AHC: earliest plausible independent Anglo-American state after 1607?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Challenge earliest plausible independence for English colonies in americas with a pod after 1607. Double your points if the independent state is a continental confederation of most of the colonies.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Have the Stuarts flee and set up a kingdom-in-exile during the Commonwealth/Protectorate era.
 
Charles I lokes for a way to raise cash and sells the America colonies to themselves.

This leads the governors to call a national conference to discuss the next moves.
 
The Albany Union ends up being put into practice around the 1750s leaving the colonies as an self-governing dominion that is strongly tied to Britain?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Weren't the colonies pretty anti-Stuart?
Virginia (the most important colony) remained loyal to the Stuarts. In fact, this legacy lives on in the modern day nickname of Virginia: "the Old Dominion State," as Virginia was made a dominion by Charles II for its steadfast loyalty to the House of Stuart.

Of course, this could create interesting conflicts in the New World if the New English colonies reject the authority of the Virginia-based Stuarts.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
2 themes identified

the main theme of the discussion so far is the colonies and England falling on the opposite side of 17th century political disputes, either by going Stuart loyalist during the commonwealth (or maybe later) or by a reaction against the Dominion of New England, ie, a reaction against Charles II and the restoration.

The other semi-flippant option involves selling the colonies to themselves! Not quite a serious suggestion yet Charles I made alot of money based decisions.

Some potentiality may exist also from changing up the colonies' external threat environment.

For instance, English adventurers captured Quebec city in its infancy (along with Sam Champlain), occupying the place between 1629 and 1632, at which point Charles I accepted a French ransom payment for it in order to cover a dowry. If the Royal Exchqequer had been in different shape in those couple years, England might have for the most part aborted New France and the containment/harassment threat it posed to the english colonies.

The Phipps expedition of the 1690s (can't remember offhand if it was 1690 or 1697) saw the English again try to take Quebec, which they failed to take at that time.

Or, indirectly, if the english had kept Port Royal and Acadia when they first took it, a knock-on effect might have been an earlier war in which the annihilation of French North America was a war aim and was achieved.

Bottom-line early removal of the French threat could erode some of the common interest between the colonies and mother country, though I don't know if there's a consensus whether that was a necessary and/or sufficient condition for an independence movement.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Bottom-line early removal of the French threat could erode some of the common interest between the colonies and mother country, though I don't know if there's a consensus whether that was a necessary and/or sufficient condition for an independence movement.
I'd say it was a pretty major one. The Colonies started becoming noticeably more restive once they believed that they could more or less defend themselves without aid from the Mother Country.

The Quartering Acts, for example, caused such an uproar mostly because people felt that, without the French threat, there was no reason to billet British troops in the homes of the Colonists.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Earlier destruction of New France as a catalyst of early American seperatism

There had been British attempts in taking parts of New France over the century and a half before the final battle of Quebec in 1759.

15 years later, 1774, the American revolt burst out.

Rule of thumb –

Fall of New France + 15 years = American revolt

Potential falls of Quebec –

1629-1632 (Charles I ?) plus 15 years = 1644 – However, there were still Dutch colonies?
Yes – New Amsterdam was seized 20 years later. Has Civil War begun by then in England? Yes -

The English colonies are awful young though.

1690-1697 – (revolt c. 1705) – reign of King William of Orange, post-Glorious revolution, post-Dutch wars, during wars of Louis XIV

---revolt would come in the middle of the war of Spanish succession – Louis would have a great desire to aid the rebels, but he would have many competing priorities.

1710-1713 – (revolt c. 1725 {King William or Queen Anne, I forget} or c. 1728 {King George I}) Louis XIV done, and a 20 year break from wars ensues.

In target timeframe, France may not have been too committed to European goals to provide major support to American rebels

1747-1748 – (revolt c. 1762 {King George III}) European wars not necessarily played out. France will have to choose between aiding rebels and continental gains.


Now of course this is oversimplified, and there would be no mechanical law dictating an American revolt 15 years after Quebec if it had fallen earlier. Much depends on how this intersects with the domestic politics of the colonies, England, later Great Britain, plus geopolitical circumstances conducive to Americans gaining allied support. Nevertheless, if Quebec province is taken from French hands and retained much earlier, in 1629 or 1690 for example, one major constraint and binding force between the colonies and England is lifted.
 
Top