Earlier American identity forged

Okay so we all know that the American identity we all identify today was basically forged between King William's War and the War of 1812, with important milestones in between(for example War of Jenkins Ear-King George's War;in which Britons began referring to their American colonists as Americans).

So I'm thinking writing a timeline around an earlier development of an American conciousness. I believe I'll of starting out with a more successful New England Confederation and a more successful Bacon's rebellion in Virginia and Maryland.

So here's my rough timeline.

POD-1654 New England Confederation seizes New Netherland during the First Anglo-Dutch War(in OTL this was initially the plan but Massachusetts went off and seized Acadia instead).

1662 King Charles II joins the New Haven Colony with Connecticut as punishment for harboring regicide Judges from the English Civil War. New Netherland joins New England Confederation(renamed New World Confederation), effectively taking New Haven's place on the council.

POD-1676 Bacon's rebellion breaks out after the death of Nathaniel Bacon, John Washington becomes leader of the rebellion(in OTL he was appointed a Colonel in the Virginia militia and he quarreled with Gov. Berkley before the rebellion and was quite popular in Virginia, he died in 1677 at the age of 46). Washington pursues a policy of guerrillla warfare against the English regiments sent to put down the rebellion and within a year the English force is completely annihilated, mostly through disease(which happened in OTL but by then the rebellion had ended).
 
Okay so we all know that the American identity we all identify today was basically forged between King William's War and the War of 1812, with important milestones in between(for example War of Jenkins Ear-King George's War;in which Britons began referring to their American colonists as Americans).
Well identity forgery would be investigated and I'm sure the Mint (or who ever prosecuted such forgeries) would do their best to put it down. It might possibly depend on whether there was enough valid identity in circulation - if there wasn't, people might well accept accept forged identities as better than nothing...
 
huh you're joking right, I'm talking about American national identity. You know when somebody asks you where you are from you respond be stating either America or I'm an American.
 
huh you're joking right, I'm talking about American national identity. You know when somebody asks you where you are from you respond be stating either America or I'm an American.

Dude, it was a play on words - kinda humorous actually.:rolleyes:

But back to your original postulation. Where are you going with this? Are you saying that if the Amerrican colonists identified themselves as Americans instead of as Englishmen, that an indepednence movement and rebellion would have occurred sooner?

Or maybe you're saying that instead of seeing themselves as a colonist of say Massachusetts and thereby being different than a colonist from New Haven/New York, that the two colonists see themselves as both being American, and hence a breakdown of the individual colonies occurs over time and we end up with one American colony instead of 13 colonies. Either sounds interesting.

You should elaborate on your POD and make a AH TL. I think it would be interesting for many to read.
 
Okay so basically what I'm going for is that the colonists see themselves as Americans rather than English much earlier. I'm not neccesarily thinking about earlier American independence just greater national unity earlier on. While there are still differences between Virginians and New Englanders they're seen as secondary being American is primary.
 
Obviously, this point can be argued to death, but I'll attempt to be brief: OTL the American colonists were not eager to break away or rebel for rebellion sake but because they wanted something they thought Britain owed them. TTL your colonists in New England and Virginia are taking a very, very different path. They are being more assertive in their regional identities and seem to have less common cause against Britain / England. IMO, OTL the big shift was that British began lumping them all together as "Americans." This part is crucial, because notions of British patriotism / imperials were critically important to development of an American nationality in the lead up to revolution. Most importantly, British rejection of the Americans as British was crucial to the transformation (eg Benjamin's Franklin attitude between 1750 - 1776).

Similarly, the brief TL you give side-steps the crucial issue in colonial politics and colonial-British relations in the mid-1600s: the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution. Particularly the later was a huge part of why the colonist felt entitled to "liberties of British subjects" because both when Charles II and William III / Mary II came to power they reissued colonial charters in such a way as to reaffirm this notion.

Also, if France is still on the continent, the colonists will not be as free to slip the bonds & shield of Empire.

And of course, there will be far, far fewer of them than there were 100 yrs later. And they will be even less developed. A trans-colonial post office was only the creation of the 1750s. As late as the 1770s (and later still), it was a faster and more reliable trip from most colonies to London than between any two colonial centers (due to a lack of roads and to the far greater number of ships going back and forth from England). Hence, the far less numerous "Americans" will have a harder time coming together in a very literal sense of the word.

Now, none of the above is to say that an earlier development of an American identity is impossible. Quite the opposite, it's possible and potentially quite plausible. But 100yrs earlier may just be pushing it too much and IMO the earlier it develops, the more radical and revolutionary it may be (in some aspects).
 
1676-Metacomet's War erupts throughout New England, the New World Confederation unites in the face of ferocious Indian attacks throughout the colonies.

1677-Upon learning of the fate of the English forces sent to Virginia Charles II appoints a three man commission(with one commissioner to act as the new Royal Governor)to address the grievances of the colonists.

1677-Metacomet's war ends with the destruction of the Indian confederacy and the death of Metacomet.

(In response to Nicomacheus)

I actually haven't changed the colonial relationship between the colonists and England at this point. Just made a few minor inter-colonial changes regarding New England-New Netherland. A more successful Bacon's rebellion does serve as a template for colonial resistance to England though.
 
(In response to Nicomacheus)

I actually haven't changed the colonial relationship between the colonists and England at this point. Just made a few minor inter-colonial changes regarding New England-New Netherland. A more successful Bacon's rebellion does serve as a template for colonial resistance to England though.

Didn't realize you were going to add to it. :p Also, doing a bit of venting from RL. My bad. Love alt-colonial developments: do proceed.
 
1677-Upon arrival in the rebellious colony of Virginia, the Royal Commissioners were given a courteous welcome by the leader of the rebellion General Washington. Subsequently informed by Washington that the rebellion isn't targeted against Royal authority but against the depradations of Gov. Berkeley, the newly appointed Royal Governor Edmund Andros quickly establishes law and order pardons or recommends the pardoning of all of the rebels and in due course quickly reestablishes proper government in Virginia.

1686-1688 Seeking to increase Royal authority in the colonies newly crowned James II establishes the Dominion of New England and promptly appoints Royal Governor of Virginia Edmund Andros as the new Governor his highnesses American dominions. Thus the Dominion of America is created stretching from Carolina to Maine.

The union between the colonies quickly proves disasterous as Edmund Andros promotion of the church of England quickly makes him unpopular throughout New England and New Netherland. Attempts to revoke the charters of the various New England colonies prove futile and quickly the interior of the colonies are up in arms and Andros's authority is limited to Boston.

In 1688 James II is overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, upon hearing the news Jacob Leisler seizes control of New Amsterdam, Edmund Andros is imprisoned and returned to England.

1689- War between England and France erupts, France quickly finds itself set against much of Europe as the War of Grand Alliance takes shape. In America news of the coronation of King William is greeted with joy and enthusaism. Initially displeased with the American colonist for their overthrow of Edmund Andros the king sends a Royal Commission to America to address the grievances of the colonist and help coordinate the colonies action during the forthcoming conflict with France.
 
Cool. Andros always sounded to me like a terrific name for the villian in a sci-fi movie. Now, he can star in alt-American patriotic epics.

Also, there's a typo in the post, as it refers to a Dominion of New England, but then to a Dominion of America.

You know, at this point, I'm almost wondering if the set-up doesn't make it easier to get an amicable settlement that might be seen as part and parcel of the Bill of Rights. Of course, since the colonists thought that the OTL changes after 1689 had such status, that doesn't mean there might not be a similar misunderstanding TTL.
 
1690-Leisler's Congress convenes in New Amsterdam. Upon their arrival the Royal Commissioners are granted an audience with the congress. After much discussion the commissioners come to the conclusion that the colonies are willing to unite and work together under voluntary and agreeable circumstances. Upon the adjourmnent of the congress the colonies agree to the formation of a looser confederation based on the old New England Confederation model.
 
1690-1697: American Confederation and King William's War

As hostilities broke out in North America between English and French colonists the benefits of united and coordinated action between the Americans(as for the first time they were referred to by their English cousins)quickly made themselves apparent.

During what would become known later is the First American Congress, the Americans agreed upon a strategy to deal with the French in Canada. A force made up of volunteers from New Netherland, Virginia and Maryland under the command of Peter Schyuler would advance down Lake Champlain and the Richileu River against Montreal while a force of from New England would sail up the gulf of St. Lawrence to Quebec. On paper the plan seemed flawless however as subsequent events would transpire it would nearly lead to disaster and defeat.

The force advancing from Albany made good headway only encountering sporadic resistance until nearly reaching their main objective of Montreal. This made Col. Schyuler a very nervous man, realizing the importance of coordinated action against Canada, Schyuler sought to avoid a general engagement and what he feared most an ambush until the New England expedition appeared before Quebec. He believed he had enough men equal to the task but the supply situation was another matter. He knew he had enough supplies to last unti the end of September but would the New Englanders appear before then? If not he would have to find another way to provision his men or retreat.
 
hmmm, WI say during Metacom's War 1675-76, the French from Canada gave much more support to the Algonquians in revolt against the English- maybe even sending COUREURS DE BOIS alongside muskets, ammo, food- plus at the same time in Virginia during Bacon's Rebellion the Spaniards somehow have a greater role in stirring up the Indians against the settlers- thereby contributing to an earlier American identityt developing amongst different sections of the Englis colonies ?
 
Top