If United Colonies of New England declared independence in 1661 how would England react?

If the Puritan colonies of New England declared independence in 1661, was the likeliest outcome


  • Total voters
    56
In the Puritan colonies of New England, there had been separatism from the beginning. In Massachusetts Bay, governor Winthrop in his letter to the English lords of trade warned in 1638 that if the King was about to enroach upon their liberties in any way, the people of the colony would doubtless severe any ties to England. Within the colony, discussion about whether MB was a res publica in its own right, was going on from 1643 at least. In 1652, replying to the English parliament, that wished to replace the royal charter with a new one, the general court of MB stated that they were an independent commonwealth. In February 1661, a trader doing business in MBC complained to the lords of trade that the colony considered itself a free state.
The colonies only acknowledged Charles II as king after more than a year into his rrign. Around the same time, King Charles II remarked that the New England confederation in his opinion was a war combination designed to secede from England, according to John Fiske. He speculated that had the members of the confederation attempted to secede as the king suspected, they would have won their independence more than a century before American revolutionary war. But was his speculation realistic?
The only surprising thing given the separatist feelings of the Puritan New England colonies is that they did not attempt to secede in practice, beyond declarations and theeats.
I need your assesment because I have my fictional continent where there were similar puritan colonies in a similar confederation, and would like to hear the prospects for a succesful secession of them in the 1660/1680s. Because the situation in New England was wholly analogous, your assesment about it would help me with Magellanican colonies as well.
 
I cannot imagine those colonies would win. They had not the population, infrastructure, or armaments they had a century later.
 
Even if they manage to win, the French in Quebec will target them later. It reliefs the Dutch in New Amsterdam but help the French, and will have a little to no concurrence with the independent Puritans.
 
Very unlikely to be successful. The English were in the midst of a series of naval wars with the Dutch Republic. Indeed in 1665 during the second Anglo-Dutch war, the royal Navy took New Amsterdam, which I suspect was bigger and more fortified than Boston with little difficulty. Since the Puritans had enjoyed cordial relations and considrable trade with New Amsterdam from the 1630's, as well as the religious affinity of Calvinism, the English government would doubless view such a "declaration of independence" as some kind of Dutch plot to take Upper New England. I suspect that a Royal Navy squadron would have appeared in Boston harbor, gotten the attention of the MB government with a salvo or two and presented an ultimatum. It would not have gone well for the colony after that. Almost all of their manufactured goods came from England. In the interior counties, the local Indian tribes were already resentful of the settlers and might well have taken advantage of the situation. Even in 1675, the indian confederation under King Phillip gave the colony a run for its money for more than a year.
 
The Puritans wanted autonomy, but still felt a sincere and severe affinity to England as fellow Englishmen. That's the big difference. They were part of England and its empire, they just wanted to govern themselves in daily life.
 
New England would be doomed with out the United front that the 13 colonies were (barely) able to put together in the crisis leading up to the Revolution. I don't know the demographics of the New England colonies in 1680, but you'll be looking at a population that is largely English born. This population won't have a more deeply rooted separate identity that would be established a century later. To say nothing of dramatically smaller.

There's also the security problem raised by the frontier being so close to the zone of settlement. By 1775 the frontier had pushed well away from cities like Boston and Providence. In this early period those cities would be vulnerable to attack from Native Americans once they find out that they're going alone. To say nothing about the nearby French.


ETA: I found a population figure of 80,000 for all of New England at the time of King Phillip's War.
 
Realistically, pulling it off requires a serious foreign supporter. In this period, that almost has to be the Dutch Republic.

Some of the settlers of Massachussetts had lived in the Netherlands, so it's not impossible - but they have to make the Republic see it as worthwhile to support them, and not just sell them out for trade concessions elsewhere.
 
The Puritans wanted autonomy, but still felt a sincere and severe affinity to England as fellow Englishmen. That's the big difference. They were part of England and its empire, they just wanted to govern themselves in daily life.

The statements I referred to were real and already in 1638 less than a decade after their arrival to MB, gov. Winthrop was already threatening with secession, I read it from a book.
This book for example suggests they were republican and independent minded.
 
So, to sum the comments up, declarations of independence by the Puritan colonies would've led to a war against England, which the colonies most likely would've los, with or without Dutch support.
Otherwise this all would apply to the Puritan colonies of Zion-Albion in Magellanica as well, except that there were no Dutch there to support the Puritans, but a French Huguenot colony instead (a small and weak player compared to England of course). So, I have to keep ZA colonies English until 1812 and meanwhile try to preserve their Puritan theocracy until that date as well as I can.
 

Pkmatrix

Monthly Donor
Hm...

Looking over the history of the period in question, I'd say the best chance for New England to successfully declare independence would be to do it during either the Second or Third Anglo-Dutch War and really only with serious Dutch backing. The way I'd imagine it could go would be the Dutch guaranteeing New England's independence in exchange for New England raising an army to help them retake New Netherland - this would probably only work in conjunction with Dutch ships protecting Boston (I've no idea how plausible that is).

During King Philip's War the New Englanders raised about 3,500 men and apparently had up to 16,000 able to fight (if Wikipedia is to be believed) and the whole population of New Netherland in 1664 was 9,000 (2,500 in New Amsterdam) so the idea isn't completely ridiculous. I imagine the goal would be for New England to provide enough of a distraction for the English to stretch them thin.

Whether or not New England would be able to keep that "independence" for very long after the war is another question entirely.
 
Ironically if this happens it is even less likely that the Americans become independent in the same way they did OTL. Royal Government means that at this point Charles can extract part or all of his revenue from sources other than Parliament, this would likely lead to Stuart Pseudo-Absolutism surviving much longer. I mean the reason the British so opposed America calls for a parliament is that the King could be able to use it to become independent.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it wasn't John Fiske but Perry Miller in his Orthodoxy in Massachusetts that in 1638 when there was a threat of MBC charter being revoked, the colony's leaders would have risen to an armed resistance if necessary, and possibly the monument in Bunker Hill would celebrate an earlier date (c. 1640). Do you think Miller is right?
 
Whether or not New England would be able to keep that "independence" for very long after the war is another question entirely.

What I can *just* about see as plausible is a New England state that petitions a stronger Holland for support, becoming part of the Dutch Republic's overseas holdings.
 
Top