I’m not saying it wasn’t part of the colony. But not all of New York State is part of New York City (a point some people are unaware of to this day). And it’s likely that at some point in the past not all of New York County was part of New York City. It’s the same way that not all of Cook County is part of Chicago and not all of Harris County is part of Houston. There’s no reason why anyone in 1750 would have anticipated that someday New York City would stretch all the way up to Inwood.
These maps show the extent of New York City in 1764 and 1777.
New York County consisted of all of Manhattan island since it was originally chartered in prerevolutionary days. New York City was a comparatively small city at the southern end of the county which grew via annexation until it took up the whole county. Westchester County bordered New York County immediately north of the Harlem River. Portions of southern Westchester were annexed by New York City and County in the manner described upthread. After the big 1898 consolidation, New York County included the boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx. In 1914, The Bronx was made into its own county coterminous with the borough. (Except, perhaps, the odd case of Marble Hill.)
Got a cite?
Which brings me back to my original question. When did New York City incorporate all of New York County?
You could click on the link I provided two posts up.
Actually - never mind. I guess it’s true. Obviously so when you think about it, but I guess it’s just a fact that the English made a New York County with an incorporated New York City within its boundaries. Mighty organized of them.
Just to note I have been following the answers with great interest, but have not had questions which were not already asked and answered before I could post them. ?Thanks to one and all!
That page doesn’t address the topic in question. Yes - I know that New York State has counties and they have histories.
But I guess it’s true that New York county recognized separate towns with governments and borders that had to be annexed by the City of New York.
Obviously going back to Peter Minuit it has been clear that “New York (New Amsterdam/New Orange)” meant the island that is called Manhattan today. It would have been and is as recognizable as Nantucket is/was.
There’s a difference between a “Town” that has to be annexed and a “Settlement” that merely has to be cleared - as Seneca Village was, for instance.
Check out the Historical counties project page for New York. You can view the borders of all counties going back quite a ways. New York County shows as consisting of all of Manhattan island going back to at least 1690, with the southern end of Westchester County immediately across the Harlem River where The Bronx is now.
As for whether there were other established municipalities on Manhattan island before NYC grew, I don’t know. There were certainly several in southern Westchester which eventually became part of The Bronx.
The messiness of Queens remains in that mailing addresses, unlike the other four boroughs, still refer to the towns, not Queens or New York. I don’t know how faithfully the mailing address boundaries reflect the original town boundaries.
It is hard for me to imagine that anyone ever considered any part of the New York Island (sometimes known as Manhattan) as anything other than “New York City” - but I have to grant that Harlem definitely had a name - and I suppose they had some sort of government or some such thing.
If we’re talking about “annexation” then there has to be something to annex. A dozen freed men and their families squatting on some unused farmland is not “a town”. No annexation required - just have the constable clear them out.
Whether Harlem was a functioning political entity or just a bunch of squatters at time of annexation I’ll leave to the history nerds. I’ll grant that it did exist and leave it at that. The other named settlements don’t get off so easy.
New York City’s gentry has always been powerful, protective and expansionist.
People took land ownership far more seriously than you do. There may have been examples of a constable clearing land; we’re a big country with a long history and everything has happened once. Indians were moved off lands and this occurred frequently.
Settlers? Settlers with claims and deeds and purchase agreements and tax payments had rights that were respected in every court in the colonies. Land claims were probably the bulk of early courts’ caseloads.
Harlem was a completely separate community from New Amsterdam. You don’t have to be a nerd to use Wikipedia.
A long-term community started by the Dutch under their governor is not a few farmhouses that can be swept away.
If you want us to believe anything you say, you need to behave like a history “nerd” (what a stupid, ridiculous insult that is – and especially in a thread about history!) and give us cites that the scenario you’re talking about ever happened at any time in the history of New York City resulting in a formal expansion of Manhattan. Us nerds will be watching and waiting.
Well, not necessarily. Annexation can also involve a municipality simply expanding its borders to include previously unincorporated territory. There is no need to “clear them out” – you just tell them they’re living in a city now.
Not in New York, Buster. The history of New York (i.e. the island currently known to some as “Manhattan”) is not one of slow growth where a suburb occasionally annexed. New York is not Omaha.
The history of New York is a big plan to do huge development by a city planning commission - this would include items to consider, like trash pickup and disposal and transportation and policing and street layout, leisure space fire control, etc., etc.
When New York decided it was time to develop an area they typically cleared the space of anyone else who was living there, tore down most the homes and laid a new grid.
The exceptions prove the rule.
I can’t dispute that Harlem was a functioning town with a long history that became otherwise unexpectedly important due primarily to it’s Metro North stop.
The rest of those little towns… annexed? Hah! cleared out by a council that undoubtedly saw no need to annex what was already theirs.
Sam, I think you’re mixing development, the physical (re-)construction of an area, with annexation, the legal act of incorporating an area of land into the bounds of an existing urban corporation. You can dfevelop land that is not annexed, or annex land that is not (yet) developed. And I doubt strenuously that NYC had a city planning commission during the Adams presidency.
The Dongan Charter. This was driving me crazy.
Question answered - New York City has essentially always encompassed the entire island of “New York”.
Man - you ever read something that just didn’t sound right and you couldn’t think of exactly why. Glad I could get the straight dope on this for y’all.
Cleveland, Ohio is also hemmed in by suburbs which don’t want to be annexed (due to Cleveland’s typical urban woes, and the widespread perception that it’s poorly governed) and would fight any attempt. I don’t think the city has expanded its boundaries in 70-some years. Columbus, Ohio, on the other hand, has expanded quite a bit over the years, with links to its water and sewer system a particularly enticing “carrot,” and is well-enough governed that the 'burbs it absorbs don’t particularly mind, IIRC.