Talk:Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions

Informal review

There are a few issues that may need to be addressed/clarified. First is the first sentence of the Background section, what is the source for that statement that it was a fairly successful colony for being the backwoods? Second is the Resulting Patroonships section, it refers to the Rensselaerwyck patroonship as a colony, and while I agree it was/is referred to as a colony (colonie in Dutch) even though it was part of the larger New Netherland colony it may need to be clarified in this context that the patroonship was referred to as a colony and that it was itself part of a larger colony. I also, if it can be found, would like to see a list of all the patroonships that were established, their location, and their patroons. Clarification may be needed in the lead section stating where geographically the Dutch held their possessions (and therefore would allow patroonships), as their holdings stretched from Albany through NY, NJ, and Delaware. It is also my understanding that the island of Manhattan was exempt from being claimed by as a patroonship, was in the Charter? I would also wikify the first instance of the word colony in the article. Other than this I found nothing else unclear.Camelbinky (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Source for first sentence:  Done (it's actually a word-for-word copy+paste from the source, which is public domain)
2. Improper use of "colony":  Done
3. List of patroonships: Doing... This will be a tough one... Actually many of the original letters to the DWIC registering patroonships are printed in the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, so this isn't difficult at all, actually.
4. Exemptions in the Charter:  Done
5. Wikify colony:  Done

upstateNYer 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Two clarifications- yes you are correct, Fort Orange was not exempted, this was a later issue between the Patroon and the director-general of New Netherland, covered in Cuyler Reynold's Chronicles. I just didnt remember reading the exemption of Manhattan in the article, and wondered if it was indeed in the Charter or if that too was a latter addition. And two- I didnt mean to imply that "colony" was used improperly, on the contrary I agree that Rensselaerwyck should be called a "colony", I just think it should be clarified in the article that it was called that even though it was within a larger colony.Camelbinky (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

Have added this template to article as it is a significant (and if I might say, fine) contribution to the understaning of NNL. Will try to create other links to it. Djflem (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Five Patents

There were only five patents granted under the orginal plan. They are noted in the patroon article. After 1638, the charter was amended allowing anyone in good standing to purchase land from the native population, though permission to do so needed to be granted. Yonkers and the manors were a result of that liberalization policy.Djflem (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting here in the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, it lists primary documents registering patroonships. Then starting here it lists whether or not they were actually settled. I'll be updating this over the next few days. This is a wonderful source; thank the lord for Google books! upstateNYer 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap I had no idea we had articles for all these things. As you read through, feel free to wikify; I'm not as familiar with the New Netherland subject as you seem to be. Btw, you don't by any chance speak Dutch, do you? upstateNYer 09:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He he! I told you, Upstate, that Djflem was "the man" when it came to New Netherland articles. I hadnt seen you (Djflem) around lately, I was worried you had retired. Glad to see you!Camelbinky (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)