Themes in American History

Jun 06 2011 06:55 am

Posted by under ADMIN ONLY - assignments,ADMIN ONLY - featured,June 9 Assignment

Assignment due 6/9

103 Responses to “Assignment due 6/9”

1. emre.bagriyanik on 06 Jun 2011 at 12:44 pm #

   Based on todays class i agree with peter stiverson totally with the way he ran new amsterdam.Everything is allways hard to start in the beginning.The one thing i disagree with was The year of the blood. I think it was uncalled for and im sure better ideas could have been though of if the general was a nicer person.whats very interesting was the dutch and stuyvesant built a city up in five years.
   Now i understand why new york is so cramped together it was because of the dutch and because of ther way of trade and money.I think trying to live in new amsterdam must have been really hard for another reason because of the 18 languages spoken. In 1664 new amsterdam was taken over by the english.The english was the one who made named it new york.Because of them the population of about 3,000 grew to 10,000 because of the english.

2. amenaghawon.enoma on 06 Jun 2011 at 8:07 pm #

   Amenaghawon Enoma Response
   Peter Stuyvesant had a vision that allowed him to be a great leader for New Amsterdam. Because Peter Stuyvesant was employed by the Dutch West India Trading Company, Business Company, he was able to see New Amsterdam as business, this allowed taking New Amsterdam from a ruin and distressing port to a global port in a few short years. He saw the problem with the colony and implement swift solutions like a business person would have. Before Stuyvesant leadership New Amsterdam was into fur and beaver pellet trading. Those trading activities relied on Native Americans to create that demand that helped New Amsterdam enjoy growth at the beginning. The only problem was that many European nations or citizens that wanted to invest in the New World saw those trading activities as second tier. So New Amsterdam growth started to falter. So Peter Stuyvesant to see those failures and implement a solution is astounding. He was more of a problem-solver instead of a politician. His awareness of the slave trade as an economic investment propelled his motivation to make New Amsterdam participate in that industry. That motivation to see New Amsterdam has an economic giant saved the Dutch colonial investment.

   His vision and motivation of New Amsterdam changed many people lives. The most people who benefited from New Amsterdam growth was the Dutch, settlers and merchants. They were able to occupy a colony that was the third greatest port in the world and be part of an ever growing city. But unfortunately Stuyvesant benefit lasted for a short period of time when the British took the settlement and Peter Stuyvesant exiled himself.

3. priscilla.liu on 06 Jun 2011 at 11:01 pm #

   I agree with both of the comments above. Peter Stuyvesant was the man who set things in motion. Although he was not the most agreeable of leaders, he still managed to clean the place up. He banned drinking on Sundays, and if you missed church, you would be faced with consequences. Before he was asked to rule New Amsterdam, the population was dwindling because no one was interested in the trade of beaver fur. There was also not a lot of communication between the people that resided in New Amsterdam because of their diverse backgrounds, with 18 languages being spoken. However, as a result of Stuyvesant’s rule, the population increased because they let anyone in who was willing to work. The population increase resulted in the expansion of land, and soon the Dutch became a minority. Stuyvesant was afraid he would not be able to maintain control over New Amsterdam. Having made New Amsterdam prosper in 17 years (from 1647-1664), Stuyvesant did not gain much because the British had took over on August 27, 1664.

4. Magdalena on 07 Jun 2011 at 10:49 am #

   Motivation to produce a profit was a profoundly significant force that forever transformed the history of New York. Initializing by the Dutch West India Company through fur selling business and carried forward by English rulers, process of making money and constant improvements change not only the life of Europeans who already lived there, but also significantly affected the life of Native Americans. From the beginning the city becomes business oriented rather than cultural place with schools and libraries (like Boston). In many cases profitability of the city was very beneficial because New Amsterdam could build infrastructures and develop with an amazing speed. Drastic changes of wild landscape allowed improvement in the New Amsterdam and helped to discover it’s potential. On the other side, because of the need of labor force the problem of slavery and violence with Native Americans arose and intensified under British rule. What’s more lack of interest in culture and religion made New Amsterdam a home for hedonism and conformity with taverns and bars as dominant institutions. At the beginning the city was so concentrated on making a profit that rules and regulations were not priorities (until Peter Stiverson arrival.)
   In my opinion, the profit driven motivation affected not only the people who lived in 17th Century but also has a great influence of how New York is perceived today. After 400 years New York is still one of the wealthiest, business oriented city and has become leading center of finance and banking which was started by the Dutch. Fortunately today New York is also a place of great museums and libraries so the world of culture and business is in balance.

5. patricia.ibarra on 07 Jun 2011 at 12:50 pm #

   Based on class, one of the powerful forces that changed NYC between 1600 and 1860 was the Dutch West India Company in 1624 when the first settlements in New York City were made. This Company increased the population of the New Amsterdam colony and at the same time brought cultural diversity. In contrast to colonial cities like Boston and Philadelphia, New Amsterdam included immigrants from many different countries, including Germany, France and England. In addition to these European immigrants, many African slaves were brought to the new world to help build houses and streets and support manufacturing. The Company’s employees had one primary goal: to make money. As a result, the company brought investors in the Dutch West India Company fortune with the trading of sugar, fur and slaves.
   On the other hand the Native Americans did not see it that way. They understood land as a mother nature’s gift. They had a high respect to nature and the use of land was less. The Native Americans were the most affected, especially after many disputes between them and the settlers over land ownership. In 1643 the Dutch West India Company appointed William Kief as a director general of New Amsterdam. When Native Americans refused to pay tax, Kief caused the massacre of more than 100 Native Americans.

6. suman.amatya on 07 Jun 2011 at 2:12 pm #

   Based on the material covered in class, in between 1600 to 1860 there were lots of changes occured in New York. One of the major changed happened was – during 1625, when the settlers arrived on the first ships of the sailing season. Among them there were the Amsterdam engineer, Crijn Fredericxsz, who brought with him plans for a new fort to be erected on a site chosen by the Director-designate, Willem Verhulst. It was to be located near the sharp tip of the island, thus commanding naval access to both the Hudson River and the East River. Within the fort they built marketplace,houses, a hospital, school, and a church. From the efforts of Fredericxsz and Verhulst, the first permanent settlement on Manhattan was established. Even they laid out a pattern of streets and lots for houses, and larger sites along the main north-south path for Dutch farms or bouweries.

7. xiaoyun.xu on 07 Jun 2011 at 2:25 pm #

   New York City’s fate to be one of the most powerful cities all around the world starts the time Dutch colonizers established New Amsterdam on Manhattan island in 1624, a new trading center. The Dutch India Company is one of the main starting force for the history of New York City. Because the Dutch India Company was a chief international supplier of slaves, so the slaveholding grows tremendous in New Amsterdam. Moreover, New Amsterdam was designed mainly to protect the company’s trading operations further upriver from attack by other European powers. However, they did transfer its geographical advantage to an economic or trading advantage. That’s how New York City become powerful seaport and the world wild trading center like it is today.
   Nevertheless, there is always someone gets harmed behind the all those changes. The Dutch took advantage of Native American reliance on wampum as a trading medium by exchanging cheap European-made metal tools for beaver pelts. Under the ruling of the Dutch colonizers, the Native population declined drastically through a combination of disease, starvation, and outward migration.

8. xiaoyun.xu on 07 Jun 2011 at 2:31 pm #

   New York City’s fate to be one of the most powerful cities all around the world starts the time Dutch colonizers established New Amsterdam on Manhattan island in 1624, a new trading center. The Dutch India Company is one of the main staring force of the urban development of New York City. Because the Dutch India Company was a chief international supplier of slaves, so the slaveholding grows tremendous in New Amsterdam. Moreover, New Amsterdam was designed mainly to protect the company’s trading operations further upriver from attack by other European powers. However, they did transfer its geographical advantage to an economic or trading advantage. That’s how New York City become powerful seaport and the world wild trading center like it is today.
   Nevertheless, there is always someone gets harmed behind the all those changes. The Dutch took advantage of Native American reliance on wampum as a trading medium by exchanging cheap European-made metal tools for beaver pelts. Under the ruling of the Dutch colonizers, the Native population declined drastically through a combination of disease, starvation, and outward migration.

9. ff122986 on 07 Jun 2011 at 2:33 pm #

   Although the Dutch West India Company had arrived with plans in the 1600s to build a new city for trade, they had failed to secure any real security or forward vision for their new founded city which they named “New Amsterdam”. As a result, the powerful forces of the English soon took over their spoils. The English had an established social order of governance with power from a well established monarchy. The English colonialists system of hierarchy brought considerable change and relative structural order to their new colony which they renamed “New York”. This lead to New York’s growth and development; However, with the growth came the old problems of Europe such as inequality and slavery.

10. xiaoyun.xu on 07 Jun 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    New York City’s fate to be one of the most powerful cities all around the world starts the time Dutch colonizers established New Amsterdam on Manhattan island in 1624, a new trading center. The Dutch India Company is one of the main staring forces of the urban development of New York City. Because the Dutch India Company was a chief international supplier of slaves, so the slaveholding grows tremendous in New Amsterdam. Moreover, New Amsterdam was designed mainly to protect the company’s trading operations further upriver from attack by other European powers. However, they did transfer its geographical advantage to an economic or trading advantage. That’s how New York City become powerful seaport and the world wild trading center like it is today.
    Nevertheless, there is always someone gets harmed behind the all those changes. The Dutch took advantage of Native American reliance on wampum as a trading medium by exchanging cheap European-made metal tools for beaver pelts. Under the ruling of the Dutch colonizers, the Native population declined drastically through a combination of disease, starvation, and outward migration.

11. Xue Ying Chen on 07 Jun 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    I agree with all of the comments above, either Petrus Stuyvesant or Dutch West India Company. In fact, they were in the same force that initialized New Amsterdam. Before the company found this land, there were Native Americans, who had settled there for thousands of years. The Dutch came and bought this land from Native Americans. The name, New Amsterdam, was given by the Dutch and it began functioned as trading center. New Amsterdam started from a small population as 500, and there were 18 languages been spoken on the street under the Dutch government. There were no strict regulations and small institutions were brought in, such as bars. In 1647, Petrus Stuyvesant was nominated by the company, and New Amsterdam was ruled under his polices. Stuyvesant was not in favor in New Amsterdam, but citizens accepted him anyway because his policies were good for making money, which was also the foundation of this new land. Citizens were benefit from his policies, and they were having fun during the time period.
    Even though Dutch was not as violent as Spanish and British to Native Americans in American colonies, but they still did not treat them equally. The Dutch believed if you bought a land, you should own and use all of its resources. On the other hand, Native Americans believed the land was given by the god; therefore, they should take care and share with others. With all of the confusions caused by the two groups of people, they eventually started a war that caused many deaths.

12. suman.amatya on 07 Jun 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Based on the reading, there were lots of changes occurred in 1600 to 1860. One of the major changes was during 1625, when the settlers came from the ship. Among them there were numbers of Amsterdam Engineers, Crijin Fredericxsz, who had planned for the new fort to be erected on a site chosen by the director-designate, william verhulst. It was to be located near the sharp tip of the island, thus commanding naval access to both the Hudson River and east river. Within the fort they built church, hospital, marketplace, houses, and school. From the effort of Fredericxsz and verhulst, the first permanent settlement in Manhattan was established. They laid out pattern of streets and lots for houses and large sites along main north-south path for Dutch farms.

13. sharmin.sultana on 07 Jun 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    I agree with the above comments, it must have been very difficult for the Dutch to cope up with the harsh weather and surroundings in the New Amsterdam. Things were falling apart instead of falling into places; until the arrival of the Dutch General Petrus Stuyvesant. He did bring several good changes to the New Amsterdam, he replaced general Willem Kieft in the year 1647. As the last Dutch colonial administrator to the New Netherland. He allowed the Jews settlers from the Northern Brazil to settle in the New Netherland for business purpose; since he was not completely tolerant about religious freedom in the colony. The Dutch were benefiited from the New Amsterdam’s crops and fishes. It was very tough to get along with the Natives, once when Stuyvesant went to took possession of the New Sweden the Native Americans attacked the New Amsterdam.

14. raymond.yu1 on 07 Jun 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    One powerful force that changed New York during the 1600’s was Peter Stuyvesant’s rule as the director general of Dutch West India Company. Under his administration, he really shaped the outline of New York’s City’s streets today. The famous protective wall was originally built as a defense from Native American’s attacks. Today, the famous Wall Street is the heart of the financial district of New York City. In addition, New Amsterdam started to expand outwards from the Southern tip of Manhattan under his rule. The Dutch benefited the most during the 1600’s in New York because they were able to expand and use the trading network known as the triangular trade. Many goods were able to be exchanged between different continents, which leads to the point that the slaves were harmed the most. They were brought here against their will in order to work for their owners, and traded as goods instead of being treated as equal beings.

15. suman.amatya on 07 Jun 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    It was to be located near the sharp tip of the island, thus commanding naval access to both the Hudson River and east river. Within the fort they built church, hospital, marketplace, houses, and school. From the effort of Fredericxsz and verhulst, the first permanent settlement in Manhattan was established. They laid out pattern of streets and lots for houses and large sites along main north-south path for Dutch farms.

16. jason.zhu on 07 Jun 2011 at 7:18 pm #

    I agree with the Peter Stuyvesant comments above. He was the man who bartered the rights to Manhatten for $24 in trade goods.When he arrived (1647), he told the colonists, “I shall govern you, as a father does his children”. He established the colony of New Amsterdam which eventually became New York. He established order through strict new laws. Bars and brothels were being closed, and everyone had to go to church.
    Stuyvesant also tried to right some wrongs against the Indians. For example, he insisted that Indians be paid properly for their services

17. Thomas Harbison on 07 Jun 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    For those yet to post: keep in mind that I gave a huge time range. I encourage you discuss forces of change beyond those introduced during Dutch rule of the city. As you give new examples, try to compare and contrast them to those that have come before. For example, if you discuss the role of Alexander Hamilton in shaping the city, compare the difference between his leadership and Peter Stuyvesant’s. And you need not stay limited to discussion of an individual person. In class we covered larger economic, cultural, and social forces, that were more powerful than any individual.

18. junko.todoroki on 09 Jun 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    I agree with the most comments above. Peter Stuyvesant was a major force changed New York. He served as the last Dutch Director General of colony of New Netherland until English took the power. His accomplishment as director general included a great expansion for the settlement of New Amsterdam. Because of bad government, failure to build the population, incompetent commercial management, a high tariff which ruined legitimate trade, and so on, Dutch eventually failed. As a leader, I don’t think he was a good leader. He more focused on profit which benefitted the merchants.
    Alexander Hamilton is also a major force changed New York. As secretary of the treasury, Hamilton was the primary author of the economic policies of the George Washington Administrateion, especially the funding of the state debts by the Federal fovernment, the establishement of a national bank, a sytem of tariffs, and so on. Compare to Peter Stuyvesant, Hamilton has better political views and is a better leader, I think.

19. francesco.scalogna on 07 Jun 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    Although some may feel that the Dutch made the most substantial impact to New York City’s development, I see things differently. I do agree on the basis that Peter Stuyvesant had enabled proper infrastructure, but he lacked to envision future expansion and growth surpassed his prior accomplishments. One of his major drawbacks was constructing “The Wall”, which basically cut off any expansion upward. Another flaw in the Dutch development strategies was no standardized language for its citizens. This is a big deal when merchants need to be able to communicate properly if they want to increase trading partners.

20. Gabriela Serrano on 07 Jun 2011 at 9:15 pm #

    Both the Dutch West India Company and Peter Stuyvesant were strong forces that changed New York City between 1600 and 1800. However, a great advantage of New York City back then was its port alone; it was only a matter of time for New York’s harbor to be discovered and to be recognized for its advantages. The port is what allowed new comers to constantly come. Trading was not hard since it lead to ports across the Atlantic Ocean. New York’s port had a harbor that never froze and was deep enough for large ships. Also New York’s harbor was protected from hurricanes & storms by its location alone.

21. francesco.scalogna on 07 Jun 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    A major force that completely changed New York City was the English take over of control from the Dutch. Not only did they change the name of it from New Amsterdam to New York, which still stands today, the English utilized the full potential of New York’s ports and location, connecting other east coast colonies under English rule.

    New York was the missing link for the English Empire to gain complete colonial dominance of the east coast of North America. This provided not only more trading partners from neighboring states, but also connected New York City with English trade routes through the Atlantic into the rest of the world. This was a substantial impact because New York prior to the take over only had 35 ships sailing out per year, but after the take over it increased to approximately 700 ships sailing out per year. Under Dutch control, New York was considered a second rate outpost to their empire, but under English control it became the third largest port in the empire.

    This helped retain more people, which in turn enabled population growth at a much higher rate than the Dutch were capable of. Because of this the English took down the wall, creating wall street, to enable expansion throughout remaining area of land on the island. It also led to the development of other boroughs like Queens and Staten Island.

    The biggest issue with the English rule over New York was that it severely displaced the Native Americans, even more than when under Dutch control. The increased development of land led to more blood shed and even intentional disease spreading to eliminate or deter the threat of native resistance on their objectives. Only the English and states that traded with New York gained from this new economic force that occurred.

22. Omar Abdel Salam on 07 Jun 2011 at 11:57 pm #

    I agree with the majority of these comments mentioned above with the idea that the Dutch West India Trading Company, Peter Stuyvesant, and the English all changed New York City. The first settlements into NYC was made because of the Dutch West India Trading Company. New York underwent major changes, including clearing of the land, and the building of structures such as cabins, forts, and farms. The old Indian trail was widened and Manhattan was bought from the Indians by the first settlers. Peter Stuyvesant was the person who got the colony back on track after the war against the Indians, the year of the blood, when moral was low, drunkenness was high, citizens were unruly and stubborn, and the colony was falling apart. He set rules, created piers, canals, and windmills. The population increased because of him. During his rule the wall was built to protect the city from invasions. Even though he did not agree with it, under his rule different groups of people where let into New York creating the diversity in the city making it the special place we live in today. When control over Dutch New Amsterdam was transferred to the English changes where also made as well. First of all, the name was changed to New York. The city became more of a trading post as trading increased greatly. There was a big move for expansion as the wall around the city was destroyed. With the expansion though came a negative effect on the Native American population through war, spread of disease. There was a great increase in the slave trade as well as the inhumane treatment of the slaves such as the great killing off and torture of the slaves during a certain period of time. There were several influences over the development of the city of New York. Several changes were made under the control of the Dutch West India Trading Company, Peter Stuyvesant, and the English.

23. Omar Abdel Salam on 08 Jun 2011 at 12:32 am #

    Alexander Hamilton was a person who had a great role in shaping New York City after the American Revolution. He had great influence over the economy with his position as the Secretary of Treasury. He played a great role in Jay’s Treaty of 1794 which dealt with a series of economic and border problems between the United States and England. His role in fixing the trading relations between the United States and England was very important as several states especially New York City, relied heavily on trading with other countries especially England. Hamilton also helped shape greatly the financial system of the United States which again was very important to New York and several other states which greatly relied on finances, money, and a stable financial system for its economy and its ability to prosper. Alexander Hamilton serving as an assemblyman and a delegate chosen to represent New York in the Constitutional Convention shows how important he was to the State. He was chosen to represent the state and make decisions for the country as a whole alongside other delegates from other states that would not only affect and influence New York, but the country as a whole. Overall I believe Hamilton had a greater influence over New York than Peter Stuyvesant. While Stuyvesant was sent in to organize the people and get the colony focused and back on track he did not have as much as an influence economically and politically on New York than Hamilton did. Hamilton was part of the Constitutional Convention helping to shape both New York and the United States as well. As Secretary of Treasurer he was very involved with the economy and the financial system of again both the United States and New York.

24. Daniel Edward on 08 Jun 2011 at 7:49 am #

    New Amsterdam was founded by the Dutch to be a trading post. In other words it was founded to be an economic outpost. Although rule changed several times through this time period, New Amsterdam and later New York still remained an economic center in the “New World”. Even though the theme never changed, there were a few changes made over time. For example the English expanded the settlement after they took control. They tore down the Dutch wall and expanded Northward. They paved what is now Wall Street. The English also conected New York with all the colonies they had along the coast. The British helped in the growth and expansion of New York by conecting it with all its colonies and with England itself.

25. Daniel Edward on 08 Jun 2011 at 7:59 am #

    Before the English control, Stuyvesant governed New Amsterdam. He played a major role in shaping the settlement. Before he governed, the settlement was corrupt. There was very little order and the colony was in decline. He governed with an iron hand. He built the settlement up. He made roads and made it look more civilized. He also introduced slavery. He governed in a harsh and iron handed way that instilled fear into his subjects. However, his rule allowed the colony to grow and expand. He welcomed everyone who wanted to settle no matter what their nationalities. He eventually had to surrender to the British but he helped the colony to remain active and stable.

26. rc120825 on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:08 am #

    I agree with some of you who do not think that Peter Stuyvesant was the powerful force that changed New York between 1600 and 1800. But, he had done some positive movements. The Dutch East India Company was granted to have monopoly power and special exemption over trading. Their trading’s mainly were designed of fur trading, which was about slaves marketing; but, they were not producing anything. Those slaves were appointed to low skilled job or in factories. There was a slow growth population. There were 18 different languages on the street. Peter Stuyvesant came to the town in 1647. Even though during his time there were some exponential growth like developing infrastructures, new model of industry and his decisions made by historical contingency; the locals were dispatched by his corrupted government and misleading, specially the northern Americans.

27. Sujan on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:42 am #

    I agree with the above comments. In May 11, 1647 Petrus Stuyvesant was chosen by Dutch West India Company. When Stuyvesant arrived as director-general New Amsterdam was still affected by Indian wars. His way to control was autocratic. He came into the service after his career in the army. He used the theory of religion to improve the moral climate. Moreover Stuyvesant great effort leads toward city improvement, which changed the shape of the city. He opened Latin school, houses were constructed, and across the canal bridges were built. Moreover he was very concerned about protection of the city. In the meeting with city council a defensive strategy was enforce. In order to provide security to the large population tall walls and small breastworks were built. These are the major improvements done by him in 1650’s.

28. Sujan on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:57 am #

    Alexander Hamilton had superior power in the government. In 1794 he had a great part in which Jay Treaty ended a series of frontier and economic disputes with Great Britain. Hamilton had a great role in moderation; he held talk with New York loyalist. During his period New York commercial interests had achieved its chief goals. Hamilton contributed in securing the trading relationship with England, stable political and also financial system had been created. In my opinion both Hamilton and Stuyvesant played a great role in changing the shape of New York City.

29. rb115770 on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:01 am #

    I agree with the comments above, especially with Omar’s comment regarding the transfer of control from Dutch to British. I believe that the impact of the trade was heavy and influenced the future of all citizens. The arrival of new settlers harmed the Native Americans. When the Dutch arrived, they were very disorganized and didn’t have a government to regulate the actions of the citizens. As Omar stated, one year was known as “year of the blood” because over 100 Native Americans were butchered and their heads were carried into the city on sticks. In that span, over 10 Dutch settlers were killed. This didn’t settle anything between the two parties. The arrival of Peter Stuyvesant helped restore order in New Amsterdam. The wall built along present-day Wall Street acted as a guard to protect the Dutch from Native American and British onslaught. In addition, Peter Stuyvesant also established an economic base for the “business-related” colony. By 1653, there were piers, canals, churches and schools; however, his idea to let various cultures enter the colony created conflict with the abundance of languages spoken and little help to stimulate the situation. I mean, Peter Stuyvesant’s arrival wasn’t the best news, but it put the Dutch in a better condition than they were beforehand. I think that the British settlement was the force that changed New Amsterdam.

30. rc120825 on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:40 am #

    I agree with Frank Scalogna that The British were crucial in changing New Amsterdam to New York by developing economical and political growth despite of their self-support intention.

    The local wanted to regulate and promote the trade. But the laws limited their ability by “ issues as limiting entry into certain skilled craft, establishing standard weights and measures, fixing prices for locally produced goods, and controlling the quality of those good” (page 9). Unskilled slave also were another reason of undeveloped economy. The houses of these colonies were so tightened that fire and diseases often attacked them. Therefore the population growth was slow, people did not wanted to move into the city. Poverty and crimes were seizing their lives. People did not have any type of safety or security.

    The urban settlement of The British not only did improve the economic and political environment but also improved social life. Church was created to improve social lives, “peoples behavior was shaped by religious and superstition belief” (page, 10); currency money influenced locals to exchange things grown by them. Efficient transportation and communication were made by urban growth. By making drainage and pressing concern improved water impeded traffic and decreased health risks by diseases. They created a system and technology to protect buildings from fires. Thoroughly, all American towns copied these European
    Traditions.

31. rb115770 on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:47 am #

    Eventually, the Dutch weren’t financially successful, which led to shift in control from Dutch to British. On August 27th, 1664, the more technologically-advanced Britain arrived in New Amsterdam. Stuyvesant was “ready for battle,” but the other Dutch settlers refused to do so because they loved the colony and a change in power wouldn’t affect them. He signed a treaty that officially surrendered New Amsterdam to the Brits. One of the initial moves made by the British was the name change of the colony to New York as a birthday present in honor of the Duke of York. British rule benefited New York economically and socially. New York became the third largest port under British rule, under Philidelphia and London, respectively. They became part of the transatlantic trade also known as the slave trade. These changes benifited New Yorkers and continued to harm both Native and African Americans. The Native American population, as Omar previously stated, began to decline due to constant war with the colonists and spread of disease. African Americans weren’t payed for their work and they lived in very poor conditions. The idea of a government, which gradually helped create the U.S. Constitution helped New York because it gave them a government which helped regulate order and actions amongst citizens as well as the colony’s relations with other colonies and nations. Alexander Hamilton’s creation of a National Bank helped the “business-related” colony with currency issues. New York’s harbor was one of the biggest in the country, which helped them become the economic capital of the United States.

32. ashleigh.baker on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:16 am #

    The transition from Dutch to British rule over New Amsterdam was probably the monumental shift in creating the foundation of what New York is today. In its beginning stages New Amsterdam was founded for trade and business purposes, however as time progressed the lack of a strong leading force began to steer the new colony into the wrong direction. We begin to see that partaking in ineffective activities has become the main goal for New Amsterdam instead of creating a tight efficient center for trade. Similar to the perspectives of my other classmates, I agree that the appointing of Peter Stuyvesant as the “iron fist” to whip New Amsterdam into shape was important. He was effectual in fining and creating laws to aid the positive reconstruction of New Amsterdam. However, Stuyvesant began to loose control over New Amsterdam when he allowed a mix of cultures and people to enter in search of work opportunities. The Dutch became a minority in New Amsterdam, and the emerging mixture of religions and cultures fueled the separation of church and state creating an atmosphere of disunity. The feeling of independence among the people of New Amsterdam prompted their disinterest in the British taking rule over New Amsterdam. The British were even more effective in creating an efficient colony and center for importing and exporting. The entire Manhattan population had been replaced and the Native Americans were removed completely. Proud of the success in New Amsterdam, The Jude of York officially changed the name to New York. By 1740, New York had become the third largest port in the British Empire and was well on its way to becoming even more powerful. Conclusively, the transition to British rule was paramount in shaping a trend for success and innovativeness in New York history.

33. taimoor.shahid on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:25 am #

    Although the colony was founded by the Dutch West india co. in 1624, the Dutch governor Stuyvesant surrenrered to an English naval force in 1664. Charles II gives proprietorship of the colony to his brother James, the Duke of York, and the colony is renamed as New York. By early 1700, new York city had the most diverse population in the colonies, with English, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, and both slaves and free afro Americans.the labor force consisted of indentured servants, who in return for passage to the colonies, agreede to be bound them to a term of service to a paying settler. as Robert mentioned, the african Americans were not treated humanily, so there was an urge to form a government for the protection of local people’s rights.

34. ashleigh.baker on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:38 am #

    To answer the second part of the question, obviously The people of New York benefited in that they lived in an area of profitable trading. The British did as well, ruling over and receiving an immense amount of profit form their successful trade ports. However in light of all this success the Native American population was exploited and eventually killed off brutally with the coming of the British rule. African Americans were sold and utilized as property and the happiness of the success in New York from British rule surely did not apply to them as well.

35. Abraham Lin on 08 Jun 2011 at 1:31 pm #

    I think that the Dutch West India Company along with Peter Stuyvesant had a huge impact on New York City. The Dutch West India Company allowed the first settlements in the land. After purchasing the land from the Native Americans, the colony was growing slowly due to people not being interested in the trading. Instead, they were looking to invest in the New World, and started to spread. This is where Peter Stuyvesant came in and cleaned everything up. Stuyvesant came in and took charge and started issuing orders and regulating taverns and drinking and building piers and canals and churches. The population also started to increase. They allowed people from anywhere to come creating a diverse culture. With the great increase of trading, it soon became a major trading post. The population of Native Americans drastically decreased due to disease and war.

36. jason.zhu on 08 Jun 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    Putting Peter Stuyvesant aside, another force that shaped New York City is The Commercial Revolution. Population increased, which led to emergence of middle class. According to table 2-1 in chapter 2, from 1830 to 1860, New York increased in population from 202,589 to 813,600. The middle and lower class faced shortages of housing and consumer goods, accompanied by rises in prices, unemployment, and rents.

37. sharmin.sultana on 08 Jun 2011 at 1:51 pm #

    Fur trading played a major role in the New Amsterdam; as the Native Americans used to exchange furs with the Dutch Colonists. Eventually when the Natives had very limited supply of the furs to offer the Dutch, the Native population were less popular to the Dutch Colonists.In exchange for their goods, the Indians received European products, both practical, such as iron tools and utensils, and decorative, such as bright-colored cloth and beads.The Indians also received firearms and liquor, both of which had an enormous impact on Indian lifeways.

38. Abraham Lin on 08 Jun 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    I feel like slavery was a very important factor in shaping the city. With slavery, it created houses, streets, buildings, the wall that protected the city from Native Americans. I would say that this is the foundation and the point where the city started to flourish and buildings started to spring up. I’m not saying that slavery was good and that without it, we would not have what we have today, but because slavery did exist and was real, we have what we have.
    African Americans definitely suffered the most. They were not treated like humans, being sold from one person to another. They were also not paid for their work and lived in horrible conditions.

39. Magdalena on 08 Jun 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    Abraham Li, you wrote very interesting comment about slavery. Your point of view about slaves’ impact on building and developing the New Amsterdam and later on New York is very interesting. But I’m not sure that African American suffered the most. I agree that the face of American slavery transformed from Indian to African but at the beginning the Europeans enslaved also Native Americans and put them under oppression. Situation of Native people were very dramatic because the Dutch and later on English people took their land and they were using them as a labor force. In addition they suffered from diseased that Europeans bring to America. On top of that they had to fights many wars in order to keep their original land. That’s why I believe that not only Africans but also Native Americans shared similar experiences of enslavement.

40. jason.zhu on 08 Jun 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    Putting Peter Stuyvesant aside, another force that shaped New York City is the Commercial Revolution. Population increased, which led to emergence of middle class. According to table 2-1 in chapter 2, from 1830-1860, New York increased in population from 202,589 to 813,600. The middle and lower class faced shortages of housing and consumer goods. Accompanied by rises in prices, unemployments, and rents.

41. sharmin.sultana on 08 Jun 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    Competition among the European nations and among the Indian tribes for the fur trade was a major factor in many of the intertribal conflicts and colonial wars during this time in the New Land. And reaction to white traders on Indian lands spawned considerable native resistance. First, as skilled hunters and suppliers of pelts, the Indians were sought after as trading partners and were exposed to white culture. In exchange for their goods, the Indians received European products, both practical, such as iron tools and utensils, and decorative, such as bright-colored cloth and beads.The Indians also received firearms and liquor, both of which had an enormous impact on Indian lifeways.A second and devastating effect from trade with whites was the outbreak of European diseases among the Indian population.A third effect was the long-term ecological disruption of the food chain by the depletion of fur-bearing mammals.And finally, the fur trade had another long-term impact in the Indians by bringing whites onto their lands.After the white traders, trappers, and hunters came the trading and military posts, and after the posts came the settlers.

42. sharmin.sultana on 08 Jun 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Fur trading plays a major role during this period of the time, When the Europeans first discover the New Land; they were astonished by the fruitful abundance of the New Land. Soon the European exposed the Natives in their culture as fur trading partners. The Native American supplied with pelts in terms of iron tool both practical and decoratives, clothes and colorful beads. The Natives also received fire arms and liquor both had enormous impacts on the Indian lifeways.But the fur trading did bring diseases to the Native Land by the Europeans.

43. wencong zhu on 08 Jun 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    The more powerful force that completely changed New York was the British, who taken over of control from the Dutch. It promoted New York to develop. Such as, New York became the trading center of the world at that time. Also, because people who were from other counties processed trading in the New York; it put all the cultures together to form a diversity city it is known as present.

    After the British taken over of control from Dutch, Native- American was forced to move to North of New Amsterdam, and the English captured coast for trading with their own country. Also, at that period, social class was divided into difference levels–white people were as a king as standing on the top; People in lowest class were Native Americans and African who were as goods people could be buy and sell.

44. Mendo on 08 Jun 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    The success and the failure of the nation depends on the way of leader’s power of making decision and their implementation of policies and systems on their people. Today, when we use the term  “New York City”, we automatically link the term with the diversity, people, opportunities, advanced technologies, education, transportation, employment etc. This definition have been raised through the ideas and regulations of powerful leaders like Peter Stuyvesant, Alexander Hamilton,  Dewitt Clinton and so on. In between 1600 and 1800, the major forces on changing New York City  was due to the economical, political, and social influence on regulating people. 
    Since after the British named the city from New Amsterdam to New York City, the city started expanding based on population, trade through diversity. new York City is a man made city which strongly reflects British’s interior influence. Today the city is known as one of the most civilized city on the planet. Peter Stuyvesant and Alexander Hamilton are the most important leaders who played a vital role on regulating and bringing changes into the structure of the New York City; either in terms of interior, social, political, religious or economical perceptions. Both Peter Stuyvesant ( The Governor of New Amsterdam in 1647) and Alexander Hamilton (secretary of the treasury) mainly focused on developing the economical and financial status of the city either by regulating triangular trade, constructing fort, wall or either by establishing banking system in the city. Though their systems were different from each other, their goals were same; i.e making the city economically strong and powerful. Though they emphasized more on the development of the city, during Peter Stuyvesant’s period, the population was less, attending church was mandatory, the import or export of goods or services was limited, and the decisions were made based on his individual perspective not considering people’s will and demand. These regulation caused war, disease, poverty among the people. Also, made weak government and security due to the insufficient number of soldiers whereas during Alexander Hamilton’s leadership period, the slavery was ended, population increased rapidly, increase on banking system considering everyone’s decision gave a positive result in the city. He understood the importance of banking, manufacturing, and the role of dynamic society in the city.

     

     

45. Andrew Hahm on 08 Jun 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    The most powerful force that transformed the face of New York City was certainly the power shift from the Dutch to the British in 1664. The Dutch began shaping the very foundation of New York City but it was the British that ultimately anchored the entire city in the direction of a more profound and significant province that soon proved to excel greater than the rule of the Dutch. Economically, New York was a city that was built on profit and gain, and so the British utilized New York as an asset that provided significance in their trading routes to the plantations in the Caribbeans. It seems as if New York was destined to be the city of trade and business ever since the beginning of its very existence. If history tells us one thing, trade was a crucial part of every civilization, whether it was with the Europeans and China or the Native Americans and the Dutch. The British rule was certainly the turning point of trade for New York.

46. Dmitriy on 08 Jun 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    The most powerful force that transformed NYC was clearly Stuyvesant. He was the one who made new York a successful merchant town. Prior to his command the town was a complete mess full of drunks and lacking any centralized command. Regardless of what happened the town would eventually fall under British reign, but it was Stuyvesant who made the definitive change between New York being just another failure and it being the greatest merchant port in the U.S.

47. ml086070 on 08 Jun 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    I agree with most of my classmates about that Peter Stuyvesant was a big contributor to the change in the 1600s. He came to set patterns of behavior among the people of New Amsterdam. He banded drinking, fights in public, the fornication with indians. His job was not easy, because of the difference of cultures and languages at the time which increase later on, to a point that started to get out of hands specially when the jews came to the city. His power was all up until the English took over in August 27, 1664. 2 days later they renamed New Amsterdam to New York as a gift to the Duke of York, and they govern for the next 119 years.
    I think the people who benefited the most from this are the Dutch and the English (specially the English). They both took advantage of the indians and the poor people. The only difference is that the Dutch treated the Indians a little bit more different than the English. At least the Dutch needed them. but when the English took over they banned them, kill them, because they were no more needed. the English brought more commercialization to new york. THey set up the social classes from extremely rich to slave and whatever is left in between. In 1700 over 1/3 of the households owned a slave. In 1731 slave market was established. In fact, it is true that the English made what New York is now. A trading point.

48. kaman,Lo on 08 Jun 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    In my opinion.dramatic changes in the social and economic structure took place as inventions and technological innovations created the factory system of large-scale machine production and greater economic specialization, and as the laboring population, formerly employed predominantly in agriculture,increasingly gathered in great urban factory centers. The same process occurred at later times and in changed tempo in other countriee, for example, British and France.

49. kaman,Lo on 08 Jun 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    The disadvanatges were,from the seventeenth century on, merchants in many regions organized new forms of production in the countryside. Labor there was cheap and abundant since contemporary agriculture left many peasants underemployed, and economic restrictions were weak. Cloth merchants were especially well placed to take advantage of this opportunity. They supplied villagers with raw materials, transported goods from one stage of production to the next, and finally marketed the finished product, taking as well the largest share of the profits. Other goods too could be manufactured in this way: in eastern France and Switzerland, merchants organized clock making on these lines. By the mid-eighteenth century, the balance between agriculture and manufacturing had shifted in many regions; for most villagers, farm work had become a supplemental source of income, and they relied mainly on spinning, weaving, and other artisanal activities for their livelihoods.

50. jiada.chen on 08 Jun 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    After the war against Native American provoked by Director-General Willem Kieft, Algonquin tribes destroyed the Dutch settlement as a response. In 1647, as a result, Peter Stuyvesant, a powerful force that changed New York City from 1647 to 1664, was selected by the Dutch West India Company to replace Kieft as Director-General of the New Amsterdam. With an ambitious will in his heart, Peter Stuyvesant decided to clean the place up. He built a canal, three hundred row houses, a palisade along Wall Street as a protective wall against Native American, and so on. Moreover, in order to address the unruly colony, Peter Stuyvesant imposed closer controls over the inhabitants of New Amsterdam by using autocratic approach to governance, including the ban of liquor on Sunday and after 9p.m.. At that time, there were bars in the city so that people could have fun. In the field of business, he spent a lot of money on ports, did a lot of thing in order to let people to make more money, developing a new model of industry. His vision on business was the same as that of the profit-driven Dutch West Indian Company. He also allowed immigrants who had a will to work. Here came the problem. The population grew to about 3000 crowded below Wall Street in lower Manhattan, with people speaking over 18 different languages. The French-speaking Wallons were no longer the majority. The lack of standard language hindered trading activities, and the city became too diverse to rule, leading to confusion. However, Peter Stuyvesant had nothing to deal with it. What’s worse, Stuyvesant did not tolerate full religious freedom in the colony, especially Quakers and Jewish, despite the diversity of the city. Thus, New Amsterdam did not grow as a community as what Stuyvesant wanted. The financial success was also not as illuminating as what Dutch hoped for. Population began to drop because many people moved to other cities after earning some money. Even when British took New York, citizens did not fight or rebel, and acted as if nothing happened.
    During Peter Stuyvesant’s administration, it is obvious that the people benefitted the most were merchants. With a perfect natural location of a port and Stuyvesant’s biased policy of business, merchants could make a lot of money for sure. Many people were harmed by his administration. For instance, slaves, as the lowest class of the society, filled the jobs for low-skilled labors, and were one of the profit sources of West Indian Company. Children, as another illustration, were also harmed because Stuyvesant spent so much money on business that no schools, churches, libraries, and many other facilities are lack. Native Americans were also harmed since Dutch could not live harmoniously together with them.
    I also agree with many of the comments above, that Dutch West Indian Company and British colonists were powerful force that changed New York City. Like Stuyvesant, Dutch West Indian Company spent money on business other than churches, schools, or libraries for its money motivation, benefitting merchants. On the other hand, unlike Stuyvesant, the British colonists destroyed the wall and executed a more aggressive rule removing Native American for its expansion, harming the Native American.

51. kaman,Lo on 08 Jun 2011 at 5:43 pm #

    The drawback was,from the seventeenth century on, merchants in many regions organized new forms of production in the countryside. Labor there was cheap and abundant since contemporary agriculture left many peasants underemployed, and economic restrictions were weak. Cloth merchants were especially well placed to take advantage of this opportunity. They supplied villagers with raw materials, transported goods from one stage of production to the next, and finally marketed the finished product, taking as well the largest share of the profits. Other goods too could be manufactured in this way: in eastern France and Switzerland, merchants organized clock making on these lines. By the mid-eighteenth century, the balance between agriculture and manufacturing had shifted in many regions; for most villagers, farm work had become a supplemental source of income, and they relied mainly on spinning, weaving, and other artisanal activities for their livelihoods.

52. nataliya.vynnychuk on 08 Jun 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    As was mentioned in earlier posts, Dutch Director-General Stuyvesant, appointed by the West India Corporation, was indeed the most successful leader of Dutch era in New York. He managed to end a bloody conflict between the settles and natives. He also improved the city’s infrastructure; such as building the first pier on the East river, a stockade around the city, bridges over the canal, and “the Wall” to protect the colony from the Natives. However, these developments did not keep pace with the increasing needs of New York City as the population grew.
    I think that Dutch Government underestimated New York City’s potential of growth, and that’s why their mismanaged political approach, based on making a profit from having the fines harbor in the North Atlantic, failed.
    Unlike the Dutch, the British administration had a more efficient method of governance. They build more schools, churches, and other cultural institutions to add to a cultural diversity of New York. The British connected the colonies to a wide network of trade, developing New York’s harbor even more. As a result, merchants and local producers had greater possibilities to make a profit, expanding their businesses. The export of raw materials increased tremendously as well as the import of manufactured goods, and slaves.
    To my understanding, meaningful changes were not felt by the colonies until the transfer of the colonies to British control.

53. marcin.gutowski on 08 Jun 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    In 1626 Peter Minuit bought the Island of Manhattan from local Indians. They named it New Netherlands and its capital was New Amsterdam. The transaction took place either in May or June of 1626. Peter Minuit made an offer of buying Manhattan worth 60 guilders to local Native American Lenape people and they accepted it. New governor general knew that by acquiring the land the tensions between his people and the Indians would be reduced. Dutch settlers quickly started to disperse in new directions, mainly toward the Delaware River area in New Jersey, Long Island and up the Hudson River.
    The acquisition of the Island from the Indians resulted in safer living and working conditions for settlers. Before the contract was signed, Indians and settlers competed for the same land and both sides had different views of how to use the land. Many battles, smaller or bigger took place on Manhattan Island between the natives and new comers. People didn’t feel safe outside the fort. They knew that any time Indians could come unexpectedly and attack the villagers. The acquisition made people feel that it’s their land, and they could do whatever they want to and nobody will trouble them. The mainly beneficiaries of the transaction were the Dutch. New houses, farms and other buildings were constructed further and further away from the fort.

54. nataliya.vynnychuk on 08 Jun 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    The Dutch bought the land of New York from Indians for ridiculously low price. They tricked the Indians into thinking that it was a fair trade as Indians had no concept of private property. There was no understanding of buying or selling land in the Indian culture. Moreover, Indians believed that land was a gift from Mother Nature and couldn’t be ‘owned’ by them. So, the money given to Indians by the Dutch was seen as just gifts. The agreement signed by the Indians to sell Manhattan Island was a trick, since the Indians couldn’t truly understand what they were signing. As a result, we live in a great project, called New York, but it never be said that the way the land was acquired was something to comment glowingly on.

55. nataliya.vynnychuk on 08 Jun 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    In terms of cultural life, diversification is an important aspect worth mentioning. As discussed in class, by 1643 in New York there were more than 18 languages spoken. With the constant increase in population size and ethnic diversity in New York, the Dutch soon found themselves in the minority within its own colony. I think that The Dutch must not have fully appreciated the value of religious tolerance in it’s highly centralized model of government as business and profit seemed to be the sole purpose of the colony of New York. Then, when the first Jews came in to settle, it had added even more confusion among the people within the colony. Therefore, something had to be changed in the city that clamored for progress.

56. Crystal Garris on 08 Jun 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    I believe that the most powerful change from 1600-1800 was the change from Dutch to British rule. The British also benefited the most from this change. They changed the name, knocked down the wall made to keep out Natives and expanded the amount of business that the ports endured and caused major economic growth in New York. They were also open to more diversity, which is one of the greatest things about New York today. The people I think were most affected negatively were the Native Americans and the slaves.

    Unlike before, where New Amsterdam was “bought” by the Dutch and the Natives were able to relocate and then be blocked out by a wall, they were actually subject to must worse conditions with the British. They were beaten, tortured and killed. Much similar to the slaves, who were now being used more and treated badly because of the fear of revolt being that they could join forces with freemen.

57. Dmitriy on 08 Jun 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    I would like to disagree with those stating the most important change was the transition from Dutch to British rule. This did nearly nothing for the city. regardless of whether it was under Dutch or British control it would still be a major port city. The British take-over did nothing but accelerate the inevitable. Were it not for Stuyvesant the city wouldn’t even be a point of interest for the Empire.

58. Thomas Harbison on 08 Jun 2011 at 7:24 pm #

    Note on commenting: our spam filter is erring on the overactive side, so if you comment and don’t see it appear right away, please sit tight. I will try to check it every few hours and approve all legitimate comments. For the long run, I will look into loosening the filter a bit.

59. glejdis.xamo on 08 Jun 2011 at 7:26 pm #

    Based on all of the reading and the class discussions there were a couple of people that influenced New York. Peter Stuyvesant, Charles the Duke of York, the British and Alexander Hamilton. When the Dutch were in charge there was much chaos in New Amsterdam. There would be a lot of; drinking, no one would attend church because the Dutch did not build one until 17 years later, merchants that ruled the place would make some money in beaver cloth but they could have made more if they sailed down south to the Caribbean. When Peter Stuyvesant was put in charge he implemented is military mentality to the public. Stuyvesant brought prosperity to society. He cleaned up all the mess in the city by implementing strict rules. Drinking was cut down, attendance in church was mandatory and the merchants made a lot more money when he was in charge. Although he was not liked by the public because of his obnoxious personality, he was appreciated for the work he did and the amount of money he brought to the merchants.
    When the British took over the people did not seem to mid because they just went on with their daily routine. The British brought an enlightened phase to New York by expanding based on trade and diversity. It was no longer called New Amsterdam but rather New York. Infrastructure was build and as well as a new social policy and new political policy. Charles the Duke of York governed based on his own terms and conditions. Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury focused on developing the economic and financial status of the city either by regulating trade, constructing fort, by establishing banking system in the city. His leadership paved way for important decision making and monitoring a very diverse town. When we think of New York City in the modern day we think of great infrastructure, trading and a very diverse place filled with thousands of different religion and people. Based on the works and leadership of people like Alexander Hamilton, Peter Stuyvesant and the control of the British and Dutch empire New York is what we live in today.

60. dimitris.kouvaros on 08 Jun 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    All the above comments seem pretty solid in identifying a handful of powerful forces the had a great impact and changed New York between 1600 and 1800. The biggest forces that changed the future outlook of New York seemed to be the very powerful Dutch West India Company and the Iron Fist ruling Peter Stuyvesant. The big part that the Dutch West India Company had was settling in New York with one big thing in mind. To make a profit. And that mindset seemed to stick in the New York region even today. And the other powerful driver in the change of New York was Peter Stuyvesant. He was said to single handedly change the direction of New Amsterdam by adding strict laws ex) mandatory church visits, limiting alcohol, several strict taxes enforced. I cant say which was a bigger driver but both of them were a vital part in the creation and motive of today’s New York

61. dimitris.kouvaros on 08 Jun 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    In 1664 the hostile takeover of the Dutch by the British in New Amsterdam led to a change in business lifestyle in New Amsterdam. First off the British dropped the name and named it New York as a birthday present for the Duke of York. Second, the British takeover helped New York economically tremendously. Since British rule, New York became the third largest trading port and also became active in transatlantic trade. Otherwise known as the slave trade. The all beneifted New York and its residents tremendously but having an ill effect on the slave population. More-so the Native Americans and the African Americans. With the Native Americans getting their population cut down because of several reasons (disease, fighting, etc) and the African Americans living in horrible conditions, do hard work everyday with no reward or break when its over except to go out the next day and work even harder, etc. The British takeover had its positive outcome for many but had a horrible negative outcome on the Native Americans and the African Americans.

62. auvee.bhattacharjya on 08 Jun 2011 at 8:08 pm #

    I would agree with the general consensus of the commentariat thus far for this question. There is no doubt that without the leadership of Peter Stuyvesant and the Dutch West Indian Company, New York would not have grown into the financial and cultural hub that it has become today. His foresight, vision and execution in light of the meager situation in New York following conflicts and general imbalance with the Native Americans punctuates this. He came into New Amsterdam with intentions of strictly following his Dutch faith. While this maybe considered obstinate by many, it is exactly what the region needed in the state that it was in at the time – mayhem. When the English threatened to take land after the disintegration of the fur monopoly, instead of crying over spilled milk, Stuyvesant decided to create an exhaustive trade network to ensure the fiscal security of the area in the future. While his leadership did not necessarily bring forth immense culture, or population boom, it created a foundation for the future.

63. auvee.bhattacharjya on 08 Jun 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    To address the latter half of the question: I think the answer to that question is difficult to answer, since the answer can be construed to be various things depending on one’s perspective. On one hand, Stuyvesant’s stricter “iron fist” methodology made living in New York a pain for early adopters, since it was not what individuals were accustomed to; however, on the other hand, his strategy for economic growth and financial security proved to be beneficial to the community, regardless of the feelings that individuals had towards Stuyvesant.

64. xiaoyun.xu on 08 Jun 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    There are some comments about Peter Stuyvesant’s vision and motivation toward New Amsterdam. He was the one selected by the Dutch West India Company to replace Willem Kieft as the director general of the New Netherland colony in 1647. Indeed, I agree that he certainly is a better man for the New Amsterdam compare to Willem Kieft. Peter Stuyvesant’s adoption of a new draconian law make New Amsterdam orderly, such as closing small local pubs and brothels, enclosing large captive animals, also he trying to do some compensation for the Indians.

65. gregory.heath on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:00 pm #

    Port cities are built and based on trade, to what extent is generally determined by the quality of the port and the quantity of its users. I think New York City’s history was entirely inevitable. It was guaranteed to become a great city because of the various qualities that made it a superior port (Its size, location, the depth of its waters, etc.) Had the East Indian Trading company not been the entity to found it, the result would be the same. Peter Stuyvesant’s role (as has been mentioned and re-mentioned multiple times before) cannot be overlooked, but NYC would have been a port city either way. Perhaps his greatest contribution was the speeding of NYC’s progress.

66. jennifer.yu1 on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:00 pm #

    The British initiated many changes to New York ranging from government system to building institutions that would further develop New York into one of the top trading ports. Although the British governors were often marked with corruption and incompetence, they were successful in tackling financial problems and bringing forth economic development mainly working with what the city already had. For example, wall street which only consisted of gardens and small houses became the main center for commercial activities. City hall was first built in the intersection of wall street and broad streets and the first church and slave market was built by the 1730s. Along with the startup of institutions,they opened up many more trading routes. They quickly realized that in order. To compete with other countries they need to excel in their ship building. This brought about many ship building shops into the city. In many ways, the British recognized the potential of the city’s geographical location and poured in their resources to reap the maximum profit from it.

67. yuliya.akchurina on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:01 pm #

    I agree with the most of students. The British takeover in 1664 played a big role in the formation of New York City. Under the Dutch rule New Amsterdam (New York) settled as a city. But under the British rule it became one of the largest ports in the world. Under the British rule New York broadened the market relationships. Commercial needs of New York merchants grew, trade expanded. The view of the city has changed, there are many wharves occurred along the East River bay. Population of the city grew rapidly from 3900 in 1690 to 25000 in 1775.
    The British takeover brought good changes to merchants and dwellers of New York and harmed the Indians. As city grew and needed more place to built houses and other buildings, Europeans were increasingly displacing Indians from their land and destroy them. Indians died in wars and from diseases brought to the continent by Europeans.

68. gregory.heath on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    To answer the question specifically, however, I believe that the slave-trade is the process that changed NYC the most. Slavery was among the most profitable (If not the most profitable) industries in the New World. Only the very rich could own slaves, and their labor was needed all throughout the Western Hemisphere. New York served as the midway-point between Africa and the New World. The sale and transport of slaves was the business Peter Stuyvesant chose for NYC, and it made him and his city VERY prosperous near the end of this time period. In the movie, the part that struck me the hardest was when they mentioned that slaves had built Wall St. both financially and literally.

69. heng.yu on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:06 pm #

    In my opinion, Britain was the most power force at that time. Before the Englishmen came, the Dutchmen were settled and doing businesses. Suddenly Englishmen came and took over everything from Dutchmen. For instance, they changed the name of the city from New Amsterdam to New York. And Englishmen controlled all the businesses in the city. The vision of social class changed. This caused many influences and dark sides behind it. After Englishmen controlled the city, the Native Americans and Africans were not the beneficiary. Lots of them were killed. And many of them became slaves. The city was not safe at that time. There were many killings, diseases and crimes happening every day.

70. Hitakshi Sharma on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    I agree with many of the comments above that The Dutch West India Company and Peter Stuyvesant were the major forces that helped change New York City. The Dutch India Company helped New York go through major changes like clearing of the land and constructing buildings. When Stuyvesant was appointed to clean up the city, New York was straightened out into a better living and working place. People accepted his rules and his was of cleaning up the place even when he banned drinking and fighting in public. Under his charge, New York also gained many institutions like schools, bars, organized streets with houses and work buildings, etc. Anyone was welcomed into the city as long as they were willing to work. However, this proved to be a benefit and a downfall for the city as a whole. Where New York experienced an increase in the population and gained people that wanted to work, communication became a problem because at the time 18 languages were being spoken.
    This change was beneficial for the Dutch. The city was mainly run by the merchants and the Dutch were the ones that enjoyed the profit from the trading ports. On the other hand, the Native Americans faced the harm from this change. They were the ones who resided in New York much before the Dutch discovered it. After the arrival of the dutch, their land was taken away from them and the natives were enslaved.

71. heng.yu on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:27 pm #

    I agree with most of my classmates that Stuyvesant was one of the main forces. Stuyvesant started to regulate the city and New York became a successful merchant town. Less than five years, Dutchmen had built the canals and schools. The idea of separation of church and state was found at that time. Also Stuyvesant let everyone in to the city. That made New York City so diverse. There were 18 languages spoken instead of just French.

72. jennifer.yu1 on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Also, I would like to note that while I agree with the above comments arguing Peter Stuyvesant and the Dutch West India company bringing about drastic changes to what was then New Amsterdam, the city would not have been able to develop as one of the top trading ports as rapidly as it did if it was not for the immigration of the French and English. After 1685, French Huguenots and the English formed the new commercial elite and through their family and ethnic ties, provided commercial advantages to the trade system. Consequently, the Dutch lost its ground as the majority of the population.

73. taimoor.shahid on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    I agree with majority of people that change of control from Dutch to British proved to be a turning point in history of New Amsterdam.Soon after the control moved in British hands, NewAmsterdam became a new trading center. Native Americans were moved out of the city and it was changed into an idustrial area. Gradually newamsterdam became economically strong. After that, slaves were brought in and newamsterdam changed into a trade center of slave marketing. Thus british control over newamsterdam changed it into an economically strong area and as Ashleigh pointed out, newamsterdam became one of the biggest ports of the british empire.

74. Rebecca Somers on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    One of the most obvious changes to New York City was with the arrival of the Europeans. Prior to them New York had a densely populated Indian community where forest, hunting, and tribal leaders dictated family and social life. Once the Dutch discovered New York, they used the Native Americans for knowledge of the territory and foods, and then built a huge wall to shun them out as well as other intruders in 1635. In the beginning, the Dutch also established a trading system with the Five Nations of Iroquois Tribes which was beneficial to both, but it was not successful in preventing future conflicts. Under the Director Keift he commanded his soldiers to selfishly and brutally punish and attack the Indians. Under Stuyvesant, New York actually began to look like the city is today with it’s parallel blocks, vertical structure, and population growth. Unfortunately for the Dutch, they did not anticipate New York becoming a huge financial success, so they had no other choice but to surrender via petition to Great Britain. Great Britain treated the Native American population even worse and encouraged war between tribes, and destroyed the population through war and disease. The Great Britain empire named the different boroughs representing different monarchs and founded New York as a manufacturing and merchant city. For over 119 years Britain would indirectly rule New York and England prospered greatly.

    In my opinion the social hierarchy that was brought into New York by the Europeans had lasting effects on the city even after the 1600s-1800s. It was one of the first ways to justify racial, religious, and economic segregation. When the Europeans came in they viewed themselves above the indigenous Native population, and when Africans from Africa were sent to New York, they were below them too. This “better than/less than” class system provided Merchants and the working class to believe they could excel economically to obtain the “American Dream” but as for the lower class they were treated very unequally and inhumanely and were literally and figuratively stuck where they were placed. Indentured Servants, slaves, and Native Americans were shunned from the rest of the society and had to work hardest to get the bare minimum. The upper white elite class had servants fulfill their duties and voting rights. In the 1700s the white males who controlled the bulk of the nations wealth remained in the upper class. One of the successes of this social hierarchy was the American Revolution. The elites were not effective in the types of protests and riots that the middle and lower class were able to display, and they therefore depended on their support to overthrow the British Crown. The middle working class felt the negative effects of Britain on their pocket which therefore unified them because they were “more concerned with profits than with independence.” This class were more radical and were not afraid to voice out against the harsh impositions from Great Britain through violence and gathering increasing supporters.

75. el125594 on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    New Amsterdam was a great base for New York’s establishment, peter Stuyvesant had done a great job getting everything organized and made sure that everything was running correctly. The only thing he didn’t know is that the people wouldn’t fight the new government which took over everything Stuyvesant built. I believe that immigration had benefited New York as well since new working power arrived and the diversity of New York wouldn’t exist without this early immigration.

76. rodrigo.rodriguez on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    Well I agree with most in the class as one of the strongest forces to change NYC in the 1600-1800’s was Stuyvesant. The main reason why is he was one of the strongest forces was that not only did he create the path for NYC but he also established what NYC is today 400 years ago. If it wasn’t for Stuyvesant and his strict ways of conducting business, most likely NYC would not have been the business city that it is today. During the Stuyvesant rule the populations multiplied enormously. One because of small population but also many foreigners saw potential prosperity as many foreigners see in USA now. Even the downfall of Stuyvesant did not affect NYC business wise, even though all the names were changed or so NYC was already on its path to becoming the capital of the world.

    Obviously who benefited and profited the most from these actions was the Dutch West India Trading Company. By having a feared general as the leader of New Amsterdam it gave sense of security and confidence that an upcoming city might need. The only people that I see that got the worse part of the deal business wise were the Indians. The Indians were bought out of their beautiful harbor for a price next to nothing. Its just seemed as if it was taking candy from a baby when you think about it. The Dutch foreseen this Harbor as a goldmine and gave a little chump change to get their way.

77. el125594 on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    I believe that the money driven society New Amsterdam was built on and for had influenced the quick and prosperous growth of the New York we see today. The Dutch main concern was to make as much money as possible, this pretty much created the most powerful city in the world. The Dutch weren’t interested in serving god, thus they didn’t build churched, well at least not for 18 years. Thanks to this money driven society the first Jewish Saphardic family was allowed into the states in 1664. Other wise Stuyvesant wouldn’t allow Jewish migration.

78. yuliya.akchurina on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:08 pm #

    Growth of the population of New York City led to expansion urban economy. This meant division of society into two classes: rich and poor. There was no way for poor to become rich or to gain at least some wealth. Rich people got all the benefits that actually were more important to poor neighborhoods. Rich people were able to pay for it anyway and poor weren’t. The small percent of the wealthiest population owned more that a half of property in the city.

79. Menty Shao on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:14 pm #

    I agree that the most successful person changed New York City between 1600 and 1800 is Peter Stuyvesant. As the director-general, Stuyvesant successfully expanded the settlement of New Amsterdam. He ordered the building of the protective wall on Wall Street, the canal that became today’s Broadway as well as schools and church. I think the group that benefited most from the changes that Stuyvesant made was the British people, who took the overall control of New York after Stuyvesant’s reformation.

80. ap125170 on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    Like all my classmates, I agree that Peter Stuyvesant was the person that changed New York City between 1600 and 1800. He was able to run NYC as a business and set forth rules and regulations in a place that basically was focused on having fun and making money. Under his control money was being made but in a better and efficient way. He set the grounds for British to be able to control NYC better. If Stuyvesant had not succeed in controlling the city, the British would have had to start from scratch. Stuyvesant set the foundation for NYC

81. Mendo on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    Also the rule over the New Amsterdam brought an iindustrial revolution in the city that changed the nature of both economic and social lives of people. The slavery trade were started as triangular trade system where slaves were imported from West Indies. As England was one of the most powerful city in the world, it was obvious that the cities under the control of them would bring development in terms of every aspects; either on the size of people, technologies, employment, education, or health facilities.
    It’s mostly difficult to start and create an idea about anything, but if we get a sample then it won’t be that hard to move the step and start work. Likewise, Britain was an idol for the New York City through where most of the ideas and designs were brought in the process of developing the city. For example an Iron Flat Building which was built and designed by the influence of ancient Greece and Rome.

82. kenji.ueno on 08 Jun 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    I agree with the classmates’ comments that the major force of the change in New York was the Stuyvesant’s ruling. His ruling made the New Amsterdam shaped up as a trading port, and making the city’s structures similar to today’s vertical streets shapes. Also he admitted the immigrants from many other countries and the immigration allowed the city to be making the structure of the today’s New York City’s population, but at the same time it made problems with languages matter.
    I also think that the event of English taking the ruling of New York over Dutch was one another major change. After English took over, they changed the name of the land to New York. The city has grown bigger as a trading port, and it gained the economic power at the era, However, the slave market has become bigger in the trading market, and this resulted in a lot of deaths occurred among African Americans and other slaves. Although the change in the ruler was definitely a turning point in the history, but it cannot be called beneficial for all of the city’s population.

83. tahifa.rahman on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:02 pm #

    New York City, one of the busiest cities in the world, where every ethnic background can be found has gone through numerous changes throughout its history to reach its current point. The modern aspect of this city that we see and enjoy today was not present back in the 1600s. To achieve this modern day New York, the city has been shaped by different rulers throughout time. The Dutch and English establishments are one of the biggest factors for this change. The first establishment was made by the Dutch who introduced the Dutch West India Trading Company. which was the most successful commercial company for 200 years. The Dutch started making real estate deals with the Indians and Manhattan was bought. However things did not run smoothly especially after the war with the Indians which was known as ‘The Year of the Blood’. People were chaotic, and there was no law and order. The Dutch thought the solution to this problem was to appoint Peter Stuyvesant as the Governor of New Amsterdam in 1647 (modern day New York City). Peter Stuyvesant introduced discipline and rule among the people (he banned drinking and street fighting). The population increased and he established an economic base which was the trade of slaves. He built canals and forts to protect the city from the attacks of the Indians and English invasion. His main focus was to build a strong economic and financial status for the city. Even though Stuyvesant did not agree, there were people of different backgrounds migrating into New Amsterdam. His main fear was that this diversification would make it very difficult to rule New Amsterdam. However his rule came to an end when the British took control over New Amsterdam and changed its name to New York.
    The British rule brought about a negative experience for the Native American population. They destroyed and removed the Native American population, encouraged war between them and spread diseases. The slave trade increased and they were brought into the city against their will. They lived in great fear, their labor was exploited and the demand for slaves grew each day. The British hierarchy on the other hand made immense wealth due to slave trade with other colonies. However slaves were mistreated and were tortured and killed as they became suspects of series of events (such as the burning of the king’s chapel) that took place. They were roasted alive and the medieval practices of punishment came back to surface.
    Another person responsible for the changes of New York City was Alexander Hamilton who was the secretary of treasury. His main focus was to bring about a strong economic and financial structure in the city. As the secretary of the state, Hamilton established a national bank, a system of tariffs and a friendly trade with Britain which New York City heavily relied on. After Quasi-War, Hamilton one of the delegates elected to the Continental Congress. He initiated a treaty among New York and Britain known as the Jay’s Treaty in 1794. This treaty proved to be extremely beneficial by averting war, solving some issues of the Treaty of Paris of 1783 and provided New York with ten years of peaceful trade with Great Britain. Alexander Hamilton provided clause so that they can gain the primary American goal such as withdrawal of the British army from the pre-revolutionary forts. They also agreed upon war-time debts, Americans were granted limited rights to trade with British possession god with Indian and colonies in the Caribbean in exchanged for some limits on the American export of cotton.
    New York City has a rich and deep history. The formation of New York City is greatly due to the Dutch and The English establishment. The different styles of ruling, including the positive and negative effect of each rule are responsible for New York City’s creation. Notable contributors such as Alexander Hamilton also helped shape New York City.

84. yutik.lam on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:08 pm #

    I agree with most of the above comments. The Dutch settlement and Peter Stuyvesant are the major powerful forces that have shaped New York City. The Dutch saw the economic opportunities of Manhattan and turned the town into an important seaport along the coast of North America. Goods traveled down the Hudson River to the New Amsterdam and then transported to Europe. This project benefited the merchants and attracted people from other country came to the town. It also leads to the diversity. At that time there are 18 languages spoken in New Amsterdam. Peter stuyvesant came to the city in 1647. He then began a series of improvements to change the shape of the city. He built bulkheads along the waterfront, the first pier on the East River, Latin school and bridges across the canal. Wall and ditch were also constructed to defend the city. The Dutch and Peter Stuyvesant believed that a more compact use of available land would be more economical and probably more manageable. I believe this Dutch influences contributed the current New York City landscape, as well as its multiethnicity and multiculture tolerance. The Native American should be the greatest victim in this radical changes of Manhattan. The Dutch got their land and took advantage of them. It eventually made the Native American moving out.

85. yutik.lam on 09 Jun 2011 at 12:00 am #

    Some people said that the English is the most powerful forces. However, it seems like the English people didn’t do much to build or improve the city. Most of the city planning was done by the Dutch. The English people not only turned the city to a trade center of slaves, but also caused more problems associated with the rapid growth of population, such as the spread of diseases and fire. In addition, the social hierarchy leaded to social unjust and poverty. The british merchants made the slavery problems more intense. Therefore I think the Dutch is more likely the founder of New York City because they changed the city more dramatically.

86. jaiying.lin on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:17 pm #

    Colonial Taverns were appearred as the developping market economy in New York city by the early seventeenth centuries. Tavens were the places for men of all classes. Although they usually drank, ate, talked and heard news overthere, it had more important social influences because it was plenty duscussion of political issues and bussiness affairs. This type of informal grouping was popular in colonial New York. However, as the rising heavy drinking led some social disordered behaviors, complaints also appearred. In order to appease this problem, colonial government set up a licensing establishment for taverns. In this way, it gave colonial government more social control. However, the number of public houses did not decrease. By 1752, New York has issued 334 licenses. Since tavern encouraged dwellers’s social, political and commercial activities, it had essential function on colonial New York’s developping of democracy.

87. jaiying.lin on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    I agree with Yuliya Akchurina’s comments on class division in colonial New York. It is true that there was huge gap between rich and poor people, but there was also obvious different social status btween white and black, men and women. Rich white men were the most powerful group in society. They could interfere political affairs. They owned property and slaves. They had rights and freedoms. On the other hand, black slaves were treated as commodities. It was evident when black men were considerred more valuable if they did not have their own families, because single black men provided good labor force and brought less financial burden to their white owners. And women at that time did not recieve respect as men in society. They always considered as dependent and ignorant. They could not attend any social activities such as going to taverns.

88. jianping.gao on 08 Jun 2011 at 11:49 pm #

    I agree with most classmates’ opinion. I think profit making is one of the most powerful forces that transformed New York City. From Dutch to British government, they both focused on the profit making. But Dutch government didn’t organize well. They only focused on the business and lacked of interest in building schools, churches, libraries, and many other culture institutions. Since there were no strict regulations and the whole society was so simplex, the business expansion was limited. Unlike the Dutch, the British administration had a more efficient method of governance. They add diversity culture to New York They build more schools, churches, and other cultural institutions. They also connected the colonies to the trade. All of these helped merchants expanded their business and made more profit.
    When the British took place of the nyc, people accepted the government change. They knew that their daily life will not change. No matter what government took place, people won’t like them since there is always someone gets harmed behind all of those changes. But the changes also brought something good. They allowed people from anywhere to come to create a diverse culture. Also, with the great increase of trading, nyc becomes a main business center which remains the same as today.

89. Natalia Abramov-V. on 09 Jun 2011 at 12:04 am #

    I agree with Frank Scalogna’s comments. The Dutch West India Company had a big impact to NYC founding, but the major role in city’s development played the English. The Dutch settled his colony and reserved the land of Manhattan Island for Company use and profit. During the Dutch time, New Amsterdam was a corrupt, mismanaged company town.
    The Company increased the population of the New Amsterdam and at the same time brought cultural diversity. Even if Peter Stuyvesant, who arrived as Director-General in 1647, sought to improve the city, most of his ordinances were ignored and all he achieved was the growing disaffection of the inhabitants. Nevertheless some of his improvements year by year changed the shape of the city.
    The reasons of the Dutch failure were following: fraudulent use of company money for private profit; bad government; failure to build the population; incompetent commercial trade; the Indian wars provoked by Kieft and so on.
    By the 1660s, under British rule, life in NY was dominated by the merchants, traders, lawyers and public officials and at that time NY made significant economic advances.

90. Natalia Abramov-V. on 09 Jun 2011 at 12:07 am #

    As Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, Alexander Hamilton had great influence over the economy. Hamilton contributed in securing the trading relationship with England, stable political and also financial system had been created. For the next 25 years the nation was ruled, whether by Federalists, Anti-Federalists or Republicans, by the generation that had declared independence, fought the British and written the Constitution. So ended, I believe that there is no a major force/person that change the city, as each of them had an important role in shaping the development of city.

91. Kevin Persaud on 09 Jun 2011 at 12:10 am #

    It seems as though almost every aspect of New Amsterdam/ New York from the 1600s to the 1800s has been covered in the many comments before me. I agree with most of the comments and personally found that Peter Stuyvesant did a great job of ruling and transforming New Amsterdam. As we read in the readings on his achievements and setbacks I felt that he was very similar to some of New York’s most recent leaders. Like any good leader he did face his fair share of setbacks and surely the “Year of the Blood” was not one of his best moments but certainly his achievements were par none. Yes, he did have to surrender to the British for the benefit of his city, but I felt that this was inevitable as is any great leader’s reign must come to an end sometime. Without the leadership of Stuyvesant New York would not have blossomed into the city that is now at the fast pace it did.

92. Kevin Persaud on 09 Jun 2011 at 12:24 am #

    Merchants Always Win
    I agree with your argument that the people who benefitted the most were the merchants. I felt that no matter who was ruling New Amsterdam/ New York the merchant class always seemed to be reaping benefits. When Stuyvesant was ruling New Amsterdam his strict rules allowed merchants to make more money than before. When they British took over merchants gained an expansion in trade as the British opened them up to many new opportunities. Even when the British put heavy restrictions on merchant trade in America, merchants were still able to earn money though the ‘grey market.’ Therefore, no matter what was going on in New York the merchants were always on the top.

93. natalia.tatishvili on 09 Jun 2011 at 12:53 am #

    I agree with most of the comments that Dutch Director-General Petrus Stuyvesant was a major player in bringing some kind of stability to New Amsterdam and contributed to the building of infrastructure in the city. But on the other hand, he didn’t really concentrated on bringing community as whole, and at the end failed to manage diverse population of New Amsterdam. I believe that major role between 1600 and 1800 in developing New York City history was played by British Government when they took over in 1660. The bad government and poor management of Dutch failed and the British took over. The British Government was able to bring significant economic advances to New Yorkers. People that benefited the most were merchants because under new government nothing was changed for them and they were still able to accumulate wealth but people bellow them had to pay higher taxes and were at disadvantage.

94. cheokhong.yu on 09 Jun 2011 at 1:15 am #

    I agree most of the comments above. Based on the reading by Eric Homberger, I think Crijn Fredericxsz was one of the person who changed New York between 1600-1800.
    In 1625, the settlers arrived along with the Amsterdam engineer, Crijn Fredericxsz, who got plans on building a new fort on a site chosen by the Director-designate, Willem Verhulst. WIthin the fort there was space for a market place , houses, a hospital, school, and a church. Becuase of their efforts, the firsr permanent settlement on Manhattan was established. The existing huts, built at random by the first settlers followed no recogniable street pattern before. However, Crijn Fredericxsz laid out a pattern of streets and lots for houses, and larger sites along the main north- south path for Dutch farms or bouweries.

95. xiaoyan.chen on 09 Jun 2011 at 1:29 am #

    Comparing with Dutch rule New Amsterdam,under British rule New York made significant economic advances,perhaps best illustrated in the transformation of Wall Street from a little frequented path,lined with small houses and large gardens, on the perimeter of the city in 1664, to the heart of its commercial life. The first permanent pavement in New York was laid in Wall Street in 1693, and the wharf at Wall and Pearl Street was constructed in 1694. The increasing commercial role of Wall Street was confirmed when the new City Hall, replacing the Stadt Huys, was erected on the upper street at the intersection of Wall and Broad Streets. Trinity Church was erected in 1696 at Broadway and Wall. Within a decade the market house at the eastern end of wall street had been completed, and the coffee hose at wall and water streets opened. The first Presbyterian church was erected in 1712 on a lot west of City Hall. Bayard’s sugar house was an imposing commercial building on Wall Street. A slave market existed at the foot of lower Wall Street from 1731. The economic development and the social change make New York City different with the other cities at that time, and it becomes a commercial city.
    The British governor slave vendors and the businessmen get benefits from the change. As the commercial development, government earned the tax income from the trades. Also the slave vendor make a huge profit from the slave market.

96. yeungyu.tsui on 09 Jun 2011 at 1:31 am #

    I agree with most of the comments above. Between 1600s and 1800s, the Dutch West Indian Company and the director General, Peter Stuyvesant are the most powerful forces. He greatly develops the city, and set up rule and regulation, the society become more stabilize; therefore, the city is more suitable for people to have commercial activities. Under Stuyvesant administration, New Amsterdam rename New York, this name has been used until now. New York becomes Commercial based city and one of the important trading port at that time. By trading tobacco, lumber, fur and slave, the economic raised up, the traders were greatly benefited by make more money than before.

    However, there is two side of a story, by the success of economic growth, it cause numbers of harms. New York became a major slave trading market. The African American was unfairly treated. They were being traded and work in terrible condition. Secondly, the huge increase of the population also causes bad effect too. It enlarged the rich and poor gap, bring in disease. The Native American population significantly dropped because they were forced to move out and died from diseases.

97. cheokhong.yu on 09 Jun 2011 at 3:00 am #

    I agree with the comments above. Base on the movie that showed in the class, I think petrus stuyvesant is the major power force to change New York. Many people think he was a terrible person but in fact he did something good. In 1624-1647, nobody was really in charged. During this period, the government was corrupted and mismanaged. the Dutch West India Company by sending him to make regulation and rules so that to make the city stable and not being out of control. Also, he was able to make more money for people. He makes profit growing up particularly on Merchants. He regularize position by encourafubg trade links which benefit to the murchants. He brings a new model of industry that work out in the long run although there were a lot failure on his regulation in short run because of people opposed him.

98. andrew.hahm on 09 Jun 2011 at 3:34 am #

    A lot of the comments consists of staging Stuyvesant and the Dutch as the major force that changed New York, but in contrast, the British engineered more improvements on economical advances which is ultimately the face of New York today. New York is known as the capital market of the world with billions and billions of dollars circulating through this city everyday. Without the British rule, New York’s very existence would’ve been certainly questionable. The drastic transformation of Wall Street, a little frequented path, now a street that functions as the very engine of probably every market in the world was all due to the British taking over. Not only did the British construct a much more efficient trading system and a much stronger economy, the British was also responsible for pushing out the Native Americans and gaining more land than the Dutch ever did. The British empire soon toppled the Dutch West India Company and had become the highest trader throughout that era. Those who lost from this take over by the British was certainly the Native Americans, having been too strongly influenced by the British rule which led to tribal warfare and lose of land to the British.

99. cheokhong.yu on 09 Jun 2011 at 3:45 am #

    Petrus Stuyvesant’s policy mainly focus on business which benefit on merchants. However, he did have some harsh policies which harm the inhabitants. Stuyvesant’s first domestic order restricted sale of intoxicants and compelled observance of the Sabbath. He became a church warden of the Reformed congregation and commenced rebuilding its edifice. Clerics and councilmen easily persuaded him (in a move aimed at Lutherans and Quakers) to forbid meetings not conforming to the Synod of Dort. Though Amsterdam reproved him on this point and counseled tolerance, under the narrowly religious Stuyvesant dissent was always frowned upon. The inhabitants soon learned, however, that their new governor was not so liberal as themselves. Therefore, they started to oppose his policy.

100. Hailie J on 09 Jun 2011 at 10:50 am #

     One of the greatest change of New York City in the colonial age is the British took the power from the Dutch. Since New Amsterdam became New York many things were changed rapidly. There are three major alterations. First of all, the British brought hierarchy rule of status. Second, people in New York City joined urban life style, but at the same time many kinds of diseases and the number of urban poor grew ever larger. Finally, people who were from variety countries and different classes lived together in a city. As a result, this circumstance create cultural diversity that still makes New York City special, nowadays. In conclusion, based on those three factors, it is clear that people who were harmed and got disadvantages were always low class citizens as well. Furthermore, as New York City grew more and more, the social distance between rich and poor progressively separated.

101. HuiLing Liang on 09 Jun 2011 at 5:42 pm #

     I strongly agree with comments above, the most influential force in that period was Peter Stuyvesant, who served as the last Dutch Director-General of the colony of New Netherland from 1647 until it was ceded to the English in 1664, after which it was renamed New York. He developed New Amsterdam as a great trading port, and it benefited merchants. Many people moved from other countries to make money, which made New Amsterdam became more diversified city. The population grew rapidly and the city became more flourished.

102. HuiLing Liang on 09 Jun 2011 at 5:58 pm #

     As I mentioned above, the one who benefited the most were merchants. They are trading with each other and they could have better living. On the other hand, the slavery market also became larger, which means that slaves were suffering from the prospering city. This caused the inequality among people and leaded to hierarchy of society. So in my opinion, if someone were benefited from the big change of the city, then someone must be harmed from it.

103. John Fernandes on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:51 pm #

     Since this is such a late comment and after a total of 121 comments – there is nothing new that I can add. The general consensus seems to be that Peter Stuyvesant made the most difference to NYC and although I feel that Stuyvesant is the easiest option to go with, unfortunately I do believe in the difference he made. I believe that the most difficult thing is to have a vision and to work on it. Given the situation that Stuyvesant had to do that in makes it ever so much more impressive. He came to NY when there was unrest and the natives hated the Dutch, when the city was in a downward spiral and transformed it within 5 years, just 5 years. He got the slaves to build the infrastructure in the city and instilled discipline among new yorkers.

     The English on the other hand came to the city and simply build on Stuyvesant’s vision and ground work. Not that they did not play a vital role in the development of NYC, but as I said before I always hold a visionary in higher regard.