AHC: Plymouth, the fourteenth colony

Your challenge is to allow the colony of Plymouth to survive until the present-day. How does this happen? What effect does this have on New England politics? Does the American Revolution still happen? A quick google search tells me that a state of Plymouth would have about 1.3 million people, still more than Rhode Island, Delaware, Montana, Alaska, North Dakota, DC, Vermont, and Wyoming. Also, would the town of Plymouth still be the capital, given that other towns like Brockton have more people?

Wasn't part of the reason it got merged with Mass. because of the Dominion of New England?

Sevarics said:

Wasn't part of the reason it got merged with Mass. because of the Dominion of New England?

Click to expand...

Yes; actually, I was just looking this up earlier this week. Plymouth never had an official royal charter; it had purchased the land from the Virginia Company of Plymouth earlier and was effectively governing itself. Then, King James - wanting more royal power - incorporated it into the Dominion of New England. The Dominion was overthrown by popular uprising upon receiving word of the Glorious Revolution, and a delegation from Boston led by Increase Mather went to get a new charter from William and Mary. As it happened, they decided to merge Plymouth with Massachusetts Bay under that new charter.

Have two charters be given out. Rhode Island might still be there given that it was started by people who persona non grata in Massachusetts. Maine would not it would still be a part of Mass.

anyone else? Any thoughts on how this might effect later New England politics?

I would imagine not too much in the long run, even regionally. Boston and Massachusetts dominated even when New Plymouth and Maine/New Somersetshire were separate colonies. It won't change, as it ever has.

Meh. A state composed of essentially the Massachusetts hook would be like OTL's Rhode Island - "oh, another tiny Atlantic state". It would have some sort of significance in the early American tales but would mostly be a state that has little effect on modern-day politics.

EDIT: The slavery aspect of it is interesting (and something that I forgot about). See my post below.

I think we're underestimating the impact it could have had on early American politics, though. One more northern, presumably abolitionist state? Could affect the Compromise of 1820 and even before big time.

Slacker said:

I think we're underestimating the impact it could have had on early American politics, though. One more northern, presumably abolitionist state? Could affect the Compromise of 1820 and even before big time.

Click to expand...

Before 1800, there were 8 free states and 8 slave states. Before the Missouri Compromise in 1820, each side admitted three. This, obviously, was meant to keep the Senatorial balance even. If Plymouth was a state, this could wreck the balance. I suppose the Southerners would be interested in creating another slave state - which could either lead to something like an earlier Florida Cession (with both an East Florida and a West Florida being admitted as states) or a fracturing of Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. for the possibility of one more slave state.

Of course, the Northerners could always go "No way!" and forever alter the future of compromises in the US. It'd be interesting for sure.

[New] Plymouth/Plimouth:

Capital: Plymouth (Plymouth City, Plymouth Town, Plimouth)
Largest City: New Bedford


I think it's safe to say a city on the south coast would become the largest city, although I think the capital would stay in Plymouth for historic reasons and relatively short distances between it and any other part of the state. If the capital did move it would likely to be OTL New Bedford (or maybe Fall River or somewhere near New Bedford).

I assume Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and The Elizabeth Islands (Gosnold) would become part of "Plymouth", although they never were in OTL. The islands were part of NY until they became part of Mass, but are closer to "Plymouth" geographically and culturally.


Although Massachusetts and Boston would still dominate New England, it would be slightly less than OTL since there would be another NE state with significant population.

I'm curious what places would be named. Having a state with a capital (and county) that shares it's name would be an interesting quirk. Instead of places like Oklahoma City, the town might simply be called "Plymouth" just like the state. Then again, both could be "New Plymouth" and could also be spelled with an i instead. I would guess everything is called simply "Plymouth" or the capital is called "Plymouth Town".

The perception of Massachusetts in the eyes of other Americans would change. (If we can for a second ignore major butterflies) Plymouth would be known as the home of the Pilgrims and one of the birthplaces of the country. Massachusetts would be more known for the Revolutionary period and less known for the early colonial period. Plymouth would also be thought of as a very nautical state, more so than any OTL state I would think. It would be very important in the early to mid 1800s due to Whaling. Now it would be famous for the beaches of the Cape and the islands. It's general reputation would be most similar to Rhode Island of the OTL states, but not exactly the same.

But who knows, really. Some major changes could happen. Maybe Boston and Providence and bigger Whaling ports than "New Bedford" in this timeline. Maybe a state that was built on religious fundamentalism even more than Massachusetts would be less likely to transform into a center of intellectualism and progressive politics. I see Plymouth staying more socially conservative than Mass or Rhode Island since it doesn't have the big city of MA, or the liberal history of RI. (I do not mean strictly the modern political definitions of liberal and conservative. I just think Plymouth would be a more 'traditional' society, and probably more Protestant than OTL Mass. Although it would attract immigrants, probably not as many as Boston) Then again, maybe they attract as many Portuguese people as they do in OTL and it becomes the only majority-Portuguese state or close to it.

A lot could happen. I agree that people are really underestimating the changes this would cause.

GrandpaTanaka said:

A lot could happen. I agree that people are really underestimating the changes this would cause.

Click to expand...

Not to come off as malicious or anything, but George Washington defecating at different point along his retreat from New York could bring about more significant changes than we realize. Thus, this goes along with the post above of a whole new state bringing about unforeseen differences.

Makwa said:

Not to come off as malicious or anything, but George Washington defecating at different point along his retreat from New York could bring about more significant changes than we realize. Thus, this goes along with the post above of a whole new state bringing about unforeseen differences.

Click to expand...

To be fair, there's a larger likelihood for a state of Plymouth (as in, no merge of the Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth colonies) to have great effects than there is for the spot of George Washington's toilet to have great effects.

Anything is possible, especially in the early years of America, but Plymouth as a state would most definitely have a profound impact on American history.

GrandpaTanaka said:

I'm curious what places would be named. Having a state with a capital (and county) that shares it's name would be an interesting quirk. Instead of places like Oklahoma City, the town might simply be called "Plymouth" just like the state. Then again, both could be "New Plymouth" and could also be spelled with an i instead. I would guess everything is called simply "Plymouth" or the capital is called "Plymouth Town".

Click to expand...

The suffix 'City' didn't achieve prominence in American naming schemes till the 1830s and then exploded in the 1850s... and Plymouth Town looks and feels slightly unwieldy. It would have likely become 'Plymouthton' as many 'Town' suffixes contracted into '-ton' in the late 18th century (Charles Town, Trent's Town, Frederick's Town, King's Town - Charleston, Trenton, Fredericton, Kingston, ON)

Hmmmm...we do have a Hartford instead of Hertford. I rather am leaning towards 'Plimouth' since A) the 'New' didn't achieve much osmosis into the OTL colloquial name for the colony or city and B) it separates it from English Plymouth, whilst C) retaining the same pronunciation for simplicity.

Turek said:

To be fair, there's a larger likelihood for a state of Plymouth (as in, no merge of the Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth colonies) to have great effects than there is for the spot of George Washington's toilet to have great effects.

Anything is possible, especially in the early years of America, but Plymouth as a state would most definitely have a profound impact on American history.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant to say this. My attempt at a comparison came off rather poorly. You articulated it much better.

Umbric Man said:

The suffix 'City' didn't achieve prominence in American naming schemes till the 1830s and then exploded in the 1850s... and Plymouth Town looks and feels slightly unwieldy. It would have likely become 'Plymouthton' as many 'Town' suffixes contracted into '-ton' in the late 18th century (Charles Town, Trent's Town, Frederick's Town, King's Town - Charleston, Trenton, Fredericton, Kingston, ON)

Hmmmm...we do have a Hartford instead of Hertford. I rather am leaning towards 'Plimouth' since A) the 'New' didn't achieve much osmosis into the OTL colloquial name for the colony or city and B) it separates it from English Plymouth, whilst C) retaining the same pronunciation for simplicity.

Click to expand...

Plymouthton is as unwieldy as Plymouth Town. It's the transition from the "th" to the "t" that gets the tongue. For that reason (and like you said) I'd think that Plymouth would become Plimouth (or perhaps stay as Plymouth. For a while the are that grew into Toronto was known as York (and part of the city is still 'York' today). That apparently didn't cause complications for the British, and perhaps Plymouth can be retained.

Makwa said:

Sorry, I meant to say this. My attempt at a comparison came off rather poorly. You articulated it much better.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I thought that's what you meant, anyway.

Turek said:

Before 1800, there were 8 free states and 8 slave states. Before the Missouri Compromise in 1820, each side admitted three. This, obviously, was meant to keep the Senatorial balance even. If Plymouth was a state, this could wreck the balance. I suppose the Southerners would be interested in creating another slave state - which could either lead to something like an earlier Florida Cession (with both an East Florida and a West Florida being admitted as states) or a fracturing of Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. for the possibility of one more slave state.

Of course, the Northerners could always go "No way!" and forever alter the future of compromises in the US. It'd be interesting for sure.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point, about there possibly being one more free state from the beginning. And, if the Southerners tried to even the balance by splitting a slave state like Kentucky or Tennessee, couldn't that end of backfiring on them? The mountainous eastern counties of those states apparently largely sided with the Union during the Civil War after all. Would that have been true in the 1800's/1810's, too, or did those areas only become more pro-North/pro-Union later?

Desmond Hume said:

This is an interesting point, about there possibly being one more free state from the beginning. And, if the Southerners tried to even the balance by splitting a slave state like Kentucky or Tennessee, couldn't that end of backfiring on them? The mountainous eastern counties of those states apparently largely sided with the Union during the Civil War after all. Would that have been true in the 1800's/1810's, too, or did those areas only become more pro-North/pro-Union later?

Click to expand...

I believe they would have. Mountainous areas aren't very good for slavery - the primary (and pretty much only) use for slaves was for house-hands and farming, and even those two were confined to the 1%.

The Constitution is vague on this ("Congress shall have the power to admit new states", basically) but it's the norm to have a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate to approve a statehood bid. If the Slave states are outnumbered 9-8 in the Senate from the start (or possibly 18-16... when did the practice of having two senators start? IIRC it was one per state to start, though I may be wrong) then American history's gonna be skewed to the Free States from the beginning. The number of balanced states wasn't initially a big concern - the balance of power changed numerous time prior to the Missouri Compromise. Slavery wasn't that big of a deal for the first couple decades of American history. However, with Plymouth giving the Free states and advantage from the start, I see a possibly subdued South and a lesser ACW, and most likely less balance conflicts in Congress. The House will be messed up as normal, but the Senate (unless some wayward Northern senators screw it up) will be (by a small margin) anti-slavery, and I don't see the Northerners giving up that advantage anytime soon.

Turek said:

(or possibly 18-16... when did the practice of having two senators start? IIRC it was one per state to start, though I may be wrong)

Click to expand...

Two Senators per state was always the program laid out in the Constitution. IIRC, each state delegation (not necessarily a single person) got one collective vote in Congress under the Articles.

Codae said:

Two Senators per state was always the program laid out in the Constitution. IIRC, each state delegation (not necessarily a single person) got one collective vote in Congress under the Articles.

Click to expand...

That's it. You know, I sometimes feel like my perception of history is diminishing by the sheer amount of thought I put into other, better histories.

Turek said:

Plymouthton is as unwieldy as Plymouth Town. It's the transition from the "th" to the "t" that gets the tongue. For that reason (and like you said) I'd think that Plymouth would become Plimouth (or perhaps stay as Plymouth. For a while the are that grew into Toronto was known as York (and part of the city is still 'York' today). That apparently didn't cause complications for the British, and perhaps Plymouth can be retained.

Click to expand...

Ah, very true! I will admit to it being a personal quibble then - English and American Plymouth shall never be much a factor in each other's existence, but my own mapmaking and Civilization playing suffers from repeating so many exact-same names.