New York City and New England

While I realize that New York is not a part of New England proper, never has been a part of New England, and never will be a part of New England...the city itself (and surrounding area, and Long Island) have historically been more closely aligned with New England economically and politically, as far as I can tell.

In a time line where New England seceded for whatever reason (Burr?) what are the odds of New York City - not the whole State! - going with them? Educate me!
 
While I realize that New York is not a part of New England proper, never has been a part of New England, and never will be a part of New England...the city itself (and surrounding area, and Long Island) have historically been more closely aligned with New England economically and politically, as far as I can tell.

In a time line where New England seceded for whatever reason (Burr?) what are the odds of New York City - not the whole State! - going with them? Educate me!
Actually New York was part of New England for about a year in the 1680s and was the second capital of the Dominion of New England for that period. If you can promote and sustain further integration you might be able to get the Dominion colonies to think of themselves as a seperate and distinct polity from the other colonies. Thus if and when seperatist thought becomes pronounced ITTL the New English are more likely to go their own way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England
 
Actually New York was part of New England for about a year in the 1680s and was the second capital of the Dominion of New England for that period. If you can promote and sustain further integration you might be able to get the Dominion colonies to think of themselves as a seperate and distinct polity from the other colonies. Thus if and when seperatist thought becomes pronounced ITTL the New English are more likely to go their own way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England

That union was forced on both parties by England, and the New Englanders, at least, hated it.

IIRC it did in poor Andross politically, even though he had been effective in several posts before.

Hmmm...

A surviving Iroquoia, so that New York is basically the Hudson river valley? That might be a good step towards orienting NY and NE towards each other. Of course, pulling THAT off would be ... tricky.
 
That union was forced on both parties by England, and the New Englanders, at least, hated it.

IIRC it did in poor Andross politically, even though he had been effective in several posts before.

Hmmm...

A surviving Iroquoia, so that New York is basically the Hudson river valley? That might be a good step towards orienting NY and NE towards each other. Of course, pulling THAT off would be ... tricky.

True, but New York Province/State was English since 1664 and right up to the Sullivan Expedition in 1779 Iroquoia survived-a century already of being hemmed in and snuggling up to New England, without any real cooperation like amongst New England subdivisions themselves.

Mind, I LIKE the idea. It sadly just doesn't feel feasible since it already had been more or less practiced for a century already.
 
That union was forced on both parties by England, and the New Englanders, at least, hated it.

IIRC it did in poor Andross politically, even though he had been effective in several posts before.

Hmmm...

A surviving Iroquoia, so that New York is basically the Hudson river valley? That might be a good step towards orienting NY and NE towards each other. Of course, pulling THAT off would be ... tricky.
True, perhaps you could go back a few decades and try integrating them into the Confederation. Say Mass. fights in the Anglo-Dutch war thus not weakening the Confederation. After the war an offer of admission into the Confederation made to the new colonial government of *NewYork which is accepted. Instead of being heavy handed about it Parliament and the Crown decide to foster the preexisting "central government" of the northern colonies. A century or so later if and when separatism arises you are again in a position where the northern colonies views themselves not only as different from England/Britain but also from the other colonies.
 
IIRC Manhattan the island was originally colonized by the Netherlands in the west and New Haven colony in the east. In a TL without the royal chartering of the Province of New York, Manhattan island and the Lower Hudson would be under New Haven / Connecticut. Upper New York would be under French, Iroquois, and possibly later Canadian rule.
 
IIRC Manhattan the island was originally colonized by the Netherlands in the west and New Haven colony in the east. In a TL without the royal chartering of the Province of New York, Manhattan island and the Lower Hudson would be under New Haven / Connecticut. Upper New York would be under French, Iroquois, and possibly later Canadian rule.
But, without Up-State and Especially The Upper Hudson ...

Would that Site be Likely to Become a City in The First Place?

Or, as The Gate-Way to The Fully-Canadian Great Lakes Region ...

Would Western Connecticut be Even MORE Built up than it is Now?
 

Skokie

Banned
New England Puritans were already settling Dutch territory in the 17th century, before the transfer to British rule; namely on Long Island and areas west of the Connecticut River. They would also settle large areas of Upstate NY in the 18th and 19th centuries. The thing was, in New York they had to compete with the entrenched Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, whose land and governing styles and religious/cultural patterns were vastly different from New England. They also had to contend with Irish and German immigrants. So New York could never be New England, though the two are more closely related than they are to Pennsylvania, which only got a spare amount of Puritan settlement, and a whole lot of Quakers, Germans and Scots-Irish.
 
Top