"The Bloody Man"

[Thande]

I wonder what role Prince Rupert of the Rhine will play in TTL, considering he was probably the Royalists' best general (or at least regarded as such) in OTL...always found him quite an interesting figure, like how the Puritans were convinced his poodle Boy was a demon in dog form...

 

[Arachnid]

While IOTL there were people, like Henry Vane or Hugh Peter, who went to the New World intending to be part of the Saybrook effort but ended up settling in Massachusetts instead, it’s worth noting that the majority of them actually ended up returning to England after a few years.

Yeah I've read that before, while all emigrations have different "rates of return" I had heard that early New England had one of the higher rates of return including some people migrated multiple times as the political winds shifted during the 1600's, i.e England>New England pre-1640, New England>England 1640, England>New England 1660.

 

[EdT]

Right, I'm arbitrarily picking Tuesday as my "The Bloody Man" day. So there will be a new chapter this time every week from now on, touch wood! This week wraps up New England in the 1630s- then next week we're on to the main narrative in England proper...

 

[EdT]

Chapter 3

Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit [Canaan]. Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. But [as for] you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea.
Deuteronomy 1:38-40. ​

_____________________________________________


( Taken from “The History of Saybrook, 1635-1801” by Henry Armitage, Picador 1945)

“Armed with the judgement handed down by the Commissioners appointed to examine the Connecticut Valley settlements, Cromwell acted swiftly to enforce its provisions. As the summer of 1637 progressed, missions were sent upriver from Broughton to the unincorporated communities giving notice that they had been illegally placed on Saybrook land, and that the colonists could either submit to the authority of the Proprietors, leave voluntarily, or, if necessary, be evicted. In Windsor and Newtown, both of which were already reliant on the communities downriver for trade and protection, there was little controversy. Both settlements had anticipated the ruling, and had already largely resigned themselves to incorporation into Saybrook; there were a few departures from Newtown, but otherwise life continued much as before.

While the low-hanging fruit were plucked, in late May John Seeley was surreptitiously sent north on a surveying expedition to ascertain exactly where the southern boundary of Massachusetts lay. At the same time, the Reverend Hugh Peter journeyed upriver to Wickford to negotiate that town’s accession to the Saybrook Colony; he found that his proposals met with uncompromising hostility. William Pynchon, the town’s founder and leading citizen, told Peter that as far as he was concerned his town was under the authority of the Bay. As Boston was not reliably contactable overland, this was effectively independence in all but name.

Underpinning Cromwell’s determination to incorporate Wickford into the Saybrook Colony was the town’s strategic and economic importance[1]. While Broughton, the Colony’s capital, was built the lowest point on the Connecticut River which could easily be forded, Wickford represented the furthest point that ocean-going ships could navigate. Just to the north of the town lay the Enfield Falls, which closed off the rest of the river to larger ships; this made the town the natural trans-shipment point for goods moving in either direction, and meant that it would dominate the highly lucrative beaver pelt trade back to Europe[2]. By 1637, William Pynchon already owned ten times as many pelts as any other English merchant involved in the trade; he had secured the prime position in the area, and was determined to defend it.

When Hugh Peter returned to Broughton empty-handed, the General Court of the Saybrook Colony (meeting only for the second time) narrowly endorsed Cromwell’s proposal to evict Pynchon and those Wickford residents who opposed accession into the Colony, against an alternative approach of running a chain across the Connecticut and imposing an economic blockade. This, they rejected because of the danger of a retaliatory embargo from the Bay[3].

On a baking hot afternoon on August 10th 1637, a date still commemorated in the town, the Saybrook bailiffs, led by Henry Vane, arrived in Wickford to present their eviction notice. Neither principal was present; Cromwell had gone to Ft Providence to greet his wife and children, newly arrived from England, while William Pynchon was upcountry trading fur…”


****


Wickford,
Connecticut Valley, August 10th 1637

Henry Vane tried to ignore the loud singing that threatened to drown out his voice, and struggled through the words written on the paper in front of him.

“Now I, your magistrate, do proclaim that all ye residents, with your wives and little ones, do gather at ye meeting house, to…”

The singing swelled in volume, and he was forced to break off; “Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment…”, the Wickfordites sang, invoking the first psalm.

Vane took another breath, and resumed his shouting. “…to be escorted from this place to a place of safety, and thence leave the bounds of the lands granted to the Honourable Proprietors of the Saybrook Company!”

In front of him, the small crowd of psalm-singers took absolutely notice of the proclamation. While to one side, the few residents of Wickford who had been convinced into leaving their homes looked on glumly, the majority of the colonists were gathered in small groups, tied to buildings, tree stumps or in one case to each other, singing hymns and steadfastly ignoring the invaders from down-river.

Beside Vane, Thomas Venner and the men of the Broughton militia shifted uncomfortably. While everyone had seen the need for the eviction party to have come prepared for trouble, nobody had expected this sort of reception. The militia leader licked his lips, nervously. “I don’t like this, Master Vane,” he said, shaking his head, “A fair fight and some cracked heads is one thing, but this…”

Vane nodded, sharing the other man’s discomfort. He knew William Pynchon had abjured physical violence, but he hadn’t expected the Wickfordites to do the same. A brawl would have been embarrassing, but quickly forgotten; advancing on unarmed colonists singing psalms was another matter. He sighed. What would the Governor do? he thought, and at once knew the answer; he would do what was necessary. It didn’t mean that he relished the prospect, however.

Wearily, Vane moved to look at the protesting Wickfordites, and then turned to Venner. “Master Venner, I do not like this any more than you do, but you must send the men in. They are in illegal occupation of land belonging to the Proprietors, and that is that.”

Venner nodded, reluctantly. “Yes, Sir. I’ll try not to let anyone get too carried away. Nice and gentle, like.”

He raised his cudgel, and marshalled the men into a rough line. “Come on boys, let’s clear them out!” he yelled, and charged towards the town.

Vane stood watching as the group of men, some of whom were whooping, ran into Wickford and began their eviction. Even at the beginning, there was little pretence at civility; the evictees’ bonds were broken and they were dragged away thrashing and shouting, often only submitting after being struck by the clubs and staves of the bailiffs. Under this provocation, the pacifism displayed by the defenders began to fray, and soon small scuffles began to break out across the settlement. Vane winced as one woman, struggling to retain her grip on the wooden beam of her house, was clubbed over the head before being thrown to the ground. Beside her, her husband received similar treatment; he fancied that he heard the snap of his nose being broken over the shouts, screams, and determined singing that filled the air. Eventually he looked away in disgust; Natives were one thing, he thought, but we should not have to treat God-fearing English folk this way.

Presently, the noise of struggle died down and all that was left was weeping and crying; Vane turned back to survey the damage, and saw that the majority of the evictees, bruised and battered, had been penned together along with their less zealous colleagues, guarded by the militia. All apart from one, at least; for with growing horror, he saw that Thomas Venner was standing above a woman’s body.

“I think somebody hit her a bit too hard, Master Vane…”, Venner said helplessly.

Vane turned away from the huddled form on the ground and bowed his head against the slatted wall before him. This is a disaster, he thought, what possessed them to be such fools? He felt the rage and frustration boil up inside him, and he pounded the wall with his fist.

“Darnation!” he cried.


****


(Taken from “New England: A History” by Robert Talbot, Miskatonic University Press 1937)

“On April 12th 1637, the god-fearing folk of Boston assembled for their Sunday Sermon. As one of the settlers moved to the pulpit to give a reading, he recoiled in horror; a snake had taken up residence. Roger Conant, the town’s founder, had the presence of mind to “bring his heel to the serpent’s head”, proclaiming it a symbol of Satan’s desire to corrupt the church. The incident was frequently recalled in the coming months as the New England colonies staggered from crisis to crisis. By August, the Massachusetts Bay Colony had already spent six months in acute political infighting, and the upcoming trial of Anne Hutchinson, which had become a cause celebre in Boston, risked escalating what was ostensibly merely a squabble over doctrine, but in reality was a serious challenge to the established authority of the colony’s Government and Church[4].

It was into this febrile atmosphere that, on August 25th 1637, saw William Pynchon arrive in Watertown, leading around a dozen bruised and weeping evictees from Wickford and telling dark tales of murder and brutality along the Connecticut River. In fact, the popular tale of the Wickfordites being cast into the wilderness by Cromwell’s men is more or less a complete fiction. Only a handful of evictees walked back to the Bay, and they refused offers of help and free passage from the Saybrook authorities. The majority of evictees were taken down-river to Broughton and Wethersfield and either returned to the Bay via sea, or settled in the southern settlements. A few, such as John Clark, even moved back to their old homes and resumed their old lives under the new regime.

Pynchon, however, was a shrewd propagandist as well as a talented businessman. He knew that the only way to return to the settlement he founded was to whip up sentiment in the Massachusetts Bay, and hoped that the authorities there would impose sanctions against the Saybrook settlements in retaliation for their action[5]. The death of Mary Parsons[6] and the condition of the stalwarts he had led to Watertown, only gave him extra ammunition, and he fell to his task with vigour.

The Saybrook reaction to what Roger Williams had unhelpfully described as the ‘Wickford Horror’ did little to cool tempers. The position of both Cromwell and the Proprietors was absolutely unyielding; while openly regretting the death of Mary Parsons and offering to return the majority of Pynchon’s beaver pelts stored within the colony[7], they stressed that their actions were not only legal in terms of the Saybrook charter, but specifically mandated by the Connecticut Commissioners’ ruling of the previous spring[8]. There is evidence however that Cromwell appreciated that his annexation of the town could not entirely be justified in legal terms, whatever its importance to the growth of his colony might have been. While steadfastly refusing to see Thomas Venner put on trial for the death of Mary Parsons, he nonetheless discreetly paid for his return to England six months later. Indeed, the Governor’s one surviving defence of the happenings at Wickford is instructive. “It may be asked, " John Winthrop had written in a letter to Cromwell shortly after the incident, "why should you be so furious. Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? ” The Governor’s reply had an uncharacteristically petulant tone;

“It is an easy thing to talk of necessity: would not any Magistrate desire to make his plantation strong and his people prosperous? Doth not he make these necessities? But I have not yet known what it is to make necessities whatsoever the judgments or thoughts of men are. As for the men who charge me with having made such necessities, let them take heed how they call the things of God, and His working of things from one period to another, necessities of men's creation! For by so doing they do vilify and lessen the works of God and rob Him of His glory. ”[9]

However, while Cromwell’s obdurate refusal to concede any culpability infuriated his critics in the Bay, it had the desired effect. As the autumn of 1637 wore on and the civil trial of Anne Hutchinson brought Massachusetts’ internal divisions to the fore again, the outrage over the Wickford affair was quickly put to one side. The Saybrook authorities had made a fait accompli; and for all that Pynchon remained furious at his exclusion from the rich fur trade in the upper reaches of the Connecticut, his commercial rivals in Boston were delighted that his monopoly had been broken. At the same time, new opportunities beckoned to the north. Even as he petitioned the Bay authorities for sanctions against Saybrook, Pynchon began to appreciate the potential for fur-trading along the coast of Sagadahock[10] and Acadia[11]. As he increasingly devoted his time to expanding his influence in the Bay of Fundy, the angry letters and urgent appeals for justice emanating from him gradually fell away. The bad-feeling the Wickford incident had engendered, however, was not so easily forgotten.”



(Taken from “Cromwell: New England’s founding Father” by Martijn White, Oxford 1941)

“Even as the ‘Babylonian Captivity’ of the exiled Wickfordites was souring relations between the colonies, another threat to New English concord suddenly emerged, from an entirely unexpected and, for Cromwell, deeply hurtful source. The Governor of Saybrook, in many ways, was defined by his cast-iron commitment to the cause of his colony; now he was to find that this commitment was not shared as widely as he had assumed. As the Saybrook Colony’s third winter began to draw in, Cromwell received a long and angry letter from his friend John Winthrop in Boston. Three months before, John Humphry, one of the Saybrook Proprietors who had travelled to the Connecticut, had been appointed governor of Providence Island, in the Caribbean[12] and had moved to Boston to prepare for the long journey south; now, Winthrop alleged, he had spent the intervening period whipping up dissent and disillusionment in the Bay, trying to convince unhappy colonists to abandon New England for the new tropical colony[13]. For Winthrop, who had repeatedly given aid and assistance to the fledgling Saybrook venture, this was nothing less than a calculated betrayal. As he wrote to Cromwell,

“It is dangerous to bring up an ill report upon this good land, which God had found out and given to his people, and so to discourage the hearts of their brethren, so exposing themselves, and their wives and children, to the danger of the potent enemy, the Spanish. ”[14]

He followed up this broadside with a veiled thrust at the practices followed in Broughton;

“I must confess my ignorance in any case as to why a man who lives in the Bay and is able to choose his own governing Magistrates would prefer to settle in a plantation where the Officers were merely appointed by the Proprietors. ”

The arrival of this letter clearly shook Cromwell to the core. Not only was a valued friend implying deceit on his part, but it seemed that his own superiors were actively undermining Saybrook in favour of a new venture. In truth though, he had misjudged the motives of the Proprietors from the start. For Cromwell, settlement in the New World was a primarily religious task, something that God had called upon him to do. While this was certainly an element in the Proprietors’ motivation however, it was not the most important consideration; the Lords Saye and Sele and Brooke may have been pious, but above all else they were businessmen, out to make a profit. Saybrook had been an attractive proposition when emigration was unlimited and vast new estates in New England beckoned, but now the Privy Council had banned unlicensed emigration, other, more profitable and promising ventures beckoned[15].

Cromwell, furious at the betrayal, ripped up the regular report of the state of the colony that he normally dispatched to London every few months, and replaced it with a stinging letter to Lord Saye and Sele accusing him of bad faith. Though Cromwell’s letter does not survive, a copy of Saye and Sele’s reply does, and from it we can see the intensity of the anger that had been exposed. The peer accused Cromwell of misusing scripture by assuming,

“That there is the like call from God for your going to that specific part of America and fixing there, as there was for the Israelites going to the land of promise.”

He went on to demonstrate how uninterested he had become in the colony, by contending that;

“Since you find the Connecticut but a wilderness, and struggle so, you should recognise when a better opportunity is offered to you and not neglect it, but see yourself called to it, as you have been sheltered by a gracious providence until you were fit to undertake it. ”[16]

For a time, a complete breach between Cromwell and his English masters was threatened; only the fact that the Governor’s two year contract had been renewed before the spat erupted- and letters written in his defence by those Proprietors who had settled in the colony- prevented his dismissal and replacement. In the event, only Saye and Sele’s removal from colonial affairs by his decision to accompany the King to fight the Scots in 1639, and the subsequent destruction of the Providence venture by the Spanish in 1641, did anything to heal the rift…”



(Taken from “New England: A History” by Robert Talbot, Miskatonic University Press 1937)

The resolution of the Anne Hutchinson affair was a mixed blessing for the colonists of Massachusetts Bay; while the expulsion of Hutchinson and her ally John Wheelwright finally settled the long-running theological dispute in the colony, it also precipitated a mass exodus. There was general relief in the Bay when the two heretics led their followers, around a hundred strong, South to join Roger Williams at his Providence Plantation, although some of the more prescient magistrates, particularly John Endicott, fretted that strengthening the nest of heretics in Narragansett Bay merely stored up trouble for the long term[17].

More worrying for the Bay however was the departure of John Davenport and the members of his London congregation, only recently arrived in the New World, who decided to leave Massachusetts and found a new settlement nearby. While Davenport made it clear that he personally found little to criticise in the Bay, particularly after the expulsion of Hutchinson, many of his followers felt that the authorities had been far too lenient in dealing with the offenders and wanted to establish their own settlement run along stricter lines. For a time, it looked as if the Bay’s loss would be Saybrook’s gain, but when the settlers sent an advance party to their preferred site, on the northern shore of Long Island sound, they found that the town of Bideford had already been established on the land they had hoped to settle[18]. With his congregation increasingly disillusioned with any of the established colonial authorities, Davenport eventually resolved to found his own, independent community; and so in the spring of 1638 he and his followers settled far to the north, in Casco Bay, naming their settlement New Haven[19]. The town would eventually form the nucleus of the New Somersetshire colony…”



(Taken from “The Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1629-1840” by Edward Cust, Ford 1946)

The threats posed in the colonies’ formative years by the efforts of Sir Ferdinando Gorges[20] and Archbishop William Laud to control New England had foundered not only on considerations of cost but also on Charles I’s religious pre-occupation. The King was determined to impose the religious system devised by Laud throughout his domains, not only in England but Ireland and Scotland too. As a step towards achieving this he imposed a new Prayer Book on Scotland in 1637, precipitating riots in Glasgow and Edinburgh, the drafting of a National Covenant rejecting the new forms, and eventually, a full-scale revolt. A Scottish General Assembly was formed, which toppled the royal supremacy, abolished the bishops, and restored a Presbyterian system.

The colonists followed the news from home avidly. They heard of the King’s farcical invasion of Scotland and subsequent peace in 1639, in what became known as the First Bishop’s War, and of how the fighting threatened to resume because the Scots demanded that the King paid their own costs in resisting him. They rejoiced at the news that Parliament was to be called, and then cried in frustration when the King, angered at the body’s calls for reform, dissolved it after only three weeks. Towards the end of the year, ships from England brought news of renewed fighting with the Scots, and the calling of a new Parliament that extracted a guarantee from the cash-strapped King that it could not be dissolved without consent.

Late in 1641, an uprising in Ireland added to the turmoil in the British Kingdoms. It was this that finally led to the irreconcilable breach between King and Parliament. All recognised the need to suppress the revolt, but Parliament, having extracted so many reforms from the King, would not trust him with command of an army, while the King in turn would not surrender the right to have such control. When the King’s attempt to seize the ringleaders of the opposition failed, he left London and the country began to divide. In August 1642 the King raised his standard and declared Parliament in revolt. The British Revolution had begun[21]…”


_____________________________________________


[1] IOTL, there was a similar, albeit less vicious, struggle for the town. Springfield naturally inclined towards Connecticut, but eventually fell out with the river towns over the Pequot War and a number of other disputes. William Pynchon decided to join Massachusetts because it was far enough to preserve the town’s independence.

[2] This was the case for OTL Springfield too, which is why William Pynchon settled there in the first place.

[3] This is broadly what happened IOTL; the Connecticut valley towns tried to strangle Springfield’s trade, but were embargoed in turn by the Massachusetts Bay Colony and had to abandon the campaign.

[4] As in OTL, by the mid-1630s new emigrants to the Bay brought radical puritan notions with them, making it increasingly difficult to preserve religious unity in the colony. Anne Hutchinson, who was accused of preaching subversive doctrines through a home bible study group, became the flashpoint, and eventually she was expelled from Massachusetts after a considerable amount of political dissent and anger on both sides.

[5] This is broadly what happened IOTL.

[6] Mary Parsons of Springfield was not the luckiest of people in any timeline; IOTL she was the first person accused of witchcraft in New England, and although she was acquitted, she was sentenced to hang for the death of her child. She died in prison.

[7] OTL, Pynchon built a large warehouse at what is now Windsor Locks, CT, to store his pelts; ITTL these have been seized by the Saybrook authorities, and the offer to return most of them is a generous gesture, given their value. Cromwell was always very concerned with property rights, however.

[8] This is rather suspect, frankly. But it’s no worse than many of the other claims made in the period.

[9] OTL, something similar served as one of Cromwell’s defences against the charge of self-aggrandisement when becoming Lord Protector.

[10] This is the area that today is eastern Maine, beyond the Kennebec River.

[11] The fur trade expanded this way IOTL as well, although slightly later. ITTL Pynchon tries to corner the market before anyone else.

[12] Providence Island, off Nicaragua, was settled in 1629 as a means of harrying Spanish trade in the region. It never fully flourished, and was eventually destroyed by the Spanish in 1641.

[13] Humfry did the same IOTL and it caused just as much ill-feeling; however, as Saybrook is established ITTL this adds yet another complication to the affair.

[14] Winthrop said the same IOTL.

[15] This is what did for Saybrook IOTL; the proprietors simply were not interested enough to make the venture succeed.

[16] This was his view OTL as well.

[17] This occurred IOTL as well, and ironically enough the arrival of Hutchinson and her supporters would only spread the religious dissent to their new home as well.

[18] IOTL Davenport’s congregation were not beaten to it, and founded the city of New Haven as an independent colony. ITTL they are forced to look elsewhere.

[19] This is OTL’s Portland, Maine. The region already had a small number of settlers, particularly in modern Falmouth, but the arrival of 500 new colonists means that Davenport is swiftly able to dominate the region.

[20] Gorges, today acknowledged as the founder of Maine, had conducted a long-running legal battle over the existence of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, claiming that the patent giving the colonists the right to settle actually belonged to him. Luckily for the Bay, the outbreak of the Civil War rendered his case moot.

[21] All this, of course, is OTL; but I felt it would be helpful to summarise.

 

[Falkenburg]

Awesome. Just awesome. Roll on Tuesdays!

Falkenburg

 

[Admiral Matt]

Good.

How'd Davenport's expedition disappear in OTL? I'd thought New Haven was a mainland colony, not one centered on Long Island, but then again I suppose it's very likely two towns could earn the same name.

 

[Thande]

Relatively small changes from OTL so far...dubbing it "The British Revolution" probably implies a more lasting change in the mode of government than OTL, whether republican or otherwise.

 

[imperialaquila]

Yes, some sort of Republican government probably lasts, over the whole of the British Isles. I look forward to seeing this Revolution...

 

[Nicomacheus]

Great stuff. I notice that you're using "Saybrook" as both noun and adjective. One of the 12 residential colleges at modern Yale is called Saybrook; denizens of the college are typically referred to as "Saybrugians". That said, it's such a Latinate phrase, that it's hard to see TTL's Cromwell's purtians adopting it as their own.

 

[PCSwitaj]

Interesting to see the gradual changes in terms of settlement and colonies compared to OTL. Is there a particular reason that the New Haven settlement is in New Somersetshire, or is this something where future events yet to be played out give the area its name? Also a different placed Acadia seems interesting.

What exactly are the relations between the multiple colonies in New England at this point? Does Plymouth try to pay Saybrook and Massachusettes Bay off one another, or is it more of a "keep to myself" colony trying to maintain what positions and lands that it holds?

And, as has been said, the use of revolution instead of civil war does have my interest and I I am trying to figure out what that may mean.

 

[Thande]

Great stuff. I notice that you're using "Saybrook" as both noun and adjective. One of the 12 residential colleges at modern Yale is called Saybrook; denizens of the college are typically referred to as "Saybrugians". That said, it's such a Latinate phrase, that it's hard to see TTL's Cromwell's purtians adopting it as their own.

Cromwell and the Puritans (another great band) weren't that opposed to Latin, it wasn't especially associated with popery as far as I know. The motto on Cromwell's Protectorate coat of arms is in Latin for instance (Pax Quaeritur Bello, 'Peace is sought through war').

 

[Archangel]

Keep it up, Ed!

 

[EdT]

I wonder what role Prince Rupert of the Rhine will play in TTL, considering he was probably the Royalists' best general (or at least regarded as such) in OTL...always found him quite an interesting figure, like how the Puritans were convinced his poodle Boy was a demon in dog form...

He pops up in the next chapter, funnily enough, and will play as important a role ITTL’s first civil war as he did IOTL. He is interesting- certainly a good general, but I can’t say I warm to him. His nasty habit of letting his troops commit atrocities rather belies the romantic image of the cavalier prince. But then again that’s one of the things I want to show ITTL; it’s a bit more complicated than Romantic Cavaliers and dour Roundheads, even if the stereotype does have a certain basis in reality.

How'd Davenport's expedition disappear in OTL? I'd thought New Haven was a mainland colony, not one centered on Long Island, but then again I suppose it's very likely two towns could earn the same name.

Sorry, when I say Long Island Sound, I meant on the mainland rather than on the island; IOTL Davenport founded New Haven in what is now western Connecticut, and like you say it was a separate colony until 1664. ITTL Davenport finds the site of the town already occupied so he buggers off up to Maine and founds his godly commonwealth up there instead. This accelerates the settlement of the region, at the expense of being rather miserable for the poor settlers who already live there; New Haven was not exactly the most fun of places IOTL, and I can’t imagine it’ll be any better transplanted a few hundred miles to the north.

Relatively small changes from OTL so far...dubbing it "The British Revolution" probably implies a more lasting change in the mode of government than OTL, whether republican or otherwise.

Yes, some sort of Republican government probably lasts, over the whole of the British Isles. I look forward to seeing this Revolution...

And, as has been said, the use of revolution instead of civil war does have my interest and I I am trying to figure out what that may mean.

It’s worth remembering that some people use ‘English Revolution’ IOTL, and arguably this is a pretty legitimate term, given that the political and religious settlement of 1660 was completely different to that in 1638 in England, let alone Ireland and Scotland. I suspect one reason this term never properly caught on is because of a desire to stress the Glorious Revolution as the proper revolution, it being rather cleaner, clearly defined, and more convenient to remember for all concerned (bar the Jacobites, of course…). Personally, my view is that calling 1688 a Revolution and not 1642-1659 is a bit like saying that 1830 counts in France, but not 1789-1815, but that’s by the by.

While the phrase ‘revolution’ does imply a more lasting change than OTL then, it doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the case; it could simply mean there’s no *1688 equivalent to take all the glory, although I agree that would make for a rather dull TL! It also doesn’t preclude the retention of the monarchy, either through restoration or it never going away; we call 1905 a revolution after all, and that didn’t topple the Tsar…

Great stuff. I notice that you're using "Saybrook" as both noun and adjective. One of the 12 residential colleges at modern Yale is called Saybrook; denizens of the college are typically referred to as "Saybrugians". That said, it's such a Latinate phrase, that it's hard to see TTL's Cromwell's puritans adopting it as their own.

Ahh, I like that! ‘Saybrugian’ it is then, thanks for mentioning it! I don’t think it’s too implausible either. As Thande mentions, the Puritans didn’t have anything against Latin per se (see what I did there?), so long as it wasn’t used in an ecclesiastical context; indeed, the first school in New England was the Boston Latin School, founded in 1635, and entry to Harvard was conditional on knowledge of Latin and Greek. So I think we can get that- “Saybrugian’ is a far better demonym than any of the alternatives.

Interesting to see the gradual changes in terms of settlement and colonies compared to OTL. Is there a particular reason that the New Haven settlement is in New Somersetshire, or is this something where future events yet to be played out give the area its name? Also a different placed Acadia seems interesting.

Well, New Somersetshire as a name actually predates the PoD; when the first colonial grant in Maine was granted in 1629, Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason split it between them at the Piscataqua River. New Hampshire was Mason’s bit, south of the river, while Gorges took New Somersetshire, which corresponds roughly to OTL’s southern Maine. Just to add to the confusion, by the time Davenport and his settlers founded New Haven, Gorges was about to receive a second colonial charter for the same area, this time called “Lygonia”, after his mum Cecily (‘Lygon’ appeared to be her nickname).

I’ll get into this later on, but suffice it to say the name ‘New Somersetshire’ ends up being retained, instead of being replaced by ‘Maine’.

As for Acadia, it’s not actually differently placed ITTL; the French claimed everything to the east of the Kennebec, and while the territory changed hands several times, by 1638 they had a built a major fort at modern-day Castine.

I have plans for Acadia ITTL; the 1630s and 40s were a rather interesting, if unjustly obscure period for it IOTL and there’s plenty of scope for fun stuff there, not to mention the butterflies that will come flapping in from outside. So don’t worry, I’ll give a better overview of what’s going on in the north when I come to it.

What exactly are the relations between the multiple colonies in New England at this point? Does Plymouth try to pay Saybrook and Massachusettes Bay off one another, or is it more of a "keep to myself" colony trying to maintain what positions and lands that it holds?

The big difference really at this point ITTL is that there’s more of a balance between Massachusetts and the other two New English colonies. While the Bay has by far the larger population, just as IOTL, Saybrook has the dominant political personality in New England, letting it punch above its weight. While there are considerable bones of contention between the three (Plymouth is worried about being swallowed by the Bay, Massachusetts is pissed off over the Wickford affair and still covets the Enfield Falls region, Saybrook wants to channel Massachsetts expansion northwards rather than westwards), they’re united by a common enemy in the Providence Plantation, and all share pro-parliamentary sentiments when the Civil War breaks out. Arguably this makes closer cooperation between the colonies more practical than OTL, providing that Cromwell wants it to happen; a venture between two broadly equal partners is easier to stomach than a greater Massachusetts bay.

I will reply to your email soon btw!

 

[PCSwitaj]

Well, New Somersetshire as a name actually predates the PoD...I’ll get into this later on, but suffice it to say the name ‘New Somersetshire’ ends up being retained, instead of being replaced by ‘Maine’.

I didn't know that one, sounds like the area will be interesting for sure. It will be interesting to see how far such a colony spreads out over time as well.

As for Acadia ... I have plans for Acadia ITTL ...So don’t worry, I’ll give a better overview of what’s going on in the north when I come to it.

Although this begs the question (at least for me) - what of Nova Scotia?

The big difference really at this point ITTL is that there’s more of a balance between Massachusetts and the other two New English colonies...

I can't help but picture a smaller, yet successful, Dominion of New England in my head with Cromwell in control. Then again, even thinking about the planning spoiler map posted on dA shows that such a balance could easily be thrown off by future events. I guess in this time period too a lot will depend on the personalities in charge of the colonies; a grudge could be just as disasterous to the health and stability of the region as any Indian/European attack or natural disaster

I will reply to your email soon btw!

No worries, I've already done some more digging about and sketches, but I'll wait to see what you reply with - just make sure it's the Yahoo email, as my uni address got erased upon graduation.

 

[Arachnid]

Another good update, just how restrictive are the limitations on emigration? Do they just apply to the likes of Lord Saye or do they prevent all emigrates. If so that could seriously slow the development of New England.

 

[EdT]

I didn't know that one, sounds like the area will be interesting for sure. It will be interesting to see how far such a colony spreads out over time as well.

OTL's Maine had a pretty turbulent history in the 17th century; the frontier between Acadia and New England switch back and forth a number of times, and the region suffered very badly from Indian raids, especially after a lot of the surviving New England tribes fled up there towards the end of King Phillip's War. Having Davenport and his congregation up there ITTL will actually help considerably in extending English power to the region, which IOTL was something of an afterthought.

Although this begs the question (at least for me) - what of Nova Scotia?

Well, as IOTL it's the focus of Acadian settlement, such as it is- I have plans for it though, and it's fair to say that the end result will be very different indeed from OTL.

I can't help but picture a smaller, yet successful, Dominion of New England in my head with Cromwell in control. Then again, even thinking about the planning spoiler map posted on dA shows that such a balance could easily be thrown off by future events. I guess in this time period too a lot will depend on the personalities in charge of the colonies; a grudge could be just as disasterous to the health and stability of the region as any Indian/European attack or natural disaster

There was a degree of New English sentiment towards cooperation at the time, and even IOTL we had the New England Confederation established in 1643. As you say though, it's all rather dependent on personalities; if there is going to be effective cooperation between the colonies, the various colonial leaderships either have to be on friendly terms, or so cowed by somebody else as to do what they're told. Events in England will also have an impact, of course.

No worries, I've already done some more digging about and sketches, but I'll wait to see what you reply with - just make sure it's the Yahoo email, as my uni address got erased upon graduation.

Cool, you'll get a reply soon.

Another good update, just how restrictive are the limitations on emigration? Do they just apply to the likes of Lord Saye or do they prevent all emigrates. If so that could seriously slow the development of New England.

Well, the restrictions were put in place IOTL too, and just as ITTL they theoretically prohibit any emigration whatsoever without a licence. In reality though, the prohibition isn't really concerned with your normal colonist; the Crown isn't much bothered if your average smallholder or shopkeeper wants to start a new life in New England, and as long as emigrants don't travel in too large a group or too obviously, they probably won't come to the attention of the authorities. The order is aimed instead at landowners, gentlemen and peers, who would have to liquidate their assets in England before emigrating. The Crown views this as tax evasion and so wants to put a stop to it.

In practice, IOTL the regulations drastically cut emigration in the years immediately before the Civil War, but were only enforceable until late 1642. After Edgehill, the whole thing becomes somewhat moot; even if the King wins the war ITTL and reimposes the ban, enough people would probably be fleeing into exile anyhow that the colonies would get a boost through extra-legal means.

 

[Thande]

There was a degree of New English sentiment towards cooperation at the time, and even IOTL we had the New England Confederation established in 1643. As you say though, it's all rather dependent on personalities; if there is going to be effective cooperation between the colonies, the various colonial leaderships either have to be on friendly terms, or so cowed by somebody else as to do what they're told. Events in England will also have an impact, of course.

That's interesting, I knew about the early efforts but not the constitutional details...even at that early stage you could have the top official in English-speaking America with the title of President...

 

[EdT]

That's interesting, I knew about the early efforts but not the constitutional details...even at that early stage you could have the top official in English-speaking America with the title of President...

Yes, of course IOTL it never really had much of an opportunity to cement itself, but it seems a fairly sensible system that could be made to work, especially with somebody determined and charismatic enough to impose his authority on things. Which is not neccesarily what I intend to have happen ITTL, I hasten to add!

 

[Nicomacheus]

Yes, of course IOTL it never really had much of an opportunity to cement itself, but it seems a fairly sensible system that could be made to work, especially with somebody determined and charismatic enough to impose his authority on things. Which is not neccesarily what I intend to have happen ITTL, I hasten to add!

Well, there's a limit to the benefits of top-down leadership on efforts to consolidate the New Englanders: for example, Edmund Andros' ill-fated attempts to curbstomp the Dominion of New England into existance during the Restoration. After which the confederation lapsed into distant memory. Both of course were key to the colonists' reaction to the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution.

Also, "President" frequently becomes the term for a American elected leader because the word was frequently used in the context of elected church councils. Spend a lot of time dithering with the neighbors about who should be President of the local church, and it seems natural doing so about who should be President of the local confederal attempt to create lasting unity among the fractious.

 

[Thande]

President was also often used in English civil usage to describe a chairman of a council. For example, the Council of State that ruled England during the republican period was headed by the President of the Council, addressed as Lord President.