Plymouth settlement fails in 1620

Hi!

What would have been the ramifications if the Plymouth settlements failed in 1620? For the POD, you can consider something along the line of the 1620/21 winter killing off enough of the colonists for the rest to either be assimilated into the Native American culture or die off a la Roanoake.

I can think of a couple offhand.

1. With two out of three colonization attempts failures, the British may get a bit leery of trying to colonize North America. They change their focus to other parts of the New World (perhaps colonizing places which provide resources Jamestown can't), leaving the Jamestown colony where it is. New England probably remains in the hands of the French or Dutch.

2. Less of a Puritan work ethic in American culture.

What do you think?

ACG
 
Would the great wave of Puritans come even if Plymouth failed?

I was under the impression they did not come all that much later and even if Plymouth failed, they might come anyway.

IIRC Plymouth was really poor and marginal, so if it doesn't exist but the other New England settlements do, there might not be that much of an effect (other than no Thanksgiving, of course).

Perhaps another possible POD could be that Squanto dies while in England, before returning to America. Without him to help the Plymouth colonists out, the settlement declines and dies?
 
Would the great wave of Puritans come even if Plymouth failed?

I was under the impression they did not come all that much later and even if Plymouth failed, they might come anyway.

IIRC Plymouth was really poor and marginal, so if it doesn't exist but the other New England settlements do, there might not be that much of an effect (other than no Thanksgiving, of course).

Perhaps another possible POD could be that Squanto dies while in England, before returning to America. Without him to help the Plymouth colonists out, the settlement declines and dies?

It's quite possible that significant numbers of Puritans would still come, but they might not come to the same place. OTL, the Plymouth colony itself was pretty small and marginal, but the accounts of its success helped persuade leaders of larger Puritan groups with more resources that the area around Massachusetts Bay would be a good place and settle. Without the Plymouth example, the Puritans might have gone elsewhere - possibly to Virginia, or to what in OTL became Pennsylvania or New Jersey.
 
Hi! :)

1. With two out of three colonization attempts failures, the British may get a bit leery of trying to colonize North America. They change their focus to other parts of the New World (perhaps colonizing places which provide resources Jamestown can't), leaving the Jamestown colony where it is. New England probably remains in the hands of the French or Dutch.
Total disagreement. Makes sense at first glance, but... I find mention of four unsuccessful colonies in New England from 1606 to 1614. Can't name 'em all, sorry, but the Popham Colony for one. They weren't showing signs of giving up. Look up the Council for New England as well. Different people/groups were in charge of these settlement attempts, not the Crown, so as long as someone is willing to put forward the money, there'll be more colonization attempts.

2. Less of a Puritan work ethic in American culture.
Where else would the Puritans go except America? I can't imagine they'd stay in England. [musing]Maybe if they'd gone to Virginia instead, they wouldn't've had the space to form quite so much of their own seperate identity. But then maybe they would've migrated inland, Puritans in the Shenedoah Valley?[/musing]

3. No Plymouth Bay Colony would mean no King Philip's War. I seem to remember hearing something about the kidnapping and death of King Philip's brother, who was king at the time, that and other such actions were among the direct causes of that war. Conflict between colonist and native ways of life could (would?) lead to other wars, but without Plymouth Bay it would not be King Philip's War and may be several small wars instead of one big war.
 
Total disagreement. Makes sense at first glance, but... I find mention of four unsuccessful colonies in New England from 1606 to 1614. Can't name 'em all, sorry, but the Popham Colony for one. They weren't showing signs of giving up. Look up the Council for New England as well. Different people/groups were in charge of these settlement attempts, not the Crown, so as long as someone is willing to put forward the money, there'll be more colonization attempts.

Well this could give reason to James I, if he was even interested, in pulling the Royal Charter from the Plymouth Council and taking control of the whole endeavor. With this he could still sell stock in the Virginia Company and not need to use royal funds to finance it.

In this way the territory colonized belongs directly to the crown. He could bestow it to a close relative or loyal subject. (Were baronies still based on land held at this time?)
 
Hi! :)


Total disagreement. Makes sense at first glance, but... I find mention of four unsuccessful colonies in New England from 1606 to 1614. Can't name 'em all, sorry, but the Popham Colony for one. They weren't showing signs of giving up. Look up the Council for New England as well. Different people/groups were in charge of these settlement attempts, not the Crown, so as long as someone is willing to put forward the money, there'll be more colonization attempts.


Where else would the Puritans go except America? I can't imagine they'd stay in England. [musing]Maybe if they'd gone to Virginia instead, they wouldn't've had the space to form quite so much of their own seperate identity. But then maybe they would've migrated inland, Puritans in the Shenedoah Valley?[/musing]

3. No Plymouth Bay Colony would mean no King Philip's War. I seem to remember hearing something about the kidnapping and death of King Philip's brother, who was king at the time, that and other such actions were among the direct causes of that war. Conflict between colonist and native ways of life could (would?) lead to other wars, but without Plymouth Bay it would not be King Philip's War and may be several small wars instead of one big war.

To answer that question, I do remember seeing some map of puritan immigration and a good chunk was going to the Caribbean. So maybe increased immigration there.
 
Well this could give reason to James I, if he was even interested, in pulling the Royal Charter from the Plymouth Council and taking control of the whole endeavor. With this he could still sell stock in the Virginia Company and not need to use royal funds to finance it.

In this way the territory colonized belongs directly to the crown. He could bestow it to a close relative or loyal subject. (Were baronies still based on land held at this time?)
I was gonna let this pass in agreement, 'til i remembered reading "In this same year the Council for New England gave up its charter and the king demanded also the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, because of Archbishop Laud's dislike of the Puritan Commonwealth. The king was unsuccessful." Year in question was 1835. The Plymouth Company was already defunct and the Plymouth colony never had a charter.

Might they go colonise the site of OTL New York instead...
The Dutch were already there. Maybe they could have beat the Dutch to Delaware.

To answer that question, I do remember seeing some map of puritan immigration and a good chunk was going to the Caribbean. So maybe increased immigration there.
Like this map?

Puritan Migration to America, 1620-1640
PurMigration2.JPG
 
Top