What does a surviving Commonwealth of England mean for the American colonies?

Using whatever point of divergence you think best achieves this outcome, say that Cromwell’s Protectorate ultimately survives, and England remains a republic indefinitely. What exactly does this mean for the future of England’s presence in the New World? My understanding is that Puritan New England was strongly supportive of Cromwell, but that the further south you went, the more Royalist the population became. What does that mean going forward?
 
Imagine it a royalist separatist north America and a Republican Great Britain
Kingdom of New Albion anyone?

I do not think that the American colonies were really at a point where they could try for independence, and in any case, New England would almost certainly remain with London.
 
Imagine it a royalist separatist north America and a Republican Great Britain
Kingdom of New Albion anyone?


Very unlikely, the 17th century North American colonies cannot survive without support from Britain. If they try they'll get taken over by either the French or Spanish.
 
Very unlikely, the 17th century North American colonies cannot survive without support from Britain. If they try they'll get taken over by either the French or Spanish.

It doesn't have to be right away, could happen around the same time as otl.
 
There is at least a possibility that representative democracy takes place earlier in America than in OTL. Assuming that the successors of Cromwell accept the Leveller ideology of John Evellyn and others (which had some support in the Army) then something akin to anti-class-conscious democracy becomes an acceptable model for government. Oliver Cromwell surpressed such ideas during his rule but the ideas were out in the public. The Puritans were more likely as a group to be of the lower or " middling" classes and suspicious of the hieirachical structures of the Anglican Church and the nobility. With no King there won't be Royal Governors and the colonial governments might be organized as Commonwealths.
 
Last edited:
I think it would make the colonies more likely to stay with Britain. The Commonwealth would become much more Calvinist, which would be a better fit with New England. I can't see the slave states breaking away on their own.
 
I think it would make the colonies more likely to stay with Britain. The Commonwealth would become much more Calvinist, which would be a better fit with New England. I can't see the slave states breaking away on their own.

That said, how might settlement patterns change with a more Puritan-influenced government in England? Would this lead to a substantially less Puritan America in the long-term, given that many of such people may feel more comfortable staying in Britain?
 
I think it would make the colonies more likely to stay with Britain. The Commonwealth would become much more Calvinist, which would be a better fit with New England. I can't see the slave states breaking away on their own.

Not more ''Calvinist'' but more open to religious tolerance within certain limits - that was the Army's and Cromwell's official position on the issue - and Puritan. For example they would not accept the old Church of England nor Catholics.

The existing divide between the mercantile and craft oriented New England and the plantation economy of the South would remain in place.

The issue will be the Catholics in Maryland (and perhaps Virginia), were a civil war was fought in OTL between royalists and parliamentarians, with the later winning it and establishing a commonwealth. Another outcome of things is what happened with Bacon's Rebellion (Virginia).

There is at least a possibility that representative democracy takes place earlier in America than in OTL. Assuming that the successors of Cromwell accept the Leveller ideology of John Evellyn and others (which had some support in the Army) then something akin to anti-class-conscious democracy becomes an acceptable model for government. Oliver Cromwell surpressed such ideas during his rule but the ideas were out in the public. The Puritans were more likely as a group to be of the lower or " middling" classes and suspicious of the hieirachical structures of the Anglican Church and the nobility. With no King there won't be Royal Governors and the colonial governments might be organized as Commonwealths.
I think it is unrealistic that the Levellers and similar groups gain general acceptance. They were repeatedly suppressed and purge from the Army, Parliament, etc.. Their opinions were in minority in the City and among the gentry. Parliament, Cromwell, the Grandees, the Army and Gentry were conservative in matters of property and political representation.

The incipient republicanism would lead to more commonwealth styled governments in the North American colonies. That is to say representation of the colonist in the legislatures and executive, with an elected Governors or named by their own executive bodies, given de facto in self rule.

The downside of all this is that the Indians (New England and South) would be victims of the land and expanding colonization of the colonies. Slavery (South) will become part of the society and plantation economy.

The Acts of Navigation and similar legislation would give London legislative powers in trade and taxing. Nobility will perhaps be open to the growing group of merchants or given out as political sinecures or rewards of political services.
 
The OTL Navigation Acts would of course be butterflied, but one might see a Parliament that had more capitalist orientation rather than mercantilistic. Perhaps an alt-Adam Smith rises to prominence. With more popularly elected Commonwealths in America, it seems likely that the merchant class there will be more powerful. They might form a strong lobby in London for freer trade. Family ties between wealthy merchants in America and Britain would foster this. Ideally, Republican government on both sides of the Atlantic could eventually lead to Parliamentary representation for the overseas Commonwealths.
 
A continuing commonwealth would probably try to solve the "irish question" that way.

Also forget about any industrial revolution in this timeline.

Puritan New England was one of the hot spots of the early Industrial Revolution, right? Why would a Puritan Old England be particularly resistant to it?
 
A continuing commonwealth would probably try to solve the "irish question" that way.

Also forget about any industrial revolution in this timeline.
Again, i really doubt it. Will more monarchist rebels and common criminals be indentured? Sure, thats certainly possible, given that something similar happened OTL. But unless things go pear-shaped in a hurry then there isn't going to be a mass enslavement of irish/catholics. And there wouldn't be some sort of irish genocide either, despite whatever evil caricature people like to paint Cromwell and his supporters as.

And theres absolutely no reason to think this would delay or prevent the industrial revolution, in fact it may help speed it along. If i remember rightly from mike duncan's pod cast on the english civil war, when the commonwealth was formed the boroughs got reorganized and the rotten boroughs eliminated, so growing industrial centers would get better representation
 
Puritan's would if anything speed up the Industrial revolution , the existing interests that got in the way OTL would be less powerful. Merchants want cheaper goods and industrialization gives you that.

As for Ireland and slavery , slavery was not legal in the Commonwealth , only the colonies, so whilst Irish might be sent , they would be as indentured servants, free after a given period to do what they wanted. Slavery itself would be reduced as , just like New England, Puritans in general disapproved of it. So more Irish, no more imported Africans , the south could not survive alone so has no real choice but to agree. Indeed with the Puritans in change, more emigration from all of the British Isles is likely as the colonies would have been seen as allowing more freedom for High Church Anglo-Catholics let alone actual Catholics.
 
I believe that in Virginia up into the 1670's it was illegal to keep a Christian in a state of slavery. Of course when African slaves became aware of this they converted and sued for their freedom. The plantation owners who were running the House of Burgesses made sure that the law was changed. .
If Virginia becomes more Puritan and more evangelical then a gradual decline in slavery could happen at the least in the upper South.
 
Would the Commonwealth use the colonies as a dumping ground for the Royalists? Monarchist southern American versus a more Commonwealth North?
 
Would the Commonwealth use the colonies as a dumping ground for the Royalists? Monarchist southern American versus a more Commonwealth North?

There was already a fair degree of continuity between the Southern planter gentry and the English nobility in our world. Second sons and all that.
 
Top