Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being on a convenient shipping lane to London couldn't be the only reason, becuase then you have to argue why not Boston, Philly, Montreal, Norfolk, etc?
NY had a few things bounce in it's direction:
1) Philadelphia lost the title of capital, which took alot of steam away from it's roll as the nations pre-eminent city. Philly, for most of the 1700s, was NY's big rival.
2) The Erie canal was built in the 1820s. Previous to this, getting across the Appliacian mountains was a daunting task for individulals, never mind large scale shipping. The Erie canal changed that overnight, and it began in NYC.
3) The NYSE was started by men casually exchanging stocks on a Lower Manhattan street corner in the 1790s. NY was also the home of Alexander Hamilton, the man who during the colonial era largley was the intellectual leader of America's industrialists and merchants (in contrast to the agrigarian ethos of Jefferson).
4) New York expanded out to the five boroughs in 1898, giving the city some much needed breathing room at exactly the right time.
5) This point is somewhat more contriversal: Boston and Philadelphia had something of a protestant overtone to their founding that was not present in NY. Boston was the land of the Puritans and Philly of the Quakers. Both groups left England for religous purposes and were largley not oriented towards the casue of commerce as much as NY. NY started out as a trading post and nothing more, so one could argue that NYC has been ingranied with a more free wheeling, capitalist bloodstream than the other colonial cities at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X
To TheCity: when you say "Manhattan was only ruled by the Dutch for a short time," you make it sound like the Dutch were nothing more than a bunch of interlopers. The Dutch established New York. It was the British who took it away from them. And even when they did, it was nowhere near becoming an important commercial center for many years--at least a century, as a matter of fact.
The factors that led to New York's development centered around its location at a phenomenal natural harbor. Commerce (and the greed that occasionally accompanies it) was likely a factor as well: in the 18th century, the major ports in the Northeast were Boston and Philadelphia. By setting themselves up in New York rather than those cities, businessmen were reducing their competition.
Bingo.
And don't forget the natural resources that existed at that time. Fishing, hunting and fertile soil provided plenty of food, once settlements were established and the settlers had adjusted. Bountiful forests provided England with wood, which they had depleted almost to extinction. Staten Island had a thriving oyster business, iron mines and stone quarrys.
Last edited by NYChistorygal; 04-10-2010 at 09:13 AM..
Reason: added
New York's status as the country's financial capital was not a foregone conclusion. The city's rivalry with Philly for dominance was long and protracted. Another great book on the subject is Gotham by Burrows and Wallace. They argue that the specific actions by a small and particularly ruthless group of men really made New York what it is.
As a port, Philly is is no worse than London (being on a tidal river rather than a real harbor). It's conceivable that New York could have become to Philly what New Jersey is to New York now (i.e., a place where ships dock, although the real money and power are elsewhere).
A: The Dutch Republic of the 17th century was an unusually open and tolerant society, where thinkers from all over the continent went to teach and publish their works. It was also the melting pot of Europe. So when this society formed a colony based on Manhattan, this official policy of tolerance helped bring about an unprecedented mix of people there. Only 20 years after New Amsterdam's founding, a visitor reported 18 different languages being spoken-and this at a time when its population was no more than 500. The Dutch of the time were also the world's most powerful trading nation, with a vigorous policy of free trade. These two things-a mixed society and a commitment to free trade-became the foundation of New York City.
Thank you for this information. However, I am sure the information received depends on the source or historian.
I just finished watching a documentary on NYC. This documentary stated the main rise of NYC was due to trading between London.
Also, have you read "The Island at the Center of the World"? How was it?
I agree with all this talk about natural advantages like the huge natural harbor, the central location, and the river access to the interior. I just want to add a bit of an explanation for the Erie Canal--there were several other plans for waterways into the American interior, but the only truly feasible one was the Erie Canal because New York (with the Mohawk Valley) had the only real, continuous "break" in the Appalachians which blocked canals everywhere else on the Eastern Seaboard from forming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
