I grew up in an area of upstate New York where the land was mostly apportioned into feudal estates by the Dutch. There were anti-rent rebellions in the 19th century and the descendants of the patroons stopped collecting the rent.
But… folks never had title to their land and were effectively stuck until a law was passed in the 1960s. It’s really interesting as the effect is that many families have lived there for 400 years, and newcomers all appeared in the 1970s onward.
After the English takeover of New Netherland in 1664 and American independence in 1783, the system continued with the granting of large tracts known as manors, and sometimes referred to as patroonships.
Kind of strange that the Dutch are blamed for this, when the British took over mid-1600 and the Americans after the independence war end-1700.
Those are two moments where this whole notion of feudal estates could easily have been abolished, but for some reason the new rulers decided against this.
I’m not “blaming” anyone, these are just facts on the ground from nearly 500 years ago. I was introduced to this stuff as a teenager working for an old farm - their family was one of a few that had a land grant. The original taxes were 10 pigs and some wheat!
The Dutch colonial system, continued in some form for a period of time. I’m afraid I’m ignorant of the details and complexity of land policy as the English, the pre-Constitutional US and current US government took over. Adding to the complexity, New York has had at least 4 constitutions in the post-colonial era!
There’s similar examples in the US — Baltimore has or had land rents from the British colonial era.
Personally it’s a fascinating subject to me, and if I was a history professor, I would have probably studied it! Alas, I’m not.
I haven't got the facts either. Yet a lot has happened in those 500 years, and it would be a shame not to mention that.
After mid-1600 the Dutch have had very little to say in New York (or should I say New Amsterdam, still such a shame they changed the name..), when the British decided New York should be theirs, despite being at peace with the Dutch.
I wonder if the Dutch heritage still be taught in schools in the US.
Standardization of core curriculum and political changes will probably eliminate most of that. The people who cared about this stuff have scattered as society became more mobile and slave holdings make most of these figures impolitic.
It was not unusual in the past for changes in sovereignty to still respect the prior established private property rights. For instance both the Louisiana purchase and annexation of California promised in law to respect existing Spanish land grants. So while this was the case in legal theory, these rights were not immune to corruption.
I grew up on land in the Bay Area that formerly belonged to the Ranchero de las Pulgas, and now I live in the east bay. I don't remember the name of the Ranchero here, but much of it had already been sold off to yankee traders before 1846. In both cases after annexation the widows controlling the remaining land were ripped-off by shyster lawyers. IIRC in one or both cases the widow's own lawyer! This despite the fact the family of Ranchero de las Pulgas had thrown in with the American cause during the Mexican American War.
A little bit of both. Albany was a minor transport and trading hub where Dutch remained the primary language for some time. It later became a regional banking and rail/canal hub.
Most of the patroon land started getting sold off as the value skyrocketed when the Erie Canal and railroads were built. The area I initially referred to was a backwater area where the land had limited value due to topography.
But… folks never had title to their land and were effectively stuck until a law was passed in the 1960s. It’s really interesting as the effect is that many families have lived there for 400 years, and newcomers all appeared in the 1970s onward.