New Sweden: the US's long-lost 'secret' colony
bbc.com109 points by bookofjoe 14 hours ago
109 points by bookofjoe 14 hours ago
> But chances are, almost none of those coming realises that the US's political and ideological birthplace was once part of a little-known Swedish colony known as Nya Sverige (New Sweden).
Or they think Virginia has a strong claim to be "the US's political and ideological birthplace." The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson was from Virginia. The "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, was from Virginia. George Washington was from Virginia.
It's not like only one European country had colonies in the pre-United States.
I first learned about New Sweden several years ago from reading The Barbarous Years[0]. Now I always think about it whenever I drive south toward Maryland and DC when I cross the Delaware and see signs for towns like Swedesboro (NJ) and various Cristiana/Christiana place names in DE.
[0]https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-barbarous-years-the-peoplin...
New Sweden also gave America one of the first attempted colonial rebellions against English rule.
I'm wondering why the Vikings didn't conquer the Americas long before.
I knew it- that architecture- those red houses with the wide windowframe.. that is swedish..
I thought this was going to be about how Sweden’s claimed neutrality is a sham (even more so now that we joined NATO), but I guess it would have been vassal and not colony in the title if that were the case.
The title is misleading because it is suggests it is about a colony of the US (like Phillipines), not a colony on territory which is now US.
There are a number of lesser-known chunks of American history like this.
One of my favorites is that Santa Fe has been the capital city of Nuevo Mexico since 1610. Acoma, another city in modern-day New Mexico, is about 500 years older still.
> One of my favorites is that Santa Fe has been the capital city of Nuevo Mexico since 1610. Acoma, another city in modern-day New Mexico, is about 500 years older still
We were taught this in California in elementary school. Spanish colonial history actually tends to be taught at the same time or earlier than East Coast history in much of the American West (usually as "California" or "Texas" or "Colorado" history).
New Sweden: the US's long-lost 'secret' colony
I guess it's a secret to the Brits and the BBC. We learned about Swedish colonies in the Delaware Valley area in fifth grade history class.
So secret that it had its own U.S. postage stamp, as shown at the top of TFA.
There's lots of things that people learned in elementary school in the UK that I don't know about. That doesn't made them a secret.
Its just a stupid headline isnt it, I am British born and knew about it but then again I also live in Sweden and like learning about history.
The title refers to the secrecy related to its founding, not any present-day secrecy. From the text:
> "It started as sort of secret colony," said Deborah-Jean Hoffman, a board member at the New Sweden Centre, which promotes the Delaware Valley's colonial history. "The Swedes weren't flag-planting like the French or the Spanish. The idea was to create an under-the-radar colony where the Dutch wouldn't see them."
This is stupid. And New York was new Amsterdam before the USA and a lot more people came through new Amsterdam (including my family) than whatnever new Sweden was. And the Netherlands was already a democracy before the USA's Declaration of Independence so they would have got ideas from that rather than whatever Sweden was. This is just reaching to write an article.
> And New York was new Amsterdam before the USA
The article does not dispute this, in fact it's a big part of the New Sweden history in the article. The same person is credited for being responsible for both
> and a lot more people came through new Amsterdam (including my family) than whatnever new Sweden was
Again, Not in dispute. There are paragraphs about how it was a far-flung failed settlement that was taken twice, once by each Dutch and English -- but smooth way to throw in your families long US history coming in through such a a popular port as New Amsterdam. One of my ancestor lines came through some backcountry called Jamestown; def not a swank sounding place like modern-day NYC.
>> "Despite its territorial expansion, New Sweden never became the profitable venture it was conceived to become because it was chronically under-populated and neglected. The colony never counted more than about 400 people" [...] "From 1638-1655, this forgotten Swedish settlement extended across the Delaware Valley, encompassing parts of modern-day New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. In addition to being the smallest, least-populated and shortest-lived European colony in the US, it was also the most clandestine."
> so they would have got ideas from that rather than whatever Sweden was
Where does it even say anything about ideas for Declaration of Independence came from Sweden?
Or, just maybe, people are interested in knowing more about history? I certainly never knew there was a Swedish colony in the U.S., so I’m glad the article was written.
> And the Netherlands was already a democracy before the USA's Declaration of Independence
They were a republic.
A republic is a democracy.
Republic back then meant commonwealth with any form of government. The Dutch Republic was loose union of seven provinces. Republic changed to mean democratic government by representatives without monarch.
I don't think the meaning of republic changed, it just got conflated with democracy because we often say 'Democratic Republic', which requires at least in modern (18th century and beyond) terms that the common people vote to decide political direction or policy.
The US itself didn't start off very democratic, and could have stablized into a more oligarchic nation if it kept the notion of only allowing property owners to vote. Originally, land ownership wasn't a high barrier of entry, but in a more modern era corporations or oligarchs could own most of the land, and lease it out to prevent anyone else from gaining a vote.
Netherlands was not. It was a republic of oligarch-run states. They did not have even landholder suffrage until halfway through the 1800s.
Yeah, “ackshually it’s a republic” is usually a case of midbrow “incorrecting” (political scientists regularly use “democracy” to label a basket of political systems that include democratic republics, it’s not just normal vulgar usage, the “pros” use it that way, too, all the time)… buuuuut this time it might be a hair worth splitting.
Like the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Those ones?
And New York was new Amsterdam before the USA and a lot more people came through new Amsterdam
Why they changed it, I can't say, people just liked it better that way.
Uh, what's your gripe? The article clearly states that the colony was pivotal to American history for two reasons - 1.) For creating the log cabin and 2.) For being the only colony to not have been at war with the natives by choice.
The article even says why the colony suffered - lack of supplies and immigrants to the colony from Sweden. That even corroborates with your point.
And yes, imo those two reasons are pretty significant enough reason to remember that New Sweden existed.
What an irony - the once European colonies which depended on their motherlands to defend them in an alien land, now become a menace or estranged godfather to Europe.
At least 25% of us Americans have never had blood or ethnic ties with Europe.
African Americans make up around 15% of the US, Asian Americans around 7%, Arab Americans around 1.5%, and Native Americans around 2%.
That percentage is likely much higher when you factor Latino Americans - the plurality of whom either have indigenous or African ethnic origins. And some of America's richest and most politically powerful states like California and Texas have some of the lowest rates of European heritage in the nation.
This whole "America is European" mentality reeks of West European supremacy and fails to recognize how diverse America is. The only European ethnic groups who still have active blood and ethnic ties with the old country tend to be Central and Eastern Europeans or Irish Americans - large pluralities of whom were forced to leave the old country due to colonial reasons (the Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and British rule in Ireland was equally destructive as colonial rule outside Europe).
Alternatively, the only reason Western Europe didn't have a Park Chung Hee, Suharto, or Zia was because Europeans who were naturalized Americans like Brzeziński (Poland), Kissinger (Germany), and Albright (Czechoslovakia) ran policy during the Cold War era.
The modern equivalents of Brzeziński, Albright, and Kissinger are all either Heritage (ie. Pre-Civil War), Latino, Asian, or Arab American.
Why should European states be given privileges that Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, Taiwan, and others weren't extended until the last 30 years?
We are not a European ethnostate. We are America.
> At least 25% of us Americans have never had blood or ethnic ties with Europe.
> African Americans make up around 15% of the US, Asian Americans around 7%, Arab Americans around 1.5%, and Native Americans around 2%.
Those are cultural identities. The average African American has ~20% European ancestry. Latin Americans vary by country and region of origin, but on the average, they have more European than Native American ancestry.
Yes, but most do not associate with some form of European identity or solidarity. The overwhelming majority of African Americans do not view Europeans as their kin and vice versa. Same with a plurality of Latinos depending on where they come from as well as their race.
OP's comment represents a very common sentiment and implication I've noticed amongst Europeans:
1. That America is inherently "European" and always will be
2. America has an obligation to Europe over other regions of the world
3. Americans view Europe as more important than other regions of the world
4. That Americans from non-European backgrounds are not in policymaking positions or that our opinions don't affect American political discourse
The Atlanticist world that existed from 1945 to 2008 only existed because the older generation of national security advisors and foreign policy hands in the US were first-generation European immigrants.
Their era is long gone on both sides of the aisle. Culturally, America is much closer now to Latin America or Asia looking at music, television, and fashion. Economically (based on bilateral trade flow), America is much closer to Asia and the Americas than Europe. And even demographically, those with living blood ties to Europe are a fraction of those with living blood ties to Asia or Latin America.
And the rise of "Heritage Americans" as an ethnic identifier also highlights how the one subgroup of white Americans who might have been open to keeping ties with Europe is turning their back on the continent as well.
Asia and the Americas are prepared for such a world, but Europeans still think America has some obligation to help them or treat their states as equals when they are at best junior partners.
> Culturally, America is much closer now to Latin America or Asia.
That's an interesting statement. From my perspective, Latin America is clearly European, in the sense I understand the concept. It feels much like Russia. Major cities and densely populated regions are European, with local characteristics. But there are other cultures around, and they are dominant in some regions. And if you travel in fringe areas, you often find peoples that have not fully accepted the European cultural package.
I don't see Europeanness as something associated with specific ethnic groups or states. It's a cultural package that started spreading from the Roman Empire and was imposed upon different peoples at different times. Where I'm from, that happened ~800 years ago, though rural areas often kept to the old pagan ways until the 17th century. That time frame is not too different from what happened in the Americas.
To be fair, the US is arguably even more of a menace to Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and even the descendent of native Americans who live in other countries (e.g. Mexico).
So the OPs point is internally consistent, even generalized past a mentality that 'reeks of West European supremacy'.
As an Asian American I strongly disagree, as do most others of us non-white Americans.
You guys don't actually understand how stuff actually works here or how we think. Our (Asian and Latino) ancestral countries economies are heavily tied with the US and leadership in our ancestral countries (excluding PRC ofc) remains either pro-Trump (look at the elections all across Latin America this year) or pro-America but Trump ambivalent (eg. Brazil and India).
And unlike Europe, at least in Asia all the states began arming and building strategic autonomy all the way back in the Obama 1 admin as part of the "Pivot to Asia".
You guys also don't seem to get the fact that the plurality of Americans have viewed Asia and not Europe as our most important partner since all the way back in 2009 [0].
We (the non-Europe aligned Americans) are increasingly climbing the rungs to become the decisionmaker's now in both parties.
Benign Atlanticism is dead in 2026. All that matters now is G2.
If that means both us and China squeezing Europe until it pops, so be it - when elephants fight it's the grass that gets stomped on.
[0] - https://www.politico.eu/article/americans-turn-their-backs-o...
I had the impression that (at least some of) those groups contain people of mixed ancestry including European ancestry.
Am I wrong? Is the child of a white person and a black person not considered black in the US? Is that not the case form the other groups too?
Mixed Race is a separate census designation which represents an additional 10% of the US.
Either way Europeans overestimate American ties to Europe. If you actually visit America in 2026, most culture is either domestic, Asian, or Latino.
Heck, the majority of Americans began viewing Asia and not Europe as America's most important partners back in 2009 [0].
[0] - https://www.politico.eu/article/americans-turn-their-backs-o...
Way more than 10%, because Hispanics are not considered mixed race even though most of us are.
> America is European
When I hear this, I think of the philosophy, system of laws, language, etc. in America - and not the percentages we get when we segregate the American population by their ancestors.
What I mean is we aren't going to give European states undue favoritism due to personal ties, which Brzeziński, Kissinger, and Albright all did in some shape or form.
After 1945, Western Europe got Pan-Atlanticism but now much more dynamic South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc got dictatorships, military rule, and single party rule.
Now that we are pivoting to our Hemisphere and Asia due to G2, the gloves have begun to fall off with regards to Europe.
US-Asia trade already dwarfs US-Europe trade, and Europe is a secondary concern compared to G2.
There is no real supremacy for western europeans since they built wealth by looting others. They didn't have to do that. Analogy would be some persons doing bank robbery, chain snatching, slavery etc instead of doing agriculture without slavery or working in a real ethical job which isn't cheating or looting or harming others to earn income or wealth.
They could have survived and thrived without colonialism or slavery or imperialism.