New Netherland remains Dutch

[Friedrich der Große]

So what if New Netherland remained Dutch after the Second Anglo-Dutch War. Let’s say Johan de Witt press harder conditions with the English and so the Dutch regains New Netherland.

How would this colony develop, what effect would it have on the Dutch Republic/Empire and what effect would it have on Europe and European wars.

 

[Friedrich der Große]

?

 

[PGSBHurricane]

Ironically, I think after the Dutch captured Suriname, they preferred that to New Netherland. The English offered status quo antebellum but the Dutch turned it down.

 

[Friedrich der Große]

Ironically, I think after the Dutch captured Suriname, they preferred that to New Netherland. The English offered status quo antebellum but the Dutch turned it down.

Indeed, but in my opinion, they were in a position to demand both, certainly after Chatham.

 

[Friedrich der Große]

But my central question is off course what effects it would have on Europe and the European wars (like the Seven Years War for example), I want to emphasize that.

 

[funnyhat]

The biggest effect is going to be on the English colonies in North America. A surviving New Netherland means no colony of New York, and apparently a weaker English presence in general.

 

[Friedrich der Große]

The biggest effect is going to be on the English colonies in North America. A surviving New Netherland means no colony of New York, and apparently a weaker English presence in general.

I agree. Would there still be a Seven Years War and a sort of ARW (Off course it will be butterflied away, but will a sort of that war happen anyway?). And would it change anything in Europe?

 

[JohnBull]

I guess it could become a big, very populated place as much as OTL New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania.

New England and OTL southern US would develop as completely distinct colonies and needless to say the absence of the US would create massive butterflies. North America would be a collection of countries, more like South America. So it's very difficult to tell how this polity would influence the Dutch history on the next centuries.

With such divide on Eastern Seaboard, the French could have time to reinforce their presence as well, and if they don't, English and Dutch colonies would keep expanding westwards. New England would be locked and its settlers would actually be Dutchfied over time if they moved west into New Netherlands that could eventually spread over Ohio, reaching the Mississippi. The English southern colonies would have a different dynamic due slavery, but I also see them expanding west.

 

[Friedrich der Große]

It would depend entirely on how England would develop ITTL. If England still rises like IOTL, which is far more likely than not, then New Netherlands would have been taken eventually, it always had much smaller population than both New England and Southern Colonies, and land-hungry New Englanders also aimed to move westward. As late as 1790, New York had smaller population than Massachusetts alone. In the end, England still had much greater potential than the Netherlands.

^ This was the reaction of NedStark but he reacted on the Wij Willen Willem TL.

I agree but the Glorious Revolution will take this away for some decades. And also after that, OTL the Dutch and British were friends. I doubt this would change ITTL, so I can still see a New Netherlands that survives to the 1760-1770s. What happens then depends on if there is still a Seven Years War and thus a ARW, would that be the case?

 

[Friedrich der Große]

I guess it could become a big, very populated place as much as OTL New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania.

New England and OTL southern US would develop as completely distinct colonies and needless to say the absence of the US would create massive butterflies. North America would be a collection of countries, more like South America. So it's very difficult to tell how this polity would influence the Dutch history on the next centuries.

With such divide on Eastern Seaboard, the French could have time to reinforce their presence as well, and if they don't, English and Dutch colonies would keep expanding westwards. New England would be locked and its settlers would actually be Dutchfied over time if they moved west into New Netherlands that could eventually spread over Ohio, reaching the Mississippi. The English southern colonies would have a different dynamic due slavery, but I also see them expanding west.

So it does not really change Europe?

 

[Jürgen]

It would depend entirely on how England would develop ITTL. If England still rises like IOTL, which is far more likely than not, then New Netherlands would have been taken eventually, it always had much smaller population than both New England and Southern Colonies, and land-hungry New Englanders also aimed to move westward. As late as 1790, New York had smaller population than Massachusetts alone. In the end, England still had much greater potential than the Netherlands.

New Netherlands had 10.000 people when it was taken, if we imagine that the Dutch did nothing to develop it, it would have 40.000 people by 1700 and 750.000 by 1780. It would pretty much have a 1/4 the population of the British colonies, so it could defend itself against colonial attacks and Britain wouldn’t start a war for land hungry New Englanders. The conquest of French America was part of greater struggle with France, Netherlands on the other hand was a ally or a pro-British neutral between the 3rd and 4th Anglo-Dutch wars. So if NewNetherlands survives the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War it will not end up in British hands.

 

[OxSpace]

if we imagine that the Dutch did nothing to develop it, it would have 40.000 people by 1700 and 750.000 by 1780.

Is this a serious post or do you actually think New Netherland's population will grow 1,875% in the span of 80 years with "no development"? The most important motives for emigration were of an economic or religious nature. Measured against this, the Dutch had little reason to put up with the hardships of the two to three-month voyage by ship. The Dutch population growth compared to English colonies was laughably abysmal. The 17th century was the Dutch golden age so moving because of economic hardships and stretched far and thin., And relative to religiously motivated emigration, the Netherlands was far more tolerant of faith--there was no need to 'escape' to the New World. The consequence of this was that New Netherlands suffered from a chronic lack of settlers. The WIC tried to increase settlers by giving landlords private land holdings with extensive rights called patroonens. The system failed because of conflicts between the landlords and the WIC or the settlers and Indians. And despite the WIC efforts to make patroons desirable there just weren't enough emigrants that could be recruited as workers.

 

[Friedrich der Große]

New Netherlands had 10.000 people when it was taken, if we imagine that the Dutch did nothing to develop it, it would have 40.000 people by 1700 and 750.000 by 1780. It would pretty much have a 1/4 the population of the British colonies, so it could defend itself against colonial attacks and Britain wouldn’t start a war for land hungry New Englanders. The conquest of French America was part of greater struggle with France, Netherlands on the other hand was a ally or a pro-British neutral between the 3rd and 4th Anglo-Dutch wars. So if NewNetherlands survives the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War it will not end up in British hands.

So then the Seven Years War or a sort of that war would still happen. If we assume that, I think it is also plausible to say that a sort of ARW would still happen?

 

[Gabingston]

Is this a serious post or do you actually think New Netherland's population will grow 1,875% in the span of 80 years? The most important motives for emigration were of an economic or religious nature. Measured against this, the Dutch had little reason to put up with the hardships of the two to three-month voyage by ship. The Dutch population growth compared to English colonies was laughably abysmal. The 17th century was the Dutch golden age so moving because of economic hardships and stretched far and thin., And relative to religiously motivated emigration, the Netherlands was far more tolerant of faith--there was no need to 'escape' to the New World. The consequence of this was that New Netherlands suffered from a chronic lack of settlers. The WIC tried to increase settlers by giving landlords private land holdings with extensive rights called patroonens. The system failed because of conflicts between the landlords and the WIC or the settlers and Indians. And despite the WIC efforts to make patroons desirable there just weren't enough emigrants that could be recruited as workers.

Remember that European colonists in temperate climates bred like rabbits. The Pilgrims in New England, French in Quebec and Boers in South Africa all average something like 8-9 kids, and of those the majority would make it to adulthood. That's not even factoring in further settlement from Europe. While The Netherlands may not have had much of a demand for emigration, neighboring Germany did, and I think a surviving New Netherland would become the top destination for Germans, especially German Protestants. Add in Scandinavians and French Huguenots, and you have an Amerikaner population that could explode.

 

[Friedrich der Große]

Is this a serious post or do you actually think New Netherland's population will grow 1,875% in the span of 80 years with "no development"? The most important motives for emigration were of an economic or religious nature. Measured against this, the Dutch had little reason to put up with the hardships of the two to three-month voyage by ship. The Dutch population growth compared to English colonies was laughably abysmal. The 17th century was the Dutch golden age so moving because of economic hardships and stretched far and thin., And relative to religiously motivated emigration, the Netherlands was far more tolerant of faith--there was no need to 'escape' to the New World. The consequence of this was that New Netherlands suffered from a chronic lack of settlers. The WIC tried to increase settlers by giving landlords private land holdings with extensive rights called patroonens. The system failed because of conflicts between the landlords and the WIC or the settlers and Indians. And despite the WIC efforts to make patroons desirable there just weren't enough emigrants that could be recruited as workers.

I think he means 75.000. But that is implausible too, right?

 

[Gabingston]

I think he means 75.000. But that is implausible too, right?

I did a quick calculation, and if the population of the New Netherland colony doubled every 25 years between 1700 and 1780, the colony would grow from 40,000 in 1700 to 364,000 in 1780 assuming no further immigration.

 

[Jürgen]

I did a quick calculation, and if the population of the New Netherland colony doubled every 25 years between 1700 and 1780, the colony would grow from 40,000 in 1700 to 364,000 in 1780 assuming no further immigration.

You should go with a doubling every 20 years, the point about these kind of frontier societies is that they start out with few elders, people marry earlier, there’re low population density (so few epidemics), there’s room to expand so you don’t need to use marginal land, a diet rich in calories and protein ensure low child mortality.

 

[Gabingston]

You should go with a doubling every 20 years, the point about these kind of frontier societies is that they start out with few elders, people marry earlier, there’re low population density (so few epidemics), there’s room to expand so you don’t need to use marginal land, a diet rich in calories and protein ensure low child mortality.

If it were to double every 20 years instead of every 25, that would mean a 3.5% growth rate annually. If that were the case, the population would grow from 40,000 in 1700 to 627,000 in 1780, pretty close to your estimate of 750,000. It'd probably be even higher than that when you factor in immigration from Europe (probably mainly German), to where it could be around a million by 1780.

 

[Jürgen]

If it were to double every 20 years instead of every 25, that would mean a 3.5% growth rate annually. If that were the case, the population would grow from 40,000 in 1700 to 627,000 in 1780, pretty close to your estimate of 750,000. It'd probably be even higher than that when you factor in immigration from Europe (probably mainly German), to where it could be around a million by 1780.

Yes, it’s pretty likely. Another interesting element is that a surviving New Netherlands would likely protect Canada from British takeover and the British wold likely focus on taking over the French territory further south (they would still take Acadia) . I think New Netherlands would be likely expand into the Great Lake region and compete with the French over control over peninsula Ontario.

 

[OxSpace]

I did a quick calculation, and if the population of the New Netherland colony doubled every 25 years between 1700 and 1780, the colony would grow from 40,000 in 1700 to 364,000 in 1780 assuming no further immigration.

I think he means 75.000. But that is implausible too, right?

Considering the Dutch population in the Netherlands proper between 1600-1700 only grew from 1.6 mil to 1.9 mil and then from 1700-1800 it was 2.1 mil (compare that to England which between 1600-1700 it was 4.1 mil to 5.2 mil and 1700-1800 it was 8.2 mil); the colonies are certainly are not going to double every 25 years in the 18th century. I really don't see New Netherlands being above 50,000 people by the near end of the 18th century. If we look at other Dutch colonies such as the Cape for a reference, Dutch & German settlements there in the span of 150 years only reached ~20,000 and the Cape itself was far more valuable too.

There are far too many roadblocks (which I mentioned in my previous post) for New Netherlands to demographically compete with the English colonies. And I didn't even touch on conflicts with the Indians which is a completely different beast.