WI: No Hutchinson Letters affair? Effects on ARW

What if there was no Hutchinson letters affair.

In OTL, the letters were given anonymously to Ben Franklin wherein Governor Hutchinson encouraged more troops in Boston. Ben sent them to his american friends, and despite his wishes, they were published. The enormous public outrage in Boston forced Hutchinson to flee and soon made Ben Franklin leave England.

So WI those letters never make it to Ben's doorstep?
What effect would it have on the ARW?
Does Ben stay in England?
 
Hmm, a very interesting idea, indeed. I didn't see it yesterday.

Thomas Hutchinson is firstly a very neat guy, IMO. In 1754, he was the only other delegate (besides Franklin) to bring a plan of Union to the Albany Congress. [His plan was very different from Franklin and was partly the ambition of William Shirley to become Governor-General of the new confederation; it also included separate confederations, either 2 or 3, for the colonies.] Keeping him in Massachusetts longer may have a moderating influence, but probably not: Samuel Adams seems to have had far more support. Going to England OTL didn't seem to help mattes, though, since Lord North rejected his advice.

More important, though, is that Franklin stay in London longer and that Franklin and Hutchinson retain cordial relations.

It's hard to say what the certain outcome would be. It seems as if removing the demonstrations which broke out in response to the letters might reduce overall tension in Boston so as to either reduce the significance or preclude the occurrence of the Tea Party or to make that occurrence the first act of civil disobedience rather than a culmination. If so, then the Intolerable Acts probably aren't passed on schedule or in the OTL form. A Congress of some sort may still assemble, but if Franklin is in London than North may be taking advice from him -- that'd be interesting.

Fundamentally, though, I think the ball is in Britain's court. OTL the Colonies perceived themselves as reacting to affronts...which means that any time a new peice of Imperial policy comes out they're affronted and react. The attitudes that primed those reactions are hard to parse and hard to butterfly away. You'd need to produce some kind of change in policy on the part of the Government in London...which is probably going to be driven by something other than BNA policy.

Now even if something like the crisis created by the 1st and 2nd Congresses and the Intolerable Acts occurs, it may occur later and under very different circumstances. However, this will be almost the complete province of butterflies or very minute trains of events not apparent on first glance.

There's still potential for the POD, though: if they do have the effect of causing Franklin to stay in London longer, then he's actions during the 2nd Continental Congress are up for change. One of those actions was helping to sway Pennsylvania's vote to endorse the Declaration of Independence.
 
I've done some more reading and I may have a firmer idea.

Without the demonstrations in early 1773 in response to the Hutchinson Letters, Hutchinson may feel less embattled. If so, then he may not take a hard line and so force the events of the Boston Tea Party to a head. If so, then the boycott might have had effect and the tea tax repealed -- if Lord North's later statements are any guide. That doens't really solve the immediate problem, but it does perhaps posit a more agreeable North (because no disobediance has yet occured, there's again no hard line to take from London). However, Franklin is then still in London and won't be getting grilled by the Privy Council about the Hutchinson Letters nor by Parliament about the Tea Party.

The biggest obstacle to a peaceful reconciliation still remains (IMO): admiting some kind of reform or new settlement or the like would be for North to open the door to political reform in the British isles themselves.
 
Well without the letters, would the Americans rebel but in even less numbers or would they be the same?

Also, would there be potential of Galloway's plan of Union passing with a less inflamatory buildup.
With many of the events, would it be possible for the vote to be reversed, and his plan being narrowly accepted rather than narrowly defeated (I think it was just one vote that sent it down the drain).
Could this plan of Union, a still present Hutchinson, and maybe even Ben Franklin come together to create a new plan?
 
Well without the letters, would the Americans rebel but in even less numbers or would they be the same?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. But I think it would mean that Boston and Massachussets are slightly less radical, or at least their radicalization is slowed.

Also, would there be potential of Galloway's plan of Union passing with a less inflamatory buildup.
With many of the events, would it be possible for the vote to be reversed, and his plan being narrowly accepted rather than narrowly defeated (I think it was just one vote that sent it down the drain).
Could this plan of Union, a still present Hutchinson, and maybe even Ben Franklin come together to create a new plan?

It will take a bit more. [And neither Hutchinson nor Franklin were delegates to the First Contitental Congress].

The immediate effect, I think, is to alter the train of events which led to the Boston Tea party. Here's a possible chain of events:

With the demonstrations surround the controversy of the letters, then the Sons of Liberty have gone a bit longer with no obvious evidence of tyranny lurking in the halls of government and Thomas Hutchinson has had no reason to crack down.

However, the Tea Act is probably still passed. Hence, HEIC ships arrive in Boston Harbor (as they did in Philadelphia and New York). In the latter two cities, citizens refuse to purchase any tea and the governors allow the ships to leave without landing any cargo to avoid incidents (thus allow no import tax to be paid).

OTL Thomas Hutchinson wanted a showdown with Samuel Adams and ordered the HEIC ships to disembark their cargo (and thus that the tax be paid). Hence, Adams put together a group and did jus that...by chucking them into the harbor. Without the events of OTL 1772, I'd imagine that Hutchinson is less on edge.

Samuel Adams and John Hancock still don't want anything to do with the tea (or its tax) so they stage a protest: they gather a large group of followers along the docks of Boston Harbor (or maybe on the Common) and have a big party. They are having what appears to be a Tea Party, but they are drinking only Blackberry Ruminant (the colonial subsitute). They do this in mid to late November, before Hutchinson has had time to insist they pay the tax. Many during the demonstration remark how horribe the substitute tastes and Boston Commons 'runs brown' with drained ruminant. This ruins any enthusiams for a latter public meeting Adams has been planning to officially refuse to pay the tax.

Upon receiving a letter from Benjamin Franklin urging that no property damage be permitted against HEIC wares, Hutchinson hatches a scheme: he will take out a loan on his Milton estate and pay the import tax on the cargo from one British ship. He will then call a Royal Party for Christmas Day 1774 and he will use real tea. Mild scuffles continue throughout December, but nothing on the scale of OTL. Hutchinson's party occurs. Samuel Adams' Sons of Liberties disrupt the proceedings dressed as Indians. In the tumult, Hutchinson is knocked from a platform, breaking his arm; his wife is also hurt (her ankle twisted) though many suspect that this was due to tripping over Hutchinson. The Loyalists now have a perfect standard bearer for Law and Order in the colonies, though.

The same protests and declarations in the other colonies occurs on schedule.

Parliament still passes some Acts which gives the colonists room for pause. They pass the Government of Massachusetts Act, which increases the power of the Governor to call for order, but does not enact the sweeping changes of OTL. The Administration of Justice Act, Quattering Act, and Quebec Act are also passed, but the Boston Port Act is not passed (nor will the New England Restraining Act).

The First Continental Congress convenes in 1774 to discuss the "Questionable Acts." They discuss a plan of Union. They colonies are deadlocked, but they decide to send it to Benjamin Franklin in London. [The Suffolk Resovles do not disrupt debate on the Plan, but it is not unanimously adopted because of concerns about its form]. A Pettion accompanies it, endorsed by the several colonial assemblies (i.e. by the representatives of those assemblies in congress assembled, rather than by the Congress itself).

In London, William Pitt and Benjamin Franklin attempt some sort of compromise on the basis of the Galloway plan, but all Pitt's attempts are defeated (because of reform issues they engender). They don't fail quite so badly as OTL, however.

The Continental Association goes into affect to further the boycott of British trade. Many grumble.

Franklin presents the Petition of the Colonies to North. He attempts to dissmiss it as improperly formed, but can't. It is in turn present to George III. All parties agree something must be done, but no one agrees what.

By late 1774, things are growing tense. Hutchinson writes to Franklin stressing the urgency of events. The Sons of Liberty are continuing to act freely and he fears for the order of New England. The antics of the Sons of Liberty causes some dissension between John and Samuel Adams. John writes another treatise on the rights of Englishman while Sam's Sons of Liberty have discovered they quite like gallavanting across the Common dressed as Indians.

By February 1775, North relents and urges the passing of the Conciliatory Resolution which abolishes taxes for any colony that promises to pay for the "common defense, support for the civil government, and the administration of justice." North prefers this to Pitt's system of mutual concession: Parliament must not shirk its rights, he believes. He does not however move to declare Massachusetts in Rebellion.

South Carolina jumps at the Act, as does New York. By years' end Pennsylvania has followed as does New Jersey.

Massachusetts and Virginia are still prominent hold-outs. Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry continue to call for clarification of the rights of the colonists as Englishman.

I'd go one, but I think from here there's still a chance fighting might break out, but more likely the newly invigorated Loyalists have a chance to find reform. It will probably take until 1780 or so, but by that time the cause of Reform in gneral is much enhanced. Edmund Burke's speech on Conciliation provides a template which is a middle way between outright Parliamentary representaion for the colonies, colonial union, and the status quo. The colonies are still rambunctious places: Indian Affairs and colonial settlement will be huge issues. And there's a reckoning between Britain and the Continent brewing that has not yet broken out.
 
Last edited:
That's so perfect it's brilliant.

I'll admit, I was asking this because I wanted to find an original POD for America keeping with Britain in the Anglo Russian War of 1790...

in which you are already discussing. Excellent.:D
 
That's so perfect it's brilliant.

I'll admit, I was asking this because I wanted to find an original POD for America keeping with Britain in the Anglo Russian War of 1790...

in which you are already discussing. Excellent.:D

I wondered if you might've been angling for something like that. Such a POD and TL to 1780 or so would probably work well for the Anglo-Russian War World because it keeps the situation in BNA suitably vauge to allow for a further settlement at the end of that war.

Since 0377031 I know will be looking to create a lasting prescence in N. America for the British Empire, I think it's important to avoid both the Revolution and a full on colonial union, which will lead to evenutal separation later on. I've always thought the best recipe for a more cohesive Empire is a settlement for BNA that sees not one overweening government, but several unions of provinces that would in turn cooperate in a loose more confederal style with Britain, perhaps slightly more formally than the Dominions did OTL if only because of a longer history.
 
When you say smaller unions, are you talking about stuff like a New England confederation, or southern confederation?

Have you read Rober Sobel's For Want of a Nail? A less independant version of the CNA is what I'd probably aim for, but with more British involvement.
 
When you say smaller unions, are you talking about stuff like a New England confederation, or southern confederation?

Have you read Rober Sobel's For Want of a Nail? A less independant version of the CNA is what I'd probably aim for, but with more British involvement.

I have read For Want of Nail. Essentially, what I'm describing are the formation of the smaller regional provinces/confederation/unions that make up the CNA, but no outright confederal body. To me, Sobel's BNA Act / Britannic Design takes things too far: the Americans appear completely independent afterwards and never after seem to fight for Britain, completely at odds with the expereince of, say, Canada. This is also similar to Thande's system for the Empire of North American in Look to the West.

I've elaborated on my ideas for such a system a few times. See this thread for the most extensive BNA Federation or Separate States. Also, the following discussion from 037771's Mystic River Charted Mk. II.

me said:
Overall, I quite agree with the basic premise, that Britain will find it easier to hold on to the American colonies the more divided it keeps them. The problem with having the Revolution itself fall apart is that you'll still have held the Stamp Act Congress and the First Contintental Congress to set a precedent for colonial cooperation. See this thread for more on that point and on the generally likelihood of a settlement. One way around this is to have the British offer reconciliation to individual colonies and hence break up the Congress as a means of settling the Revolution. Such a scheme is discussed at length in this thread.

Another possibility (and my preference for a settlement) is to have a confedereation of federations: that is, the colonies unite in regional groupings with differeing amounts of shared powers. These groups then join in common council with each other and with Britian to fight wars and raise taxes. See a disscussion of this scheme here.

The problem with any settlement is really two fold. First, Britain needs its taxes and the colonies don't want to give them. Second, the supremacy of Parliament over Empire. Granting the colonies either individually or in groups the power to tax themselves with no power of Parliament to compel taxation is essentially to concede everything the colonists want. Affirming the colonies' rights while demanding taxation is to concede to the British.

Now, this might happen if the Revolution begins to fail on the ground. I expect things will get sorted out later. Such a compromise might be for Parliament to explictly recognize the rights of the colonists as British subjects; the colonists then have to chose between taxing themselves or sending representatives to Parliament (such is the choice offered them by North whose become very Burkian all of a sudden). Things get different very quickly if once the British have crushed dissent, they act magnanimously in making guarantees to the colonists.

I've never thought American MPs of some kind out of the question: for two decades prior to 1776, the colonies had been in the pracitce of sending agents to London to deal with Parliament on issues concerning them (e.g. Ben Franklin for PA). Also, granting representation to the colonials makes for a convient pivot point for Reformers to push for greater reform to rotten borroughs. One compromise may be to differentiate between an Imperial and UK Parliament: when Parliament makes any law concerning the colonies, the Parliament is understood to be sitting "Imperial" and the American MPs have a vote. If not, they have none. I'd also expect the turning point to come during a potential campaign: i.e. when Parliament thinks the Carolinas might be amenable, they propose to grant them this kind of provisional status in order to break the Continental Union.

I'd expect reform in this case to come in two phases, with some kind of general promise delivered in 1776 and genuine Parliamentary / Imperial reform in the 1830s along the same timeframe as the Great Reform Bill, or perhaps earlier as necessitated by abolition of slavery movements.

The TL we've outlined here has a pretty good basis to adopt a great variety of systems for BNA. The key to continued cooperation is to make the essential units of cooperation with Britain small enough that they wouldn't overshadow Britain until the 1950s or so and so that the manor of their cooperation would reinforce cooperation with Britain (i.e. they can't cooperate with each other unless they cooperate with Britain -- pretty much the sum history of colonial cooperation before 1776).
 
I agree with Dreadnought Jenkins- thats a perfect POD, and far superior to my Mystic River Charted POD. With regards to smaller unions i think thats as far as the British would allow, preferring instead really just colonies/provinces with separate legislatures. Moreover i was reading Volume III of Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples. One of the main grievances of the Colonials was of course raising money- trade was restricted to Britain and thus merchants found raising capital harder and harder. Im not sure whether London would raise this until Pitt, so a shorter term solution would be the construction of a number of colonial banks, or the permittence of London banks to extend operations. Just a thought.

Pretty much you'd want the New England Colonies to join together voluntarily for one reason or another. Then Georgia becomes more and more defunct and rejoings South Carolina. [All of which occurs in LTTW] Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey then begin to feel left out so there's grounds for a larger consolidation. Once you have between 3-5 unions operating, they set up banks (or at least the northern ones do).

Parliament probably has them coordiante with the Bank of England in some way.

Also, I'm thinking that the Board of Trade might be a nice vehicle for representation in London: it's mercantilistic functions are reformed / a new body is created called the Colonial Council or some such, which allows the colonies to pool their resources when lobby Parliament. Benjamin Franklin is its first head.

Also, as per the Anglo-Russian war, as soon as GB starts to allow the construction of RN ships in American ports and the comcomitant manufactuering that would occur, then all the greivances with the mercantilist system goes away. The American merchants will have all sorts of fun outfiting RN ships and selling the RN and the Army stores. And then of course American service in Army regiments (rather than Army commanders serving over militia) will have huge cultural effects that support an Imperial mindset.
 
I disagree that they wouldnt unite until the 1950s- Canada itself is a precedent. However, the huge size of BNA (presumably including Canada as well) might inhibit any uniting impetus until the late 19th Century; by then, i think cooperation would be cemented with Britain bar some unbelievably unjustifiable war, like the threatened conflict with Turkey (suggested by Lloyd George after rejection of the Treaty of Sevres, who had to withdraw after experiencing global revulsion for a resumption of hostilities).

Oh, I'd think they'd ''unite'' before the 1950s, but in a Confederation far weaker even than the Canadian version. One of the things that bugs me about For Want of A Nail is that the Confederal government appears to have huge powers with little opposition. The whole point of having larger intermedite units rather than simply transforming each little colony into a state is to limit the power of the unified government. Hence, you'd get a BNA Act of some kind, but the BNA government would have very little power; the lion share is either London's or the individual provinces/regional unions. Hence, you even have grounds for a wider more cohesive Imperial federation in the early 1900s.

My point about the 1950s was that the regional units should be of a size that one wouldn't think any single one would dominate Britain until the Empire has so much of a tradition of cooperation that they wouldn't want to deviate even if they could.

I'd genuinely think that something like Imperial Federation might occur. It's not the complete creation of the British Empire as a cohesive nation state all its own, rather it's something new. Something like the EU or the Commowealth itself with real powers. For example, IIRC OTL Dominions didn't really have separate ambassadors for quite some time. Canada had quite a bit of independent diplomacy with the USA, but only because practicality demanded it. TTL's BNA or its consitutent parts will have almost no foreign neighbors with which it might want to have direct relations. Certainly if BNA is made up of between 5-8 regional unions, an ambassador from each one in European courts is a bit much. Given them a voice in Imperial affairs and they'll be content to let London make most foreign policy decisions for quite some time. (Until and unless London starts bossing them around).

Or you could flip the whole series of events. Including the Anglo-Russian War, Americans are more appreciated than before, where they were regarded in London as a mix of crackpots and convicts. Particularly American values are exposed to England- the upholding of essential liberties and the maintainence of the landed class (that last point ive probably put badly). Later on such principals in England could lead either to increased immigration to BNA (jeapordising the latter half of the Industrial Revolution) or the rise of common values- ie, a conservative political ideology on both sides of the pond similar to Toryism, and a reaction to this in Liberalism (Whigs). This happened a little in OTL, but in this TL it could be expanded further- with intrinsic political similarities Britain and BNA could prove formidable and close allies. In this respect London i believe would eventually lead, but uniting together the Colonies would eventually supersede Great Britain.

There's all sorts of cultural issues that would be hard to parse. Having the American revolution be still born, and the Americans beleive themselves to be British every bit as much as a Welshman or a Scotsman. It's really the English (no offense) who have to struggle with the notion of this equality, just as they did with the other groups in OTL. Hold the colonies for a little while longer and I agree, British society might find room for the Americans. Still, there will be a difference between say 'Provinicals' who live in a settled Union / Dominion and those on the frontier living in Crown Lands or some such. The latter would be just as unsophisticated as OTL and continue to be scorned in London. They key is to get London not to tar the New Yorker or Philadelphian with the same brush.

The one thing I don't see happening is an American landed class, simply becuase land qua land isn't valuable in the same way in the Americas because there's no sundry class to work it. The commonality is rather a common agrarian mindset, with both American and British thinkers praising the value of agrairan society and fearing what industrialization might bring. Franklin has some great letters on this himself.
 
:cool:

I said i probably stated that part of my post wrong- i entirely agree with your last point, indeed all of your points. I believe if we include the Anglo-Russian War (given all the butterflies that arrive after it) we can create something definitive, from 1770-2009. That would be truly something. :cool:

Indeed. I do wonder what the butterflies might be. I've been pondering about how the current war will probably prevent the sailing of the First Fleet to Australia.

Maybe a reformed Spain looks to the Antipodes for a taste of renewed empire.
 
What would be interesting though would be a Britain marginalised in Africa.

Without Gibralter, South Africa, and (probably never going to get) Egypt, we are seeing a Britain with almost no large scale presence.

You'd probably see a far more powerfull Dutch empire, a more powerfull Portuguese empire (they can probably get Brit support for straddling the continent this time) and most deffinetely Spain and France going at Africa with a vengeance for all their lost colonies.
 
What would be interesting though would be a Britain marginalised in Africa.

Without Gibralter, South Africa, and (probably never going to get) Egypt, we are seeing a Britain with almost no large scale presence.

You'd probably see a far more powerfull Dutch empire, a more powerfull Portuguese empire (they can probably get Brit support for straddling the continent this time) and most deffinetely Spain and France going at Africa with a vengeance for all their lost colonies.

That would be interesting, but does Britain consolidate its hold over all India? If so, then at some point they'll need bases to do so. Nevertheles, you can conquer / control too many continents at once. Plus there's not much trade value to Africa, so it does make a nice sandbox for the European powers.

BTW, the Ancient Alliance with Portugal will either get a lot stronger since the two together rule the entire Western Hemsphiere (with Equador and Venezuela *) or suffer due to border problems.

*Which reminds me, who controls Colombia? Direct British territory?
 
Top