The Dutch keep New York

During the Third Anglo Dutch War, the Dutch re-captured New York, which they renamed New Orange, but the British took the Dutch colony of Suriname. At the Treaty of Westminster ending the war, the English and Dutch swapped the colonies and went back to the status quo ante.

As it happens, the Third Anglo-Dutch War was the last one between the countries until 1780.

What if the Dutch had kept the city we know as New York and the English had kept Suriname?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Interestingly, though I am Dutch, I had never heard of the Dutch renaming New York as 'New Orange' upon (temporarily, in OTL) regaining it. My understanding that the Dutch always called the city Nieuw Amsterdam, and the colony (including the hinterland) Nieuw-Nederland.

In any case, the notion of a much larger British Guyana is interesting in itself, and might in turn prompt the British to annex French Guyana as well, during some (probably quite inevitable) future conflict with France. The initial revenue produced by Suriname will also initually exceed the profits of owning New York, and by far. The Dutch did not choose to swap the colonies back for no reason: it was the profitable choice at the time. The only reason the British accepted there would be a choice at all was that they had non-economic motives. namely geostrategical ones: annexing Nieuw-Nederland would bring the Mid-Atlantic colonies into direct overland contact with New England, which in turn allowed for a better united front against the true rival: New France. Since it is very hard to envision the Dutch making another choice, perhaps we can posit a scenario wherein some political consideration forces Britain to forego the option of any choice being made? To simply keep Suriname, and let the Dutch keep New York?

To some extent, other factors play a role in this. For instance, what territory was the 'colony swap' really about? The Dutch only held the city of New York, if I remember correctly. Was NYC swapped for Suriname, or would Britain have had to evacuate all of Nieuw-Nederland as well, had the Dutch chosen differently? If the former, I can easily see the British deciding to drop the whole 'choice' aspect and just let the Dutch keep NYC (or 'Nieuw Amsterdam', rather). After all, the hinterland still connects the various British colonies, that Dutch city-state is hardly a bother, and Suriname is wordth way more than the Dutch could ever tax British merchants who would have to go through Dutch Nieuw Amsterdam if they want to trade along the Hudson. But if it's the latter scenario, whereby the British have to surrender all of Nieuw-Nederland... then you'd probably have to come up with some plausible POD to make them prefer Suriname (or care less about connecting their colonies).

Besides, there's a world of difference between "Nieuw-Nederland is Dutch again" and "Nieuw Amsterdam is a Dutch city-state". The former renders Britain weaker against both New France and against the Iroquois (who would now be sitting between the British, the Dutch, the British again, and the French - and could more effectively playthese off against each other). That sort of TL could see a world where New France remains a threat, the British colonies never united, no American revolution occurs, and an independent Iroquois state emerges as a neutral buffer between various colonial powers. Makes me very happy to even think about the possibilities! On the other hand, the "Dutch city-state" approach offers its own perspective, where perhaps an American revolution still occurs, but Nieuw Amsterdam becomes not a part of the (alt-)USA, but an associated free state. A sort of North American Hong Kong.
 
During the Third Anglo Dutch War, the Dutch re-captured New York, which they renamed New Orange, but the British took the Dutch colony of Suriname. At the Treaty of Westminster ending the war, the English and Dutch swapped the colonies and went back to the status quo ante.

As it happens, the Third Anglo-Dutch War was the last one between the countries until 1780.

What if the Dutch had kept the city we know as New York and the English had kept Suriname?
New Orange will then be invaded by the British during the American Revolutionary War, and afterwards it will join the newly created United states as the State of New Orange, also remember the Dutch only occupied what is New York City, not the entire territory. we know as New York.
 
During the Third Anglo Dutch War, the Dutch re-captured New York, which they renamed New Orange, but the British took the Dutch colony of Suriname. At the Treaty of Westminster ending the war, the English and Dutch swapped the colonies and went back to the status quo ante.

As it happens, the Third Anglo-Dutch War was the last one between the countries until 1780.

What if the Dutch had kept the city we know as New York and the English had kept Suriname?

The problem is that Surinam is (well was) far more valuable than New Amsterdam (or the entirety of the New Netherlands). The Dutch would never give up Surinam for New Amsterdam. OTL The English offered New Netherlands back for Surinam, but the Dutch refused. You need some kind of different deal. Either the Dutch make a bigger win during the Second or third Anglo Dutch war (I think the second is a better idea, since the third was during the Franco-Dutch war and the Dutch wanted to end it as quickly as possible) or the Dutch don't conquer Surinam, but another less attractive piece of land. I believe they tried to capture the carolinas or something during the second Anglo-Dutch war, but failed. Lets say they succeed and trade it with New Netherlands during the peace.


New Orange will then be invaded by the British during the American Revolutionary War, and afterwards it will join the newly created United states as the State of New Orange, also remember the Dutch only occupied what is New York City, not the entire territory. we know as New York.
Nope. With the New Netherlands Dutch Anglo American history would be different enough for the American revolutionary war to be entirely different or even absent. It would split the English colonies in the middle. The Iriqois would (probably) remain Dutch allies. Actualy the Dutch presense alone would change the wars the English and the French had OTL. I consider it perfectly possible that Quebec remains French for example. The American ientity would be different with a Dutch colony splitting the English colonies. They would feel less of a bond between both (collection of) colonies. For example, it is possible that New England wants to become independent, while the southern colonies don't (or the other way around).

Even if the history of northern America is similar (unlikely as it is), why would Dutch foreign policy not be different. It is certainly possible the New Netherlands would become more or less a Dutch province (or similar to a dutch province). That would mean it has influence on Dutch foreign policy (and internal policy, although the New Netherlands would have major autonomy, like the other provinces had). Certainly it is possible they would not endanger themselves with siding with the rebels. I think it is very likely the Dutch remain neutral during the American war of independence.
 
Good points above.

Its true that European powers were pretty consistent in valuing sugar colonies > colonies on the North American mainland. This also played a big role in the war for American Independence. But this shouldn't be a big deal with the POD. The English do better in their war against the Dutch and keep Suriname (because of money) and the Dutch get what IOTL became New York.

Nieuw Nederland included the Hudson river and the Dutch had a settlement at Albany. Its a good point as well that it is up in the air whether they get that part back, or just the city. If the POD is the British doing better in the war, they probably keep the hinterland, with clauses in the treaty securing access to the beaver trade for the Dutch merchants.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
If the POD is the British doing better in the war, they probably keep the hinterland, with clauses in the treaty securing access to the beaver trade for the Dutch merchants.

Perhaps such rights can probably be offered in exchange for a British right to navigate from the sea unto the Hudson (and vice versa), past/through Nieuw amsterdam, without hindrance.
 

Deleted member 97083

And than become part of the United States who rename it to Liberty State ore something.
But then New England becomes an independent commonwealth in the War of 1813, and Liberty State is renamed New New York.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I believe they tried to capture the carolinas or something during the second Anglo-Dutch war, but failed. Lets say they succeed and trade it with New Netherlands during the peace.

The Dutch capturing the Carolinas is a quite interesting PoD on its own, if they trade it back for New Netherlands or even more so if they do not!

Where did you hear about a plot to capture the Carolinas and for which war was it, the 1st, 2nd or 3rd ?

While not having read about the Carolinas I did hear of the Governor of Virginia fearing Dutch attack at the same time he was fighting Bacon's Rebellion, so that is 1676.
 
The Dutch capturing the Carolinas is a quite interesting PoD on its own, if they trade it back for New Netherlands or even more so if they do not!

Where did you hear about a plot to capture the Carolinas and for which war was it, the 1st, 2nd or 3rd ?

While not having read about the Carolinas I did hear of the Governor of Virginia fearing Dutch attack at the same time he was fighting Bacon's Rebellion, so that is 1676.
I cannot find a reference to it. I can just vguely remember reading it somewhere. It doesn't realy matter anyway. Even if they didn't do it OTL, they could do it ATL. I do believe the Dutch will trade it away for the New Netherlands. I don't think it is worth as much as Surinam and it is better (for the Dutch) to have a colony full of Dutch than a colony full of English.

So in my opinion the three best ways for the Dutch to keep the New Netherlands are:
Defend it against the English, so they don't capture it
Retake it from the English during the war
Or capture a colony less important than Surinam, they would be willing to trade back (or capturing a colony less mportant than Surinam, besides Surinam)

So what would happen if the New Netherlands remains Dutch? Well, OTL it was already taken away from the WIC (Dutch West India Company) and basicly made into a Generality land (like Brabant, Limburg and Zeelandic Fladers were), which means it was ruled directly by the estate general/Staten Generaal (which is were the name staten island comes from). The difference between the Dutch generality lands and the New Netherlands is that they were mostly Catholic and relatively unimportant (and close by). New Amsterdam (and I think it will remain New Amsterdam, not New Orange or whatever) was mainly protestant and had the potential to become very important, even if they were surrounded by English colonies. I don't think they will accept being ruled by the Estate General for long. They will want to decide for themselves. Since they are on the other side of the world, I think the Estate-general will let them. I think that after a couple of decades, they basicly get the status Drenthe had OTL. Self government for the most part, but no representative in the Estate General, like provinces had. They might even be able to appoint their own stadholder, especialy if this happens during the rule of king-stadholder William III(my guess would be the same stadholer as Holland/Zeeland,not the Frisian stadholder).
 
Top