So, the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665-67) concluded with the British and Dutch trading New Amsterdam (Manhattan) for the Island of Run (Banda Islands in Indonesia).
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Breda_(1667) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutmeg
This means that the Dutch had a monopoly on spices like nutmeg (a hallucinogen), mace, cloves and other spices until roughly the Napoleonic Wars (1803-15) while the Brits had power over the American territory and the taxing opportunities until the American Revolution (1765-1783).
Clearly maintaing these powers over the Americans and the Indonesians as well as fighting off other enemies to protect these investments must have been costly relative to the proceeds that they generated. I know that this is all an oversimplification of this topic, but I am curious if there is a way, or established theories, on quantifying who got the better deal from the Treaty of Breda?
And, really? Nutmeg? Are we missing out?
Intriguing question. Were there other trade goods coming from the Banda Islands? I was going to say that it would be so costly to administrate holdings in Indonesia, but then I started to think about Dutch mercantalism, and actually the North American colonies might require much more administrative power, even if they were closer and potentially produced a wider range of products. I guess spices are very high-value per unit weight (cheaper to ship, more profit at home). What value did the North American colonies hold?
I don't have your answer, but I am waiting with you for someone who does.
I also found Giles Milton's best-selling 1999 book called, "Nathaniel's Nutmeg". Blurb on Amazon calls it, "a historical account of the violent struggle between the English and Dutch for control of the world supply of nutmeg in the early 17th century."
There are chapters in this book called "Conflict between Gentleman" and "Striking a Deal" that I can't read in the "Look Inside" feature, but I'm not convinced that anything here would help quantify the value of the goods coming from this area.
http://www.amazon.com/Nathaniels-Nutmeg-Incredible-Adventures-Changed/dp/0140292608
Maybe there are written accounts of what each empire thought about the deal at the time, but even those perceptions would be only a small piece of the puzzle.
The context of that era is important: indeed nutmeg, mace, pepper, and other spices from the East Indies were very very valuable indeed. Given that the Dutch were considered clear winners of the Second Anglo-Dutch war, is it a surprise that the Dutch got the better deal?
The key part of that war is that the Dutch managed to keep sea lanes -- and thus their trade -- open, and were able to keep up against war losses.
Both the English and the Dutch had previously chartered ventures in West Indies (Americas) and East Indies (parts of Asia). In that Treaty the intention was that both parties consolidate their empires to minimize risk of future conflict. The English colonies in North America at that time generated revenue through taxation, not directly through trade, unlike the Dutch who made profits through trade thanks to their desirable commodities in spice.
Arguably, the terms of the Treaty of Breda was too harsh on the English. They signed the secret Treaty of Dover with the French, where the English and the French agreed to punish the Netherlands as part of Louis XIV's conquest of the Low Countries. Louis XIV had been upset at the Dutch alliance with Spain to fight against France after France's help in the Dutch revolution. This basically became the Third Anglo-Dutch War.
Going back to your question, I think the Dutch got the much better deal.