A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show March 29, 2004, March 29, 2005, March 29, 2006, March 29, 2007, March 29, 2008, March 29, 2009, March 29, 2010, March 29, 2013, March 29, 2016, and March 29, 2019

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philadelphia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Sweden Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New Jersey Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of the Americas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Delaware Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Low-importance).

Is it true that sweden was the second country from where settlers went to the "new world"? links? doubt it... Foant 17:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. Sweden was right behind the English and Dutch but they were first I'm pretty sure in the Colonies. Of course Spain beat them all. I'm not sure about Portugal in terms of founding a settlement but they were second in charting out the area of New England. [1] 12.220.47.145 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

March 7, 2006; the map of New Sweden interposed on the New Netherland Wikipedia entry is not contemporary. It is of recent creation which (if at all, because of its interpretive purpose) belongs to an entry on Wikipedia about New Sweden (definitely not on the New Netherland page) which was established by various disenfranchised and disgruntled members of the Dutch West India Company (including Willem Usselincxs, Samuel Blommaert and Peter Minuit) under the auspices of the Swedish king. Petrus Stuyvesant had been ordered by the States General to retake the area which he did on September 25,1655, with a fleet of seven ships and a force comprising 317 soldiers and over 300 sailors. He was told to do "his utmost to revenge this misfortune not only by restoring matters to their former condition, but also by driving the Swedes at the same time from the river as they did to us". DEKONING — Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Koning, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not keep removing the map of New Netherlands and New Sweden from the article again; it was probably made by a wikipedian for these two articles, so yes it is surely "of recent creation". Also, please DO NOT SHOUT on talk pages. And finally, please sign your comments. Thanks. // Big Adamsky 06:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr. Adamsky, The map of New Sweden is wrongly annotated and its interpretation is historically incorrect. It has therefore no comtemporary meaning unless you produce an engraved map of New Sweden engraved in that specific year 1650. Even then, the map belongs on the New Sweden site only and not on the New Netherland site. Please, be respectful. DeKoning — Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I promise to be respectful, however you have not yet convinced me as to how the map is not historical or does not belong in these two articles. The caption states that both areas are shown in relation to each other, so I don't see where else the map would belong. It is quite obvious that this map was created recently, and not created in the 17th century, like the paintings that are also in the article. Do not revert unless you can provide a better map yourself, otherwise you might be in violation of the three-revert rule. To sign your posting, just type four tildes (like this ~~~~). // Big Adamsky 17:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr. Adamsky, What is your interest in insisting on posting a modern interpretive map about New Sweden on a New Netherland site? If people want to know about New Sweden they can go to that Wikipedia site without any problem. The three maps (did you call them paintings?) on the New Netherland site are of the 17th century and NOT, as you appear to claim, from a later date. Not only are you disrespectful of the New Netherland site but you are also ruinous of its integrity and therefore guilty of vandalism. If you read the historical facts carefully, then you know that your modern New Sweden map's caption is erroneous because of, what you say, "both areas are shown in relation to each other". You may need to study history a bit more to understand that one area was situated temporarily contained in another one rather than being (wrongly colored) separate geo-political sections. If you are an expert on New Sweden history, please, focus on that site. I hope that Wikipedia editor Laura Scudder ☎ will be able to do something about that. Respectfully yours, DeKoning — Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

There isn't any rule in wikipedia that only historical maps are used as illustration. On the contrary: new maps drawn by wikipedians are encouraged. As Adamsky said the disputed drawing is not a New Sweden map but shows the two colonies together so it is certainly useful for both articles. If you think the map factually incorrect please give us clear explanations and make a better one correcting the mistakes. Zello 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr. Zello, New Sweden was a transitory interposition in geo-political New Netherland. A 1648 manuscript map, engraved by Jan Jansson in 1650 may illuminate this point. New Sweden was not an adjoining complement to New Netherland as your modern interpretive map seems to want to tell with its opposite, disparate coloring. If you want to make the public believe your interpretation or would like to debate this further, you ought to do that on the Wikipedia New Sweden site. Similalry, there would be no place for modern, interpretive maps of New Holland (now Cape Cod) or New Netherland on the Wikipedia New England site. Let New England deal with its own history. Respect the history of the various colonies and don't superimpose them on top of one another to try to make a subjective point. I can't give you a clearer explanation than this. Your map requires to be on the New Sweden site only, i.e., not on the Virginia, not on the New England and not on the New Netherland site. DeKoning — Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

BKonrad/Zello/BigAdamsky: New Sweden was not based on (1) first discovery, (2) original exploration, surveying and mapping; and (3) first settlement. It was based on the initiative of various West India Company directors with prior New Netherland experience selling their services to Sweden. New Sweden was therefore an interjection in New Netherland and not a complement to New Netherland. The New Sweden map you are insisting on publishing on the New Netherland site should be only on the New Sweden site as that is the site that pertains to your argument which you are trying to support by your modern deception. Putting the New Sweden map on the New Netherland site belongs to broken history and is historically false. If you continue to post that map, it will be transferred to the New Sweden site. Respectfully yours. March 19, 2006, DeKoning — Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

More relevant than your three points, New Sweden was based on military control. I believe it was demonstrated that New Netherland was incapable of controlling their claimed territory, so how then is the territory actually theirs? — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

That is an entirely different issue because what you state is that no one has a right to exist or to territorial integrity if incapable of defending oneself. Andorra, Luxemburg, Monaco, Estonia, even New Zealand etc. would be gone tomorrow. All I am pointing out is that New Sweden was inside New Netherland and not next to it. Hence, the map is wrong as a reflection of historical fact. March 19, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps my argument may best be explained by the analogy that, during the cold war, a part of West Germany, in the form of West Berlin, lied inside East Germany. I.e., Geographically, West Berlin was not adjacent to East Germany. Perhaps it could be so depicted as a complement to East Germany if one were to draw a colored population density map instead. America, like all sovereign territories, is defined by its geopgraphical reality and not by its population distribution. The modern New Sweden map is neither a historical geographical map nor a population density map. It commingles those issues and by default is an erroneous depiction. For those who care about visual and textual accuracy, the erroneous New Sweden map does not belong on the New Netherland site as it distorts (deliberately?) the historical reality. New Netherland’s southern border started at Cape Hinlopen, just south of the Delaware Bay and was so surveyed and mapped by Cornelis Jacobsz May in 1613 and 1614. The river itself, though, was surveyed and charted by Cornelis Hendricks on the ship Unrest between 1614 and 1616. May became New Netherland’s first director in 1624. Samuel Godijn, a director of the West India Company, had a patent for the west side of the South (Delaware) River where he built a fort and established the colony of a few dozen men at Swanendael in 1630. At least 32 of them if not all were killed by the Indians in 1632. The colony’s focus had been on the whaling industry. Another director, Albert Coenraetsz Burgh had received a patent for the east side of the river. After Stuyvesant had dislodged the Swedish presence, the west side of the river fell under the jurisdiction of the City of Amsterdam (rather than the West India Company) which started the colony of Nieuwer Amstel. The origin and disappearance of New Netherland and New Sweden are very different. As certain Wikipedia editors seem to insist that they know better than the facts, I am leaving Wikipedia as mentioned on the talk page of the New Netherland site unless visual and textual accuracy is pursued by the respective Wikipedia editors. DeKoning March 20, 2006 — Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The modern map above has no geographical or historical signifance. One needs to find out who drew it as it was drawn to mislead the unsuspecting Wikipedia reader. To continue the use of this map as a population distribution map by solely changing its caption to reflect that new thought, is a covert attempt at continuing the use of the map as a Trojan Horse. As a population map the map is not credible as New Sweden had just about 200 colonists in 1648. I would like to see contemporary census statistics that would then justify the shading of this map relative to the purple shading which makes, after all, no sense at all. Furthermore, if the false caption were to be changed as proposed by Zello, i.e., purporting to show New Sweden's relative population position to New Netherland, why doesn't he show its relative population position to Virgina? He will have to do a lot of people counting and figuring out where they lived. The map is a hoax. DeKoning — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The only map of New Sweden which would make sense would be to choose a year and then fill in all the locations of the Swedish forts and show them relative the New Netherland forts and the Virginia forts. Then it would be a map to show forts rather than one attempting to depict a population distribution or geographical reality. DeKoning — Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey everyone, it was recently requested that I remake the map in question here in svg format. I can adjust it to reflect whatever the editors here like, but I am not sure what the result of this discourse was. Anyway, here is the pic as it stands now

-- Cronholm ¹⁴⁴ 22:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I think what he is saying is that (in his historical view) the notion of New Sweden and New Netherlands as being shown as *separate* at all is the troubling part. From what I can tell (from his objection), both New Sweden and New Netherlands should be under the same geopolitical entity (i.e. New Netherlands) as the New Sweden colony was merely a temporary breakaway province that was (relatively quickly) reconquered/reclaimed by New Netherlands. Thus in his mind they should be the same color on a map -- or the idea of a map showing them separately is wrongheaded.

If this is what he means - then I'd say he's wrong...and I disagree 100 percent. This would be like objecting to a map of modern-day Iraq and Kuwait...on the basis that the British "stole" Kuwait and that it really is (and should be) part of Iraq. Or objecting to a map of Europe that failed to show Poland (though Poland ceased to exist for nearly 150 yrs).

Or perhaps better...showing a map of Nigeria and coloring Biafra a different color (to show the relative position of the two states). On the Nigeria/Biafra issue...it is clear that for a period of time there *were* two states, whether or not anyone else recognized them...and regardless of whether Nigeria quickly put down the rebellion and reconquered Biafra. By analogy -- New Sweden was quite separate from New Netherlands for a period of time. The fact that it was once Dutch...then Swedish/independent...then Dutch again should not stop anyone from creating a map that shows the two areas colored differently for illustrative purposes. If his point is that New Sweden didn't have control over all of the cited territory, that there was some remaining Dutch control all during New Sweden's existence, then a map modification showing the disputed zones might be in order. But the two colonies were clearly separate for a short time and the map is much closer to being correct in spirit (than incorrect). Chesspride 66.19.84.2 ( talk) 04:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Claim about Swedes and Norwegians & Irish no longer holds: in 20th and 21st centuries emigration from various Caribbean nations has sent out comparable proportions of those nations' populations. Dogru144 07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Most of the 18th century sources I have looked at state as fact that the Swedes had arrived in New Sweden in the year 1627, with Peter Lindstrom building Christeen and other forts by 1631, but that it was destroyed that year by the Dutch. Has this been discounted, or is it perhaps a fiction made up by Oxenstierna to establish a prior Swedish claim? Til Eulenspiegel 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The article on Christina of Sweden (for whom Fort Christina was named) says she didn't become queen until 1632. Can you find anything online supporting the earlier date?-- BillFlis 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Preliminary - I'm in Massachusetts and not likely to get to Philadelphia any time soon. There is an American-Swedish Museum in Philadelphia. Their libary has a volume that lists thirteen expeditions/boatloads of colonists sent to the New World. One of my ancestors was listed as arriving in America, at New Sweden, in 1620. He was a young orphan, and later participated in a rebellion against a tyrannical governor. He subsequently fled to Maryland, and the English refused to extradite him. The rebellion was put down, and one man was hanged by the Swedes. I see no mention of this event. It is recorded, but I don't have access to the proper citation.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.71 ( talk) 03:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

It is said that it was Admiral Klaus Fleming who offered for the revolting Finnish peasants after their capture two alternatives; to be hanged of go voluntarely with their families to New World to establish new Finnish settlements there in 1596 - 1597 to strenghten the position of the legal King Sigismund of Sweden (and Poland). A chapter totally omitted in Dutch and Swedish histories. It is said (but no confirmed written sources exist) that the Indian Chief of Mohawks who sold to the Dutch Manhattan was in origin a white man. It has been proved that the Finnish new settlers who came to New World had no problems with the neighbouring Indian tribes. Some scholars have come to conclusuon that the main population in Swedish Colonies were ethnically of Finnish origin. The Swedes and Germans hold the admistrative posts and Dutch were the fur traders but the remainders were Finns. At least two Finnish settlements are missing from the list. Kasteholma and Sauna. Sauna was located in the place which become later Philadelphia.

JN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.203.149 ( talk) 04:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I have toned down the nationalistic Finnish claims in the article, not because I am on a quest to belittle Finland or Finns but because the claims about, say, Måns Kling are unsubstantiated. Clas (or Klas) Fleming never used the Finnish (and German) spelling "Klaus" for his name. He was an aristocrat belonging to a family that originally came from Germany, but even so, he did not call himself Klaus; the family had been Swedish-speaking for generations. Furthermore, the huge 19th century emigration of Swedes to America included few ethnic Finns. Finland no longer belonged to Sweden, and the Finns who had settled in Sweden proper in the 16th century had almost all been assimilated at that stage. All that remained (and still remains) is the small Finnish-speaking population in the areas bordering Finland, and they were not only rather few but also not very active participants in the great emigration.

Ojevindlang — Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I should have put my note about a 1620 arrival in this section. Please see directly above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.71 ( talk) 03:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

The article for Tinicum Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania states that this town can claim the distinction of being the location of the first European settlement in what is now Pennsylvania, but w/o and citation of source. This could seem to be true considering its location on the Delaware River and Darby Creek. This is contradictory to the what is stated in New Sweden article, so I will not change it, but am going to tentatively link in Forts of New Netherland. If this fact can be verified, would be nice to know. Djflem ( talk) 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

From the above article:

South River and New Sweden

Apart from the second Fort Nassau, and the small community that supported it, settlement along the Zuyd Rivier was limited. Zwaanendael, during the absence of the patroon's agent, David Pietersen de Vries, was destroyed by the local population soon after its founding in 1631. Peter Minuit, who had construed a deed for Manhattan (and was soon after dismissed as director), knew that the Dutch would be unable to defend the southern flank of its North American territory and had not signed treaties with or purchased land from the Minquas. After gaining the support from the Queen of Sweden, he chose the southern banks of the Delaware Bay to establish a colony there, which he did in 1638, calling it Fort Christina, New Sweden. As expected, the government at New Amsterdam took no other action than to protest. Other settlements sprang up as colony grew, mostly populated by Swedes, Finns, Germans, and Dutch. In 1651, Fort Nassau was dismantled and relocated in an attempt to disrupt trade and reassert control, receiving the name Fort Casimir. Fort Beversreede was built in the same year, but was short-lived. In 1655, Stuyvesant led a military expedition and regained control of the region, calling its main town New Amstel. During this expedition some villages and plantations at the Manhattans ( Pavonia and Staten Island) were attacked in a incident that is known as the Peach Tree War. ^[1] These raids are sometimes considered revenge for the murder of an Indian girl attempting to pluck a peach, though it was likely that they were a retaliation for the attacks at New Sweden. ^[1] A new experimental settlement was begun in 1673, just before the British takeover in 1674. Franciscus van den Enden had drawn up charter for a utopian society that included equal education of all classes, joint ownership of property, and a democratically elected government. ^[1] Pieter Corneliszoon Plockhoy attempted such a settlement near the site of Zwaanendael, but it soon expired under English rule. ^[2] Djflem ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Whether the conquest of New Sweden should be considered part of the Second Northern War is debatable. Independent of the Dutch government, and several months before the Second Northern War began, the directors of the Dutch West India Company ordered Director-General Peter Stuyvesant to "drive" the Swedes from the river. This was in response to the seizure of Fort Casimir by the Swedes the previous year (Gehring, 2003; Johnson, 1911). While the Dutch did intervene in the war in Europe, a "state of war" never existed between the Dutch Republic and Sweden.

The Dutch did not "march" an army to the Delaware River in 1655. Stuyvesant and 300 Dutch soldiers boarded seven ships in New Amsterdam and sailed to Delaware Bay. (Johnson, 1911; Shorto, 2004)

Although there is a reference to the Peach Tree War in the Infobox, there is nothing about it in the body of the article. Note that reliable sources use "Peach War" not "Peach Tree War." (Shorto, 2004; Trelease, 1960; Van Zandt, 2008).

The Infobox indicates that New Sweden was "preceded by" the Susquehannock. This is incorrect as the Delaware River valley was inhabited by the Lenape (Delaware) in 1638. The source cited in the body of the article for Minuit's land purchase makes it quite clear that although the Susquehannock witnessed the transaction, the Lenape owned the land (Jennings, 1984).

The claim that Swedish traders had been visiting the Delaware River since 1610 does not appear in the source cited, nor is it supported by other sources. The first exploration of the river by Europeans was undertaken by the Dutch in 1616 (Ward, 1930).

Sources:

• Gehring, Charles T. (1995). "Hodi Mihi, Cras Tibi: Swedish-Dutch Relations in the Delaware Valley". In Hoffecker, Carol E.; et al. (eds.). New Sweden in America. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press. pp. 69–85.
• Jennings, Francis (1984). The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire. New York, New York: Norton. ISBN  0-393-01719-2.
• Johnson, Amandus (1911). The Swedish Settlements on the Delaware, 1638-1664, Volume 2, Philadelphia: Dutch Colonial Society, pp. 591-616.
• Shorto, Russell (2004). The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony that Shaped America. New York, New York: Doubleday. ISBN 978-0385503495.
• Trelease, Allan W. (1960). Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press.
• Van Zandt, Cynthia Jean (2008). Brothers among Nations: The Pursuit of Intercultural Alliances in Early America, 1580-1660. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195181241.
• Ward, Christopher (1930). The Dutch & Swedes on the Delaware, 1609–64 (PDF). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Griffin's Sword ( talk) 23:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm in support of the various changes you're advocating, both here and in the Second Northern War article. You seem knowledgeable in the subject. I advice you to be bold and let the changes initiate discussion, if there will be protests. Imonoz ( talk) 00:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Make sure to also include references as cited on the article like you've done with a couple already so that they're not just mentioned here, I also support changes supported by verifiable references. TylerBurden ( talk) 20:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply