Northern Albany Confederacy

Ben Franklin pitched his Albany Plan of Union in 1754 for unification of the thirteen colonies, although ultimately only the colonies north of the Potomac River really seemed interested.

What if a Confederation of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland had been been formed in 1754?


How would the southern colonies over time respond to this Confederation?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Assuming Britain backs this (which it might, if only because it provides an excuse to prevent all the colonies from uniting in one league), the South will eventually respond by forming its own Confederation. Partly because it wants to ensure it'll run its own affairs instead of being bossed around by the North, and partly because britain will be actively endorsing this.

Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced that Maryland would ultimately opt to bo along with the Albany union. It mostly aqttracted the states that were threatened more directly by the French. Getting New Jersey in is possible because it would feel closer to the other more Northern colonies, but I think Maryland would stay out. It would eventually end up in the Southern Confederation instead. (However, if Maryland is included, count on Delaware getting absorbed too, sooner or later.)
 
Assuming Britain backs this (which it might, if only because it provides an excuse to prevent all the colonies from uniting in one league), the South will eventually respond by forming its own Confederation. Partly because it wants to ensure it'll run its own affairs instead of being bossed around by the North, and partly because britain will be actively endorsing this.

Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced that Maryland would ultimately opt to bo along with the Albany union. It mostly aqttracted the states that were threatened more directly by the French. Getting New Jersey in is possible because it would feel closer to the other more Northern colonies, but I think Maryland would stay out. It would eventually end up in the Southern Confederation instead. (However, if Maryland is included, count on Delaware getting absorbed too, sooner or later.)

Another reason Britain might back such a move is to create a more uniform and centralized (and thus efficient and easier to legislate/manage/improve) colonial administration by making the Confederation subject to a single, freshly negotiated and drafted colonial charter. In 54' the colonial population is still considered loyal and proud Britishers. Cutting expenses and raising revenue, while also reducing the potential flash points for disagreement between the colonies or the colonies and home isles (which would require administrative attention to solve) are a huge draw in this period where wars or expeditions to the colonies were expensive affairs.
 
If this had happened, what impact would it have on the American Revolution with two American Confederations instead of 13 colonies?
 
Within 3-4 years the South forms its own organization under Virginian leadership since the North is called The Confedarcy I think the south would be called the Commonwealth.
 
Within 3-4 years the South forms its own organization under Virginian leadership since the North is called The Confedarcy I think the south would be called the Commonwealth.

Why? It's not like a fellow British colony is a threat, nor is there a substantial economic/transport linkage between the colonies, viable French or Spanish security threats, or even much of a united policy interest.
 
It would be converted into Andros' Dominion mk2 as soon as the Monarch and/or Parliament thought it would be fiscally beneficial. This might spark an earlier revolution, but I think the lesson coming away from it is that we can't have any kind of central authority.

Delaware, and North Carolina aren't going to want to be dominated by Virginia.

The elite of South Carolina would like any opportunity to dominate its colonial neighbors, and use that power to expand at the expense of both neighboring tribes and the Spanish. The low country South Carolinians would want to use the precedent to create a plantation empire from the Atlantic to the Mississippi to the Caribbean. Then they'll see the potential expansion into Cuba, the west side of the Mississippi, and even northern New Spain. I don't know how much Parliament will want to indulge that behavior, so the South Carolinians will be angry at the restriction on their manifest destiny.
 
Last edited:
Assuming Britain backs this (which it might, if only because it provides an excuse to prevent all the colonies from uniting in one league), the South will eventually respond by forming its own Confederation. Partly because it wants to ensure it'll run its own affairs instead of being bossed around by the North, and partly because britain will be actively endorsing this.

Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced that Maryland would ultimately opt to bo along with the Albany union. It mostly aqttracted the states that were threatened more directly by the French. Getting New Jersey in is possible because it would feel closer to the other more Northern colonies, but I think Maryland would stay out. It would eventually end up in the Southern Confederation instead. (However, if Maryland is included, count on Delaware getting absorbed too, sooner or later.)

Delaware was part of Pennsylvania at the time.
 
I'm not sure there'd be a southern confederation. The purpose of the Albany Confederation was primarily to organize defense against the French and their Amerindian allies. Virginia and the other southern colonies don't have this issue.



Georgia historically was a big supporter of a stronger federal government post-revolution however due to the state being weak and unable to enforce its land claims versus the Amerindians. North Carolina too had issues enforcing its authority west of the Appalachians, though that had more to do with settlers trekking west despite royal bans. I could see the Carolinas and Georgia banding together potentially. Plus North Carolina joining a smaller Caribbean-oriented confederation would enable it to resist the influence of Virginia perhaps.
 
I'm not sure there'd be a southern confederation. The purpose of the Albany Confederation was primarily to organize defense against the French and their Amerindian allies. Virginia and the other southern colonies don't have this issue.


Georgia historically was a big supporter of a stronger federal government post-revolution however due to the state being weak and unable to enforce its land claims versus the Amerindians. North Carolina too had issues enforcing its authority west of the Appalachians, though that had more to do with settlers trekking west despite royal bans. I could see the Carolinas and Georgia banding together potentially. Plus North Carolina joining a smaller Caribbean-oriented confederation would enable it to resist the influence of Virginia perhaps.

Emphasis mine; why would the Carolinas and Georgia seek to do this, considering that their economic and political interests largely coincided (like 80-95%) with those of Virginia and vice versa? If there's any banding together of the southern colonies in any way, shape, or form (which is to say, isn't necessarily a given) like the Albany Confederacy proposed, there's no reason NOT to band Virginia with them as well (they had similar economic models and drivers, similar levels of development, etc.) to any greater degree than New England had from, say, New York or New Jersey.

To address your first point, I would imagine that the Northern Albany Confederacy might provide a "divide and conquer" model to the British that also superficially offers more "self-determination" than being centrally-run individual colonies, providing more coherent representation in terms of local policies and decisions. Not the original intent of the Albany Confederation, but a case of "hey, this might be a good idea for X and Y reasons".
 
Top