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?

Why they changed it, I can't say, people just liked it better that way.

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.

They were a republic.