would probably mean that New England won't revolt out of fear for French domination. Maybe only the southern colonies revolt, leaving a very different USA if succesful (which is hardly a certainty).

[Kevin R.]

Eh. The Erie Canal was built from state and local funds, not federal. The state might still decide to build it, knowing it'd be a fantastic investment for improving western New York, as well as bringing in a ton of money, even if they're only getting a relatively small piece of the pie this time around.

The problem with this emerges when you see what happened to the Erie Canal (or the New York State Barge Canal, as it was known by then) in OTL after the St. Lawrence Seaway was built. Namely, it quickly faded into obsolescence, to be used mainly by recreational boaters. Going up the St. Lawrence River was much more convenient for shipping than crossing upstate New York. (This, incidentally, was also a huge factor in upstate New York's decline over the last fifty years. The Canal was the lifeblood of upstate, and when it fell out of favor, the region fell into a recession that it's still trying to get out of.) They could try to build the Erie Canal after the Seaway, but it will most likely wind up being like the canal/railroad system that Pennsylvania built in OTL to cash in on the business that the Erie was generating - i.e., not a real competitor to the more efficient Seaway. Plus, running the canal all the way to Boston instead of having it end at Albany wouldn't make much sense - the Hudson River is already navigable, and as Solomaxwell pointed out, it was funded by the state of New York to boost its economy, not Massachusetts'. New York was really the only East Coast American city that could have become as big as it did, since it had the only clear route into the Midwest (the Mohawk Valley in upstate New York was really the only place in the Appalachian Mountains where it was level enough to run a canal).

Now, the trick is to delay the construction of the Erie, or push ahead the construction of the Seaway. The Erie Canal was constructed between 1817 and 1832, while the Seaway was first proposed in 1909 (running into opposition from American rail and port lobbyists) and finally built between 1954 and 1959. That's a pretty big gap. Maybe, in 1909 (or, better yet, a few decades earlier), you could have the Canadians and the British pushing ahead on their own to build the Seaway, and before that, forestall the construction of the Erie Canal by a few decades (have it be rejected by the state legislature - they did provide plenty of opposition in OTL). Therefore, New York has much less time to grow into the main port of entry into the Midwest (it would get only a few decades in the 19th century, before it managed to become a major financial center in its own right), and you'd give a wide opening for Montreal to become the big city of North America.

Or, you could prevent both the Erie Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway from being built, and allow New Orleans to rise as America's big city.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Now, the trick is to delay the construction of the Erie, or push ahead the construction of the Seaway. The Erie Canal was constructed between 1817 and 1832, while the Seaway was first proposed in 1909 (running into opposition from American rail and port lobbyists) and finally built between 1954 and 1959. That's a pretty big gap. Maybe, in 1909 (or, better yet, a few decades earlier), you could have the Canadians and the British pushing ahead on their own to build the Seaway, and before that, forestall the construction of the Erie Canal by a few decades (have it be rejected by the state legislature - they did provide plenty of opposition in OTL). Therefore, New York has much less time to grow into the main port of entry into the Midwest (it would get only a few decades in the 19th century, before it managed to become a major financial center in its own right), and you'd give a wide opening for Montreal to become the big city of North America.

Or, you could prevent both the Erie Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway from being built, and allow New Orleans to rise as America's big city.
Err... Not exactly. Various canals in from the St Lawrence to the Great Lakes existed. What didn't originally exist was canals for modern large sea-going ships.

Lachine Canal around Lachine rapids near Montreal - first step

The French Dream

http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/qc/canallachine/images/tresors2.gif
François Dollier de Casson
© Collection François Daniel / Archives du Séminaire de Saint-Sulpice, Montréal
In 1670, François de Salignac Fénelon, the superior of the Sulpician Seminary, proposed the digging of a canal between Montréal and Lachine. This initial project did not materialize. François Dollier de Casson, the superior's successor, reintroduced the idea in 1680, affirming that such a canal would provide water for the mills in Montréal and facilitate shipping towards the "up-country". Work started in 1689. The attack on Lachine by the Iroquois, however, put an end to the project. The work continued in 1700 under the direction of Gédéon de Catalogue who had to abandon it due to lack of funds on the death of Dollier de Casson.
The Merchants' Determination

http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/qc/canallachine/images/tresors3.gif
The First Great Canal Painting by Jack Tremblay, 1964
© Bank of Montréal / Jack Tremblay / Centenary Collection P767, 1964
It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the dream would become a reality. The Lachine Canal became a necessity for the Montréal merchants who sought to make their city one of the main hubs of North American trade. Work began in 1821. The canal was completed in 1825.
The first canal enabled the passage of small flat-bottomed sailboats. With the increase in shipping and in tonnage, it had to be enlarged twice the work was carried out from 1843 to 1848 and from 1873 to 1884.

From Popularity to Obsolescence

http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/qc/canallachine/images/tresors4.gif
The Belding Paul & Co. Limited buildings, circa 1903
© Archives de la Ville de Montréal / circa 1903
In the middle of the 19th century, a chain of canals, of which the Lachine Canal was the first link, was set up to facilitate shipping between Montréal and the Great Lakes. In the same era, the first businesses were established on the canal's banks, attracted notably by its hydraulic potential. From 1847 to 1945, South-West Montréal had the most highly diversified concentration of industrial establishments in Canada.
In its heyday, just before the great crisis in 1929, nearly 15 000 ships used the canal annually. However, 30 years later, it would be replaced by the St. Lawrence Seaway. Falling into disuse and partially filled in beginning in the 1960s, it was closed to shipping in November 1970.


Welland Canal, second step

First Welland Canal

Main article: First Welland Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Welland_Canal)
The Welland Canal Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welland_Canal_Company&action=edit&redlink=1) was incorporated in 1824 by William Hamilton Merritt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hamilton_Merritt) , in part to provide a regular flow of water for his mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermill). Construction began at Allanburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allanburg,_Ontario) on November 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_30), at a point now marked as such on the west end of Bridge #11 (formerly Highway 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_20_%28Ontario%29)). It opened for a trial run on November 30, 1829 (exactly 5 years, to the day, after the 1824 sod turning). After a short ceremony at Lock One, in Port Dalhousie, the schooner Anne & Jane (also called "Annie & Jane" in some texts[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]) made the first transit, upbound to Buffalo, N.Y. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo,_New_York); with Merritt a passenger on her decks. The first canal ran from Port Dalhousie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Dalhousie,_Ontario) on Lake Ontario south along Twelve Mile Creek to St. Catharines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Catharines,_Ontario). From there it took a winding route up the Niagara Escarpment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Escarpment) through Merritton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritton,_Ontario) to Thorold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorold,_Ontario), where it continued south via Allanburg to Port Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Robinson,_Ontario) on the Welland River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welland_River). Ships went east (downstream) on the Welland River to Chippawa, at the south (upper) end of the old portage road, where they would make a sharp right turn into the Niagara river, upbound towards lake Erie. Originally, the section between Allanburg and Port Robinson was to have been carried under a tunnel, however, sandy soil conditions made that unfeasible and a deep open cut was used instead.
A southern extension from Port Robinson opened in 1833. This extension followed the Welland River south to Welland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welland,_Ontario) (known then as the settlement of Aqueduct, for the wooden aqueduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct) that carried the canal over the Welland River at that point), and then split to run south to Port Colborne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Colborne,_Ontario) on Lake Erie. A feeder canal ran southwest from Welland to another point on Lake Erie, just west of Rock Point (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rock_Point,_Ontario&action=edit&redlink=1). With the opening of the extension, the canal stretched 44 km (27 mi) between the two lakes, with 40 wooden locks. The minimum lock size was 33.5 m by 6.7 m (110 feet by 22 feet), with a minimum canal depth of 2.4 m (8 ft).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Old_welland_canal_lock_2.JPG/300px-Old_welland_canal_lock_2.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Old_welland_canal_lock_2.JPG) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Old_welland_canal_lock_2.JPG)
Abandoned locks of the third canal


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Welland_canal_a030556.jpg/300px-Welland_canal_a030556.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Welland_canal_a030556.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Welland_canal_a030556.jpg)
Aerial photo of Port Dalhousie from the third canal era. 3rd canal lock at left, 2nd canal lock at right. Note 3rd canal towpath at upper left and Muir brother's ship yard centre right.