The Dominion of New England

Thande

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

The Dominion of New England was a short-lived administrative union of English colonies in the New England region of North America. It comprised the five New England colonies, plus the Province of New York, East Jersey, and West Jersey. The union was decreed in 1686 by King James II as a measure to enforce the Navigation Acts and to coordinate the mutual defense of colonies against the French and hostile Native Americans. In 1688, the colonies of New York and New Jersey were added to the dominion.

Although the New England colonists had previously sought a loose voluntary association in the New England Confederation, the imposition of a centralized authority from England was highly unpopular. The actions of dominion governor Edmund Andros in promoting the Church of England, as well as the behaviors of English soldiers garrisoned at Boston, greatly angered many loyalists in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Following the overthrow of James II in the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Dominion ceased to exist.

The word dominion would later be used to describe the Dominion of Canada, and other self-governing British colonies.

[edit] Presidents of the Dominion of New England

This is a list of Presidents of the Dominion of New England from 1686 to 1689:
President Year(s)
Joseph Dudley 1686
Edmund Andros 1686 – 1689

When the Dominion was dissolved in 1689, Simon Bradstreet served as Governor of Massachusetts until William Phips arrived as Royal Governor in 1692.

So, what if there was no Glorious Revolution (quite a big POD in itself, but bear with me here) and the Dominion survived? Clearly the concept was unpopular with the colonials, which could lead to an earlier American Revolution. On the other hand, could the Dominion have evolved into a more equitable structure that would avert any American rebellion at all?
 
With Andros in charge? Doubtful. Give it a few more years and I think you'd see full-out rebellion in New England...
 
If the question is whether an earlier American Revolution could have been successful circa 1688-1700, I tend to doubt it just based on the population figures alone.

In 1775, England had roughly 6.5 million people versus roughly 2.5 million Americans, and that population contained many loyalists, perhaps as many as a 1/3 of the population with possibly another 1/3 neutral.

Even with the significant aid of France, Spain and the Netherlands, the Americans still had a tough time winning their independence from England by 1781. It seems this achievement would have been much difficult in the 1688-1700 period.

England, in 1700, had about 5 million people. London alone had 500,000 to 600,000 inhabitants in 1700.

Various "Googled" figures (as all of these population statistics are) show the American population as being roughly 250,000 in 1682 to about 275,000 in 1700. Plus they lived in a very threatening world, compared to 1775, with the ever-present danger of Indian attacks --- King Philip's War had been devastasting to New England and was well within living memory (1675 to 1676).

Add to this that the French were a constant threat, disputing with the English for control over North America, unlike 1775 when there was no nearby danger to the colonists from any other European power.

In addition to all these factors, if the same divisions (1/3 loyal, 1/3 neutral etc. ) also existed among the 1688-1700 colonists as existed among the 1775 colonists, the 250,000 to 275,000 colonists could have been easily re-conquered by an England that outnumbered them 20 to 1 rather than the much more significant 3 to 1 ratio in 1775.
 

Thande

Donor
If the question is whether an earlier American Revolution could have been successful circa 1688-1700, I tend to doubt it just based on the population figures alone.

In 1775, England had roughly 6.5 million people versus roughly 2.5 million Americans, and that population contained many loyalists, perhaps as many as a 1/3 of the population with possibly another 1/3 neutral.

Even with the significant aid of France, Spain and the Netherlands, the Americans still had a tough time winning their independence from England by 1781. It seems this achievement would have been much difficult in the 1688-1700 period.

England, in 1700, had about 5 million people. London alone had 500,000 to 600,000 inhabitants in 1700.

Various "Googled" figures (as all of these population statistics are) show the American population as being roughly 250,000 in 1682 to about 275,000 in 1700. Plus they lived in a very threatening world, compared to 1775, with the ever-present danger of Indian attacks --- King Philip's War had been devastasting to New England and was well within living memory (1675 to 1676).

Add to this that the French were a constant threat, disputing with the English for control over North America, unlike 1775 when there was no nearby danger to the colonists from any other European power.

In addition to all these factors, if the same divisions (1/3 loyal, 1/3 neutral etc. ) also existed among the 1688-1700 colonists as existed among the 1775 colonists, the 250,000 to 275,000 colonists could have been easily re-conquered by an England that outnumbered them 20 to 1 rather than the much more significant 3 to 1 ratio in 1775.

I think you exaggerate the population of America in 1776, given that the population of the colonies in 1750 was only about one million.
 
I think you exaggerate the population of America in 1776, given that the population of the colonies in 1750 was only about one million.

It may be a slight exaggeration, but not by much. The British colonies in North America had one of the highest population growth rates in the world in the 18th century - higher than anywhere in Europe. One reason for this is that major epidemic diseases were less common among the European-descended population in the American colonies than they were in Europe. This was especially true of smallpox, which caused especially high mortality among children. Thus, while both colonial and European families tended to have large numbers of children, colonial families had more children survive into adulthood than anywhere in Europe (more than in most parts of the world, in fact). Families with 8 children who lived to have children of their own were not uncommon. Under these conditions, a doubling of population in 25 or 26 years sounds very possible.
 

Thande

Donor
It may be a slight exaggeration, but not by much. The British colonies in North America had one of the highest population growth rates in the world in the 18th century - higher than anywhere in Europe. One reason for this is that major epidemic diseases were less common among the European-descended population in the American colonies than they were in Europe. This was especially true of smallpox, which caused especially high mortality among children. Thus, while both colonial and European families tended to have large numbers of children, colonial families had more children survive into adulthood than anywhere in Europe (more than in most parts of the world, in fact). Families with 8 children who lived to have children of their own were not uncommon. Under these conditions, a doubling of population in 25 or 26 years sounds very possible.

Ah, well that is a point. I've previously noticed the rather speedy population growth of the American colonies after the 1600s...it almost smacks of OTL's author wanting to write an Ameriwank, something like the rapid expansion of Stirling's Draka, and not getting it quite plausible ;)
 
I would think there would be less loyalism in TTL, as the British are being far more threatening to the traditional American governments. Also, New England at least is still staunchly Puritan, and we have the supposedly crypto-Catholic Stuarts on the throne...
 

Glen

Moderator
I would think there would be less loyalism in TTL, as the British are being far more threatening to the traditional American governments. Also, New England at least is still staunchly Puritan, and we have the supposedly crypto-Catholic Stuarts on the throne...

True. And while the population of the American colonies might have been smaller earlier on, I believe that the ability of England to ship over forces and control the seas was also not quite what it would be several decades later, so perhaps a wash out?
 

Thande

Donor
True. And while the population of the American colonies might have been smaller earlier on, I believe that the ability of England to ship over forces and control the seas was also not quite what it would be several decades later, so perhaps a wash out?

Heck, we're talking about James II here. It wouldn't be too out of character if he bloody sold the colonies to France or something :rolleyes:
 
Heck, we're talking about James II here. It wouldn't be too out of character if he bloody sold the colonies to France or something :rolleyes:
The French in control of New England?!?! :eek: :eek: And just imagine how the Massachusetts Bay Colony would react then...
 

Thande

Donor
The French in control of New England?!?! :eek: :eek: And just imagine how the Massachusetts Bay Colony would react then...

Actually it might be an interesting scenario.

I presume the French would assume that the British colonies would just calmly revert to them, the same way as territories in continental Europe did when they shifted from one country to another (wrong! :D ). Cue a long struggle and a French occupation...

Of course, I wonder whether France would want New England in the first place. I mean, the French were famously stringent about only letting Catholics settle in New France, so why would they want a bunch of angry ultra-Protestants who outnumber their own colonists?
 

Glen

Moderator
Heck, we're talking about James II here. It wouldn't be too out of character if he bloody sold the colonies to France or something :rolleyes:

The French in control of New England?!?! :eek: :eek: And just imagine how the Massachusetts Bay Colony would react then...

Actually it might be an interesting scenario.

I presume the French would assume that the British colonies would just calmly revert to them, the same way as territories in continental Europe did when they shifted from one country to another (wrong! :D ). Cue a long struggle and a French occupation...

Of course, I wonder whether France would want New England in the first place. I mean, the French were famously stringent about only letting Catholics settle in New France, so why would they want a bunch of angry ultra-Protestants who outnumber their own colonists?


Funny, but this thread was making me think similar ideas (though more of a 'WI the French won the French and Indian War?). Would an early acquisition of English Colonies by France go with them being treated more like the Acadians or the Quebecois?
 

Thande

Donor
Funny, but this thread was making me think similar ideas (though more of a 'WI the French won the French and Indian War?). Would an early acquisition of English Colonies by France go with them being treated more like the Acadians or the Quebecois?

If the French won the Seven Years' War then I don't think they'd annex the English colonies.

I think Anaxagoras got it right in "God is a Frenchman" - basically the French just take hold of everything west of the Appalachians and force the British to move the rest of their colonists east of them. The French can hardly rule over more than 1 million mostly Protestant British colonists with 50,000 or so Catholic New French colonists.
 

Glen

Moderator
Weird, I thought I started this thread....I am beginning to be unable to tell the difference between Thande and myself:eek:.

Anyway, I think there may be a chance if the first Governor of the Dominion of New England is Thomas Dongan. More later....
 
Actually it might be an interesting scenario.

I presume the French would assume that the British colonies would just calmly revert to them, the same way as territories in continental Europe did when they shifted from one country to another (wrong! :D ). Cue a long struggle and a French occupation...

Of course, I wonder whether France would want New England in the first place. I mean, the French were famously stringent about only letting Catholics settle in New France, so why would they want a bunch of angry ultra-Protestants who outnumber their own colonists?
This kind of reminds me of your old "Boer-like North America" thread. I mean, we've got Puritans who are basically Calvinists, their home country sells their land to France and so they try to fight them off and fail. We could just expand the similarites from there if we wanted to be lazy.
 
This kind of reminds me of your old "Boer-like North America" thread. I mean, we've got Puritans who are basically Calvinists, their home country sells their land to France and so they try to fight them off and fail. We could just expand the similarites from there if we wanted to be lazy.

Glad I'm not the only one who saw that.

To elaborate-

New England proper would probably be the greatest source of emigration, and could then be repopulated by proper Frenchmen (Cape, basically). Points south... Pennsylvania was famed for religious tolerance and would likely even keep the Quaker establishment, New York's religius diversity dated back to the Dutch and included a good few Catholics, Maryland was founded by and for Catholics, but English Catholics, with a smattering of Germans and Irish, and was majority Protestant, expect the Catholic upper class to be upheld for far longer than OTL.

Even South-er than that was pretty, well, secular, or so I've read. So long as the French don't force Catholicism on them too bluntly or interfere too much with the tobacco trade, they'll be fine.

On the other hand, it's likely that the French would find colonial tolerance despicable, so yeah.

As for our New English Boertrekkers, depending on how many do the migrating and how many survive, and how far they go, we have a great many options. Enslaving of Amerinds is a potential possibility, but I'm not sure how plausible that really is.
 
Last edited:
Glad I'm not the only one who saw that.

To elaborate-

New England proper would probably be the greatest source of emigration, and could then be repopulated by proper Frenchmen (Cape, basically). Points south... Pennsylvania was famed for religious tolerance and would likely even keep the Quaker establishment, New York's religius diversity dated back to the Dutch and included a good few Catholics, Maryland was founded by and for Catholics, but English Catholics, with a smattering of Germans and Irish, and was majority Protestant, expect the Catholic upper class to be upheld for far longer than OTL.

Even South-er than that was pretty, well, secular, or so I've read. So long as the French don't force Catholicism on them too bluntly or interfere too much with the tobacco trade, they'll be fine.

On the other hand, it's likely that the French would find colonial tolerance despicable, so yeah.

As for our New English Boertrekkers, depending on how many do the migrating and how many survive, and how far they go, we have a great many options. Enslaving of Amerinds is a potential possibility, but I'm not sure how plausible that really is.
It is a good question how far they'd go. The Great Lakes would seem to be the ideal place, lots of trade potential and decent farm land, but that's also where the more advanced Amerind tribes are(or at least the ones that will become advanced very quickly, like the Huron and the Iriquois) which I suppose could provide the same kind of anti-native feeling the Boers got when they encountered the Zulu and other tribes.
 
It is a good question how far they'd go. The Great Lakes would seem to be the ideal place, lots of trade potential and decent farm land, but that's also where the more advanced Amerind tribes are(or at least the ones that will become advanced very quickly, like the Huron and the Iriquois) which I suppose could provide the same kind of anti-native feeling the Boers got when they encountered the Zulu and other tribes.

On the other hand, the Boers and various Zulu and other Bantu tribes occasionally allied against the English.

Perhaps a Yankee-Iroquois alliance against the French and Hurons?
 
On the other hand, the Boers and various Zulu and other Bantu tribes occasionally allied against the English.

Perhaps a Yankee-Iroquois alliance against the French and Hurons?
That's true as well. And it makes sense. The Huron were traditional allies of the French and it was Dutch and English selling of guns to the Iriquois that finished them(IIRC). Here, you probably have those entering the equation sooner, so the Huron(who were more traders than the Iriquois, IIRC, I'm terrible with Native American history) won't be so outmatched this time around.

Plus, the Huron surviving in their pre-conquest form(or some semblance of it, though I suppose they could lose one of the component tribes to the Iriquois Confederacy as well) means you could probably add in an earlier introduction of several European trading goods to other native tribes. Horses, certain crops, gun powder. I don't think it would be enough to make independent Native states survive colonialism whole, but it could keep them from being so small of a minority as OTL.
 
Top