13 United Colonies

So, in 1754, Benjamin Franklin proposed the Albany Plan of Union which would bring the colonies under one united government against the French and Indians. Although it was DECLINED, the Articles of Confederation would be based upon them. What would happen if it was ACCEPTED?

If that did happen I suspect that the French and Indian War might have ended sooner or inflicted less casualties on the colonials because they were united. Then, two things could have happened. The British Empire may have accepted a role for them in British Parliament, or the Continental Congress may have been more effective in the Revolution. What do you think?
 
I think that the French and Indian War would have ended very soon, because either the French wouldnt want to fight both England AND the Colonys, or because the French would just end the war right away in order to get a new tradeing partner. The English would then most likely give the Colonys a seat, and Ben would be the representative. Either that, or the Revolution would happen 20 years earlier. :)
 
The First Dominion

A lot depends on the British government. The Whigs were in power at the time and more sympathetic. George 111 however may have caused p[roblems and the accession of his favourite the Earl of Bute may have started policies that alienated the 13 colonies. Bute didn't last long and maybe if the 7 years war was shorter the Whigs woulds have had an unbroken rule. If representation at Westminster was granted then maybe the Tories would not have gained a majority and Lord North would never have formed a government. Prime Ministers like Rockingham may have granted representation.

Maybe a bit like For want of a nail without any revolutnionary war. It would have been interesting to see the effect on the campaign to abolish slavery and the slave trade and the impact of the Mansfield case on North America.

Presumably dominion status eventually or Americans would be able to outvote Brits at Westrminster eventually
 
Nicomacheus is the prime expert on all this

Well, I'm not too sure about that. I would say I know just enough to know just how much I don't know--which is a lot.

Firstly, let's recall the details of the Albany Conference. It was not a Conference called with a view to forming a Union government for the colonies. Indeed, no colonial delegation expept Massachusetts had any authority to discuss a plan of Union. It was called by the Board of Trade to negotiate with the Iroquois in order to renew the Covenant Chain because of the fear of coming hostilities and the need to secure friendly allies. Furthermore, no colony south of Maryland attended the Conference, mostly because Gov. Dinwiddie of Virginia had called his own conference to talk with the southern Indian tribes.

The Plan of Union was more or less entirely Franklin's idea. Some in the British government supported some sort of reform of the administrative system, but they preferred a much different solution: appointing a C-in-C of British forces in all North America and establishing a collective fund to support his activities. This was more or less attempted with Amherst being appointed Governor General of British North America in 1760. The problem was that William Pitt never managed to get the other part of this effort passed, the collective defence fund; instead, he relied on requesting money of the various colonial / provincial assemblies. And hence the taxation crisis of the 1770s.

Moreover, some at the Albany Conference had other ideas about how to reform the system of governance in BNA: foremost among these alternatives was the plan brought by Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts (a plan proposed by William Shirley, Gov. of Mass.). That plan would have created two or three different unions, rather than one general government in North America. Shirley proposed this because he wanted to be the first head of the New England Union/Confederation. However, there's ample reason to suppose that a more limited plan such a this might have gotten off the ground in a way the general plan did not. Nonetheless, Franklin was more forceful in the committee meetings and his ideas took precedence.

Thus when the Albany Plan of Union was published it looked to the residents of the various provinces (and most importantly to the provincial legislatures) like an idealistic attempt to usurp their rights and privileges. Many of the provinces published long lists of greivances with the plan. To the British, it looked like a complete distraction from running their Empire and securing defences against the French.

Hence, one can't just posit that the Plan as proposed in 1754 is magically accepted without a different Plan or a different circumstance in 1754.

Nevertheless, the basic question -- WI the British had produced a more effective reform to the system of adminstering the American provinces in the midst of the 7 Years' war -- has merit. However, there's very, very wide range of possibilites that could emerge from an alternative reform. The American revolution is defintely changed, but neither is it necessarily avoided--particularly if the British take and hold Canada.

I would however bet that the most probably outcome is to either stall the coming of the American revolution, if not preclude it entirely. For example, say some kind of Colonial Conference or Cont'l Congress becomes a standard practice after 1754. That in itself means that the Stamp Act Congress and the 1st Cont'l Congress wouldn't be acts of protest in and of themselves. It also means that Parliament and the British Government has one body with which to negotiate rather than 12-14. Hence, compromise might occur more naturally. While there is of course some "danger" that creating a unified government for the colonies would unite them and encourage separatism, such a union would be very fragile. It would be more fraught with cooperative issues and disputes over "provinicial rights" than the fledgling USA was.

1754 is a high-point for British imperial sentiment in the American colonies. It's quite easy to see how that sentiment -- which was Franklin's motivation for the Albany Plan in the first place -- could be harnessed so as to more effectively bind the colonies to the British crown.
 
Last edited:
Top