Ideas for Thirteen colonies goverance

So I'm trying to get feedback for a few colonial ideas I've came up with for Apollinis et Dianae. Now to me the way that Britain governed the Colonies was remarkably inefficient and decentralized, and would no doubt be very different under a continuing House of Stuart. So I've came up with a few ideas for how the colonies could be better governed. I'm trying to find out how realistic they are, whether or not they would work, and how they can be improved upon.

So where are the two ideas I've came up with . First I'm thinking that three dominions could be created, out of the three groups of colonies, New England, Middle and Southern. The names will of course be changed to sound better but I think it could work. Sure there will be pushback from colonists but the early 1700s is a lot different from 1776. No chance of the Colonies successfully breaking away or of it even being that popular yet. And second, a more Royal version of Ben Franklin's Albany plan, with a Governor-General/Viceroy/President General and an advisory council made up of two reps from each colony. Basically a mini House of Commons. The Advisory council will have some powers but most will be focused in the hands of the Crown Representative. Also, there will be military garrisons in the colonies as well. Partially drawn from the British isles and partially from the colonies, they will act as protection against native American raids, any potential war with France and to ensure that the British have forces on hand to eliminate any uprising or resistance.

These are merely the main two ideas I've came up with. Any suggestions are very much welcome.
 
The Dominion of New England already contained two of the most important, established middle colonies in New York and New Jersey (at the time divided into East and West Jersey). It might be more prudent to simply add the newly-founded colony of Pennsylvania (then including Delaware, but it may be prudent to split it off as a subdivision within the Dominion to placate those specific colonists) to it and simply have a northern and southern dominion. The 'middle' colonies ultimately trended north (urban and commercial) in history the way Maryland and Virginia trended to the south (aristocratic and agricultural).

Perhaps paying Penn off even more (he had debt issues) and promises to let the Quakers be unmolested within this expanded and longer-lasting DNE will do the trick, maybe even continuing as a lieutenant-governor in Philadelphia the way Nichols was a deputy in New York could further placate him.

Granted, I quite like the idea of all British America under one government as well! :)
 

Rstone4

Banned
Since the Dominion of New England in the later 1600s was a major problem for the colonists and quickly revoked after James II was fired by Parliament and William, I think this POD is not far enough back.

You would have to go back to Jamestown and Virginia early colonial history when the Colony was made a crown colony. The precedent would have to be set way back then with much stronger Royal/Parliamentary oversight. This, of course, will force a change in Plymouth and Massachusetts because both of those colonies were set up for various reasons of "You're doing it wrong!" and would absolutely oppose any oversight by London. Remember that Winthrop took the charter with him.

Also you have the problem of communication, a 6 week travel time, climate permitting, from England to America and then another 6 weeks back would make stricter control much harder.

What could happen is that the leadership in england could send Viceroys over like the spanish did. This would radically shift the entire course of US history by wiping it off the books. The colonists would be used to not doing things their own way and the entire concept self rule would be erased. Any American revolution that might happen will have to happen on very different terms and for different reasons.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
When James II tried to merge the northern colonies into the Dominion of New England, it fell apart in three years from pretty much all the amalgamated colonies rebelling. To be sure, a governor other than Edmund Andros and a more politically stable England might delay this, but the thirteen colonies were very zealous in guarding their local privileges - look at the articles of (very loose) confederation they initially set up once they finally did get independence. (Yes, it was replaced, primarily because once they tried it it was a disaster. But there was a lot of opposition to replacing it, and Rhode Island had to be forced in by the prospect of a tariff wall.)

I think any king trying to centralize on the scale you propose will face a lot of local opposition, and absent a significant, very good reason to the contrary, said opposition will probably be sufficient to convince said king to backtrack. I honestly think your best bet is to prevent the thirteen colonies from arising in the first place - Virginia and Plymouth had some pretty extensive initial land claims, and if the settlement pattern rests on expanding those claims instead of dividing the place up, maybe you could get a mega-colony or two.
 
It will be interesting if England can get its act together and treat the Colonies a little better. With some local government authorized by the Crown and allowing them some self rule they might keep the Colonists loyal. This could have a huge effect one France goes bonkers.
 
Won't the eventual growth of the North American colonies catch to England in terms of population and economy in the long run? What happens then?
 
Won't the eventual growth of the North American colonies catch to England in terms of population and economy in the long run? What happens then?

I think it is possible that the Colonies might be made into the first Dominions. Possibly with a Viceroy who may or may not be a member of the Royal Family, though not hereditary. Have a local Council or Parliament for local rule and have a member or more to Parliament in London.
 
Couldn't the king do a compromise via a dominion with a Governor-General, but/and with provinces still able to send representatives to a Grand Council ala the Albany Plan and Constantine's separate proposal?

The colonies making trouble but the Stewarts' natural inclination to centralize may mean an *Albany Plan would become a compromise formed out of those two loggerheads.
 
The way Britain governed its colonies shouldn't be described as inefficient, its colonies, both on the mainland and in the Caribbean, typically had stronger population growth and output of resources than the colonies of any other European power.
 
It will be interesting if England can get its act together and treat the Colonies a little better. With some local government authorized by the Crown and allowing them some self rule they might keep the Colonists loyal. This could have a huge effect one France goes bonkers.
They did have "some local government authorized by the Crown" and "some self rule "...
 
They did have "some local government authorized by the Crown" and "some self rule "...

In many ways, that was their problem! Not that setting up populous colonies with a radically different and more despotic government than how things were run back in England would have been particularly plausible at the time.

There's all sorts of tricks and logical contortions that can be employed (simple lack of colonial representation being one of the least nasty) to maintain the paradox of a country having a large empire and a representative government, but eventually, problems will arise.
 
Top