AHC: A less prominent Boston

With a POD no earlier than 1714, come up with a scenario in which the Boston, Massachusetts, is not the most populous city in New England, defined as the present day states of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont.

What would be some effects of a Boston that is overshadowed by another New England city? Feel free to comment on the plausibility of this AHC if you believe that Boston is the prohibitive favorite to become the leading city in New England as early as 1714.
 
Last edited:
Being born in Princeton, New Jersey and having been ferried across to that big city next door for baseball games makes me wholeheartedly support this challenge.
 
Well I suspect you'd need to buff up the smaller cities in New England rather than nerf Boston (you still need to do it slightly but Boston has about 400,000 more people than any other city in New England), maybe if you turned Bridgeport, Connecticut and Providence into bigger ports and pushed some of OTL's immigrants that whent to Boston there you could end up with a Boston of 450,000 people with those Providence getting the two spot with 300,000 and Bridgeport getting the three spot with 200,000. That would mean a Boston not as dominant in New England and a (slightly) more even distribution of people.
 
If there where a series of bad storms then Boston may look less good as a port than say Providence.

If the harbour is not seen as safe then the town won't grow as quickly.
 
During the 1650s the Puritans turn Massachussets into a theocratic republic which England (once the monarchy has been restored at home) decides isn't worth re-conquering. Nobody except other fundamentalist Puritans is willing to emigrate there afterwards...

EDIT: Oops! Missed the "POD no earlier than 1714" bit... if that was already there when I originally posted...
 
Last edited:
Well I suspect you'd need to buff up the smaller cities in New England rather than nerf Boston (you still need to do it slightly but Boston has about 400,000 more people than any other city in New England), maybe if you turned Bridgeport, Connecticut and Providence into bigger ports and pushed some of OTL's immigrants that whent to Boston there you could end up with a Boston of 450,000 people with those Providence getting the two spot with 300,000 and Bridgeport getting the three spot with 200,000. That would mean a Boston not as dominant in New England and a (slightly) more even distribution of people.

Providence seems to be the city most likely to surpass Boston. It has a good natural harbor and it is a natural regional commercial hub.

One way to pull people away from Boston would be for Salem or New Bedford to overshadow Boston as ports. Salem was quite prosperous in the early 19th. Century due to trade carried on with China, before the Opium wars gave British merchants an unassailable position and the harbor silted up.

Any thoughts for a POD? I would suggest the British occupation being extended,but that did nothing to hold back NYC's growth even before the Erie Canal
 
With a POD no earlier than 1714, come up with a scenario in which the Boston, Massachusetts, is not the most populous city in New England, defined as the present day states of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont.

What would be some effects of a Boston that is overshadowed by another New England city? Feel free to comment on the plausibility of this AHC is you believe that Boston is the prohibitive favorite to become the leading city in New England as early as 1714.


I could see the British burning Boston in 1776, rather than leaving it intact to the rebels. Many of the people living there would flee to other cities, including Providence.


Boston would surely be rebuilt, but it would be a diminished city with far fewer people.
 
Salem was founded before Boston and could have been the Mass Bay Colony's main settlement. (Plymouth was founded earlier but the 'Saints' were a little too wacky even for Puritans).

The POD for this should be before/during the Great Migration. Any later is too late, Boston has already been established as the city of New England, and by far the largest settlement in the British colonies. I don't see Providence, Bridgeport or New Bedford over taking Boston after 1650, and certainly not after the British take New Amsterdam (because, if you are looking for a better situated port NYC is the only real option).

I think the obvious way to do this is have the Mass Bay colony set up shop somewhere else along the coast (Salem, Newburyport, or Portsmouth NH seem like the most obvious choices due to harbors, but maybe somewhere on the Narragansett or the south coast could work too), then when the Great Migration of Puritans come they settle one of these cities and the countryside around it instead of Boston. Many settlers did establish small villages, but Boston was the center of the region so you just need to make another city the hub.

Another option, which probably isn't what you mean, is to make the main city in the 'Boston area' somewhere else. Charlestown was settled first but had no spring, so they moved to the Shawmut peninsula. Instead they could have moved further up the Charles or Mystic, or to one of the other coastal cities I already mentioned up the coast to the north.
 
I could see the British burning Boston in 1776, rather than leaving it intact to the rebels. Many of the people living there would flee to other cities, including Providence.


Boston would surely be rebuilt, but it would be a diminished city with far fewer people.

I don't have any sources handy, but Boston's population did decline dramatically before and during the Revolution. The taxes hurt the city's trade and then the closure of the port of Boston in 1774 effectively killed the city's trade. Many people left Boston during this time. This is part of the reason Boston was overtaken by New York and Philly (although Philadelphia had passed it in population around the 1730s, and New York probably also did shortly before the revolution). Having Boston be overtaken by another New England city is a different matter. Losing it's role as the chief city in America was somewhat inevitable, losing its role as chief city in New England would be damn near impossible by this point.
 
I don't have any sources handy, but Boston's population did decline dramatically before and during the Revolution. The taxes hurt the city's trade and then the closure of the port of Boston in 1774 effectively killed the city's trade. Many people left Boston during this time. This is part of the reason Boston was overtaken by New York and Philly (although Philadelphia had passed it in population around the 1730s, and New York probably also did shortly before the revolution). Having Boston be overtaken by another New England city is a different matter. Losing it's role as the chief city in America was somewhat inevitable, losing its role as chief city in New England would be damn near impossible by this point.

What about a 20th century POD. Do you think there is a plausible scenario in which Boston enters a death spiral of demographic and economic decline like Buffalo, Detriot and Pittsburgh experienced during the last third of the 20th century? An earlier start to forced busing could have led to uglier and even more destructive rioting, which would cause even more middle and upper class families to flee to the suburbs.

The "Massachusetts Miracle" never occurs, and Boston in 2012 retains a prosperous core in the downtown, while the rest of the city falls into disrepair, with the population halving in the city proper even while the suburbs surrounding the city such as Newton remain prosperous. Landmarks such as Fenway Park and the New England medical center are isolated by blighted area known locally as The Combat Zone. Local leaders discuss urban renewal and legalized gambling, while Boston University and Northeastern University struggle to attract students, only to see them move south to new york, or West upon graduation.

The tech boom, when it occurs in the 1980s is further West, along 495 in central massachusetts instead of route 128. Many of the young engineers and professionals flock to the nearby City of Worcester, whose own fading downtown is revived. Driven by software, medical and high end manufacturing, Worcester county flourishes, with the city itself increasing its population by 75% between 1975 and 2005, leaving it with more than 300,000 souls, surpassing Boston as the largest city in Massachusetts and New England.

How plausible does that sound. Admittedly I would be more interested in seeing a scenario in which Providence predominates. Just imagine how the man who said "I am Providence" would react.
 
Newburyport seems ideally situated to be the city to surpass Boston, because it has not just a harbor, but also a large river that extends inland, far into New Hampshire.

But yes, the POD probably would have to be during the initial settlement. Maybe the Puritans being more stridently religious than even the Pilgrims, and people taking off to the mouth of the Merimaq......
 
What about a 20th century POD. Do you think there is a plausible scenario in which Boston enters a death spiral of demographic and economic decline like Buffalo, Detriot and Pittsburgh experienced during the last third of the 20th century? An earlier start to forced busing could have led to uglier and even more destructive rioting, which would cause even more middle and upper class families to flee to the suburbs.

The "Massachusetts Miracle" never occurs, and Boston in 2012 retains a prosperous core in the downtown, while the rest of the city falls into disrepair, with the population halving in the city proper even while the suburbs surrounding the city such as Newton remain prosperous. Landmarks such as Fenway Park and the New England medical center are isolated by blighted area known locally as The Combat Zone. Local leaders discuss urban renewal and legalized gambling, while Boston University and Northeastern University struggle to attract students, only to see them move south to new york, or West upon graduation.

The tech boom, when it occurs in the 1980s is further West, along 495 in central massachusetts instead of route 128. Many of the young engineers and professionals flock to the nearby City of Worcester, whose own fading downtown is revived. Driven by software, medical and high end manufacturing, Worcester county flourishes, with the city itself increasing its population by 75% between 1975 and 2005, leaving it with more than 300,000 souls, surpassing Boston as the largest city in Massachusetts and New England.

How plausible does that sound. Admittedly I would be more interested in seeing a scenario in which Providence predominates. Just imagine how the man who said "I am Providence" would react.

If Rhode Island cleaned up its act so that it practiced good government and Massachusetts became even more and more corrupt (think Mike Dukakis like Buddy Cianci), you may have a Rhode Island Miracle there.
 
What about a 20th century POD. Do you think there is a plausible scenario in which Boston enters a death spiral of demographic and economic decline like Buffalo, Detriot and Pittsburgh experienced during the last third of the 20th century? An earlier start to forced busing could have led to uglier and even more destructive rioting, which would cause even more middle and upper class families to flee to the suburbs.

The "Massachusetts Miracle" never occurs, and Boston in 2012 retains a prosperous core in the downtown, while the rest of the city falls into disrepair, with the population halving in the city proper even while the suburbs surrounding the city such as Newton remain prosperous. Landmarks such as Fenway Park and the New England medical center are isolated by blighted area known locally as The Combat Zone. Local leaders discuss urban renewal and legalized gambling, while Boston University and Northeastern University struggle to attract students, only to see them move south to new york, or West upon graduation.

The tech boom, when it occurs in the 1980s is further West, along 495 in central massachusetts instead of route 128. Many of the young engineers and professionals flock to the nearby City of Worcester, whose own fading downtown is revived. Driven by software, medical and high end manufacturing, Worcester county flourishes, with the city itself increasing its population by 75% between 1975 and 2005, leaving it with more than 300,000 souls, surpassing Boston as the largest city in Massachusetts and New England.

I think that all of this is very possible, except for the actual population of Worcester overtaking Boston which is less likely. But by this point Boston had been the "capital of New England" for well over 300 years. I don't think being down-at-the-heels (which it was for much of the 1900s) can cause Boston to lose this position.

Look at Detroit. It's hard for a city to have gone through more of a "death spiral" since the 60s (no offense to people who still tried to make that city great) but Detroit is still the city in Michigan even if everyone in the 'burbs is afraid of it. Ann Arbor might be doing better economically but nobody would claim Ann Arbor is the most prominent city in Michigan. Detroit is, and everything else is just around Detroit.

In your proposed scenario, I think that's what it would be like in Boston. Worcester might have the tech, the schools might have fled in the city. But if Cambridge and Newton are doing well, Boston is still the chief city. Hell even, if the inner suburbs go down with Boston and everything is in Providence and Worcester nobody is going to forget where the dormant heart of New England is.

But all that aside, Boston has things going for it that would prevent another New england town taking over even as chief economic capital. All the roads lead to Boston. All the Train lines lead to Boston. Boston is the capital of Massachusetts.

I've been brainstorming for a while a timeline where Boston is much poorer in the post-ww2 period, so that neighborhoods like the West End and Scollay Square are not demolished. I've toyed with the idea that the wealthy flee the city and build the financial district closer to homes in the suburbs (probably in Cambridge). So, the city itself is much poorer but it would still be the capital of the state and the 'unofficial capital of New England'. People would still identify with Boston even if they were disgusted with it. People from the suburbs of Detroit still say they're from 'Detroit' even when they never visit the city and bash it routinely, because it the city for them. The same thing would be true of a economically failed Boston.
 
Newburyport seems ideally situated to be the city to surpass Boston, because it has not just a harbor, but also a large river that extends inland, far into New Hampshire.

But yes, the POD probably would have to be during the initial settlement. Maybe the Puritans being more stridently religious than even the Pilgrims, and people taking off to the mouth of the Merimaq......

That's what I was thinking about Newburyport. The Merrimack would give them access further inland (although it would inevitably have the same issues as Boston with not being able to access west and would be overtaken by NY and Philly). The Merrimack Valley would also be relatively good farming land in the rocky hills of New England, which would be a big plus in the early years. It's tributaries like the Nashua and the Concord would provide good settlement opportunities too. Plus, when the Industrial Revolution comes to Lowell it will be that much closer to the core of the region. Newburyport would be the port for all of this activity upriver. Never mind Boston needing to build the Middlesex Canal- everything is going through Newburyport anyways.

I'm not sure about the Puritans being more stridently religious than the Pilgrims though. They were pretty strict, no doubt, but the settlers of the countryside were mostly Puritans so they wanted that to some extent. To be any more stridently religious would upset their financial backers. It's definitely a possibility, to then have another company try again, and the slightly-less-religous plus the business-minded decided to go north. ...Okay, I have changed my mind as I write this, this could certainly happen. Although I think the easier solution is to just have most of them decide to land at the mouth of the Merrimack, which was within the lands granted by the charter. The Puritans were settling the entire North Shore of Massachusetts, all you need is to have Winthrop and most of his fleet land somewhere else. There will still be some settlers in Boston and Salem, but make them decide Newburyport was a better location for a main 'towne'. Because, after all, it was.
 
Top