While you're waiting for a more specific response, it seems like at least part of your question is addressed in this (article-length) answer to a previous post, from u/lord_mayor_of_reddit.
I feel more comfortable writing about history or archaeology rather than language, but this has been an academic interest of mine for some time. I can at least partially answer your question. To state it shortly: Dutch speaking communities survived in New York and New Jersey for quite some time after the British Conquest and American Revolution, at least until the 1830s.
Understand that the Dutch very quickly became a minority in Anglo New York. The Dutch population of New Netherland was never large, with around 2500 people in New Amsterdam and 1000 in Beverwijk (Modern New York and Albany respectively) in 1664. Plus there were a scattering of smaller towns and patroonships (a sort of feudal estate) between the two and in modern New Jersey. Of that small population, much of the population was not actually Dutch, instead being made up of other Europeans who spoke other languages, significant Native communites, and the enslaved/freed slaves.
That being said, there are records that show the Dutch language did survive for quite some time in parts of the region. In more rural areas, the Dutch quickly gained a reputation for conservatism and cultural retention that was tied to the Dutch Reformed Church. As social life, especially in rural areas, revolved closely with the church, Dutch families remained close. Often they intermarried in their own small enclaves consisting of other Dutch families. More than just their language persisted, with much of their own material cultural and customs retaining noticeable Dutch characteristics to outside observers.
To bring the topic back to language, the Dutch Reformed Church eventually began to receive pressure to have sermons in English. This pressure came from younger Dutch descendants and less so the Anglo administrations. By the early 1700s, especially in New York City, younger Dutch began to speak more English and wanted their church sermons to reflect this new reality. The area's rising English population had gradually made English the more practical language for politics, business and public life. In private, many of these Dutch descendants still spoke Dutch, but English became more of the language that needed to be spoken to get ahead. The end result was that many New York Dutch became Anglicized, especially the upper classes. In rural areas though the Dutch language still persisted such as in Tappan, New York, with the last completely Dutch service being held there in 1835.
It is rather difficult to place an exact date on the end of the Dutch language in New York. Some of it still persists today. There are many words and phrases that are unique to the area that have their origins in Dutch. For example, many of the rivers and creeks that run through the countryside are referred to as "kils" which is Dutch for river. But you wont find anyone speaking fluent Dutch as a first language.
I have also found mention of other Dutch holdouts that survived even longer, so much so that that they began to morph into dialects very different from Holland Dutch. Unfortunately there is frustratingly little academic writings about them. Jersey Dutch is the best known of these (but I also read of Mohawk and Albany Dutch). According to one account, a traveler reported that hundreds still spoke Jersey Dutch around the Schraalenburgh Reformed Church in Dumont New Jersey in 1899.
So as a sizeable minority language, it probably lasted until the early to mid 1800s. In certain areas like rural New Jersey it lasted to at least the late 1800s. Long before that however, most Dutch speakers likely adopted English as a public language in order to survive in an Anglo dominated society.
I hope this is up to your standards mods, but if you want me to edit this at all or give better citations I am all for it. I sorta took this from an old butchered paper I wrote a year ago. I also realize this didn't quite answer your second question, but its a start.
Sources: Roger Panetta. Dutch New York: The Roots of Hudson Valley Culture. Jaap Jacobs. The Colony of New Netherland: A Dutch Settlement in the Seventeenth Century America; Cantwell, Anne-Marie and Diana Dizerega Wall. Landscapes and Other Objects: Creating Dutch New Netherland. New York History. 89(4):315-345.
(1 / 3)
Sorry I am coming to this so late, but shout-outs to /u/FinrodIngoldo and /u/Assorted_Bits for linking me and to my previous answer on Martin Van Buren's accent. I have also written this response previously which discusses the history of the Dutch community after the English takeover, which may also be relevant to this question.
I'll start with a short-ish answer, and then give more details about it in a long answer.
SHORT-ISH ANSWER:
How long did these Dutch-speaking settlements survive
By the first decade of the 1700s, the Dutch language was being used by less than a majority of New Yorkers. By the beginning of the American Revolution, use had fallen to below a third, if that. The war split these communities and they rapidly diminished. English was perceived as the "American" language. Dutch was increasingly perceived as a bygone, rustic language of uneducated people. As early as 1790, only about 17.5% of New Yorkers were part of the Dutch community, just about half of what the community had been less than two decades earlier. You can probably point to 1835 as the date when the last "Dutch-speaking settlement" finally gave way, as the last year when any of the Dutch churches was giving a sermon in Dutch. There was a small, but dwindling, group of Americans in New York and New Jersey who still spoke Dutch after that, though few spoke it as their primary language. By 1910, the number of people who were conversant at all was only around 200, and they were almost all seventy years old or older, most living in northern New Jersey. The last person known to have been in any way conversant was James Storms, born in New Jersey in 1860, and died in 1949. At the time of his death, though, he figured he was "about the last" speaker - but nobody known to be a native speaker of the dialect has been found to have died later than him.
how did the Anglo government of New York manage administering them?
For many decades after the English takeover in 1664, there was severe resistance among the New York Dutch community, sometimes turning violent. Leisler's Rebellion in 1690 marked the final time the Dutch ever controlled New York. Up until the 1730s, New York politics was organized around two political proto-parties called the "Leislerians" and "Anti-Leislerians" with the Dutch predominantly belonging to the Leislerian party. However, by the end of the 1730s, politics had begun to re-organize along different lines, and the Dutch community as a united political faction never existed again. By the middle of the 1700s, the Dutch Church leaders were lamenting the fact that so few of the younger generation were conversant in the language that it threatened to die off - and the church along with it. There was a protracted debate within the church about whether to Anglicize or not. In any case, by the mid-1700s, the Anglo government had little worry—culturally, anyway—over administering this community. The Dutch were almost universally bilingual, and the community itself was divided over the language issue, which in itself represented a cultural shift. While individual politicians in Dutch strongholds probably did benefit from knowing the language and otherwise appealing to the community long after that, within the first two or three decades of the 1800s, the communities were so mixed in the former "Dutch towns" of Long Island, the Hudson River Valley, and New Jersey, that there really wouldn't have been much added benefit in making such appeals. Dutch people largely wanted to be "Americans", not "Dutch" outsiders, so such appeals may very well have backfired. A more simple appeal to patriotism, and to whatever the political issues of the day were, would have been enough to attract the bilingual Dutch community of the 19th century.
LONG ANSWER:
First, to briefly update that Martin Van Buren answer linked at the top:
I did receive my copy of An Epoch and a Man: Martin Van Buren and His Times by Denis Tilden Lynch, and unfortunately, it did not give any source or any further path to follow on the claim that Van Buren had a Dutch accent. So the trail seems to dead-end there, at least for now. I have read most, if not all, of the major biographies on Van Buren and the more recent-ish ones seem to back off the claim, including those by Donald B. Cole, John Niven, and Ted Widmer. Widmer's does note that Van Buren "grew up speaking Dutch" in a "polyglot" American society, and that he "would seem a little foreign all his life", but does not repeat the "Dutch accent" claim that may have originated with Lynch.
In that answer, I compared Dutch speakers in New York state to modern day Spanish speakers in the Bronx. I neglected to draw a perhaps more obvious parallel in French-speaking Canada. In that community, French speakers often do have a discernibly unique accent when speaking English (examples 1 and 2), which sometimes can be rather pronounced (example 3). The wider Dutch New York community may have expressed a similar trait. However, I stand by what I wrote about Van Buren for the reasons I gave there: Van Buren grew up post-Revolution not pre-Revolution, there was already a trend away from the Dutch language for decades before Van Buren was born, and the circumstances of his father's business would have emphasized and exposed him to more bilingualism than the average Dutch person of the time. On top of that, it still would have been an American accent—certainly a Dutch-American accent—and not a "Dutch accent", just as a French Canadian has a Canadian accent when speaking English, not a French one. It's French-Canadian, but it's still Canadian.
Further, Quebec is not a perfect example, either, because much of the province is far more isolated than the Dutch New York community ever was. Most of the "Dutch towns" in Long Island and in the Hudson River Valley weren't much more than 50% Dutch-speaking, if that, and were almost always adjacent to an "English town" just a few miles down the road or river. There was a lot more exposure to the English language there after 1700 than there was in Quebec, where the British government deliberately avoided settling English speakers after 1783, so French-speaking Canada remained much more insular.
But none of that answers /u/ZnSaucier's question directly, which I will try to do. Much of the below is taken from the book Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops: The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages by Nicoline van der Sijs. The first chapter ("The Dutch Language in North America") runs over 100 pages and discusses at length the fate of North American Dutch, including its last speakers. I'll mention other sources as I go.
As explained in the second of my two previous answers linked at the top, the English took over the New Netherland colony (i.e., New York state - New Amsterdam was its major settlement in southern Manhattan) in 1664. The English government tried to anglicize the Dutch community from the get-go but there was major resistance to this, particularly among the Dutch farming class, but also among the Dutch elite. In 1668, Jeremias van Rensselaer, one of the richest people in the colony, wrote to relatives back in the Netherlands:
"Now it seems that it has pleased the Lord [to ordain] that we must learn English. The worst of it all is that we have already for nearly four years been under this jurisdiction and that as yet I have learned so little. The reason is that one has no liking for it."
In 1673-74, the Dutch briefly retook control of the colony, but the English regained it in the treaty that ended the Third Anglo-Dutch War. Then, in 1689-90, there was a revolt in the colony itself known as Leisler's Rebellion, manned by Dutch partisans, which was able to take control of the government for nine months. This was led by Jacob Leisler who was "High Dutch" (now German) by birth, but identified with the New York Dutch community. The English navy eventually showed up and put the revolt down. This was the last time the Dutch really ever had control of New York.
However, for almost another half century, the Dutch community remained a major force in New York politics. As explained by Michael G. Kammen in his book Colonial New York: A History, at least until the late 1730s, New York partisans were organized around two informal factions known as the "Leislerians" and the "Anti-Leislerians". The Leislerians were dominated by pro-Dutch, anti-English, sometimes pro-separatist, politicians. Typically, this meant New Yorkers of the Dutch community.
But by the end of the 1730s, and certainly by the time of the French and Indian War, these factions began to break down. Kammen quotes New York politician Philip Livingston in 1737, who wrote:
"We change sides as serves our interest best, not ye countries."
Instead of Leislerians and anti-Leislerians, the two new factions came to be known as the Livingstons and the Delanceys, after the two prominent, elite families who contributed several leaders on the two competing sides over multiple generations. The Livingstons were more aligned with the British Whigs, and mostly became Patriots during the American Revolution, while the Delanceys aligned with the British Tories and mostly became Loyalists during the war. Oliver Delancey himself would lead a Loyalist military regiment throughout the war. (For a little more info, this previous answer of mine gives some background on pre-Revolutionary political parties in the American colonies.)
{comment 1 of 2}
I have to try to tackle this Q because one of my favorite bits of NYC trivia plays a role: Lots of people know New York was once called New Amsterdam (thanks, They Might Be Giants), but did you know it was also called New Orange for a while? This period of NY history is also covered in the book I’m currently reading, the Pulitzer-Prize winning GOTHAM by Edwin Burrows and Mike Wallace. A highly recommended pandemic read! (Because it is 1,000+ pages long).
The TL;dr on your question is that the Anglo government managed administering them BADLY — they had much bigger problems on their hands. And that these settlements started becoming more gentrified over time, and didn’t fully die out until the second half of the 19th century. What makes this history so interesting IMO is that these Dutch settlements are very-early examples of a cultural community that also considered itself American.
To begin with you have to throw out what you learned in school about the pilgrims settling in America for religious freedom...that may have been going on in Massachusetts, but the Dutch settlers in New York WEREN’T here for pious religious reasons. They were working people — traders and people who did work that supported traders, like ship-building, sex work, banking, and farming. The early settling of NYC was kind of a free-for-all — remember, it wasn’t even really the Dutch government settling NY, it was the West India trading company, which was originally interested in the spot because it was a great place to dock ships and buy fur from the Native Americans. When New York was known as New Amsterdam (before 1664), it even used Native American currency, wampum, which was made from shells. (Back then they didn’t have paper money, and didn’t want to have to bring all that heavy coinage over on the boats.) Wampum was also used up in New England, but it lasted as legal tender in NY for 10 more years. We were just more disorganized down here, and we had a lot going on!
In addition to making shady deals with the Natives to buy land — the Natives thought they were just selling usage rights to it — the West India Company was fighting off threats from other colonizing European countries involved in Western trade, like Spain, France, and England. So they sponsored Dutch families to come out and establish settlements on the way outskirts of what they wanted their territory to be, surrounding Manhattan. This included land across the Hudson River (in what is now NJ), and in what’s now Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. They also built trading posts (which became larger settlements) going up the Hudson River as far as ships could safely go, to present-day Albany. Kinderhoek, later Kinderhook, where Van Buren would be born, was one of these trading post settlements.
The settlements not only made trade easier and established more farms to create needed food, they were an early warning system in case of danger. If Native people or other colonizers showed up, they’d have to hit these settlements before they got to Manhattan, where Fort Amsterdam was (near the current site of BATTERY park). They gave these settlers free land and control over Black people who had captured and enslaved. The enslaved Black farmers lived among the Dutch so long that they, too, usually spoke fluent Dutch and adopted some of their foods and traditions.
Eventually, the English showed up with so many ships that the West India Company had no choice but to surrender. The people hated the Dutch governor of New York, Peter Stuyvesant (a name NYers will recognize), so when the English promised to allow them to keep their religion, slaves, etc. the people of NY were mostly like “this sounds like a much better deal than war.” All of the city leaders, both government and religious, basically forced Stuyvesant’s hand and made him surrender. They renamed New Amsterdam after James Stuart (who?), the King’s brother (aka the Duke of York) and moved their government in. But they were still relying heavily on the income from the Dutch traders, so they didn’t want to piss them off too badly. So they kept their word and let them keep their Reformed Dutch churches and there were no penalties for speaking Dutch even though official business had to be conducted in English. Many of the Dutch settlements went off and did their own thing, enslaving farmers to work their land, and taking any excess crops to Manhattan to trade.
Even though this original transition was smooth, the rest of it was not. Remember that the US is just a colony, and a far-away one at that. There was no way to communicate across the ocean except by ship. Leaders would enact new laws, taxes, or policies and their subjects living in the US wouldn’t hear about it until a month later or more. Worse, many of the colonizing nations were at war with each other! Including the English and Dutch. They were too concerned with conflicts like the Glorious Revolution taking place on their doorsteps to even really care what was going on in their tiny colony far away. It was more like a bargaining chip for after each conflict was over — “and we’ll throw in that crazy colony of trading posts for free!”
During one conflict, some Dutch ships even showed up off the coast of Staten Island, and with the help of Dutch locals, were able to take over once more when the Dutch won the war back home. That’s when they renamed New York to New Orange after their king, William of Orange.
But it only lasted a year and a half. England and the Netherlands made a treaty that gave New Orange back to England, while the Netherlands got to keep the West Indies. New Orange went back to being called New York.
After this, even more government shenanigans went on, with New York becoming part of New England, being its own self-governed state, and on and on as the rich oligarchs played their power games — which the Dutch oligarchs were more than happy to take part in. They made friends with the British oligarchs and intermarried, allowing them to not only stay rich but to keep their minority positions on government councils. Meanwhile, the religious elites from the Dutch Reformed church made friends with the religious elites in the Church of England and elsewhere, which helped them maintain the legal right to practice their religion even when religions like Catholicism were banned.
While that all went on in New York City, for the most part, the working-class Dutch settlements were off doing their thing, loving that slave-owning life. But they were not thrilled about being under English rule. They hated the new taxes, they had very little say in their own governing, and—by far the worst part—due to lack of housing, the English had a custom of showing up at your door, saying “hi, here are some soldiers who are going to be living here,” and then some strange men would come and LIVE IN YOUR HOUSE, you have to feed them, and you have no idea when they’ll leave. Appreciate your 3rd amendment rights, folks.
{continued in reply to this comment}