WI State of New Haven

What I am talking about is whether New Haven could have remained as its own independent colony and remained as its own colony. Could there have been New Haven that remained as a state, as some sort of Commonwealth, maybe, which, due to its Puritain influence, might have remained as a rather conservative state with an independent streak to it. Is this a possibility?
 
I don't know if continued Puritan influence would necessarily mean that it would be a conservative state today. After all, the modern descendants of the Puritans are the Unitarian Universalists...

I wonder, if this would have to require Massachusetts-Bay and Plymouth remaining separate as well.
 
You could just as easily include a clause in the New England charter that declares New Haven a separate state. Seeing as how Massachusetts was once upon a time, a strict Puritan colony as well, I don't see New Haven being a conservative haven. It would probably just be another chapter in the story of New England: the source of liberalism in America.
 
You could just as easily include a clause in the New England charter that declares New Haven a separate state. Seeing as how Massachusetts was once upon a time, a strict Puritan colony as well, I don't see New Haven being a conservative haven. It would probably just be another chapter in the story of New England: the source of liberalism in America.

So, an idea would be that New Haven would be a liberal state. I am seeing a very liberal (quazi-socialist) state in my mind.
 
This could potentially be a very small state. Look at this map. If you go just by the areas marked as "New Haven Settlements", then you have a state divided into small scattered bits, which would really look rather silly...

I think TTL's State of New Haven would be very much in New York City's "sphere of influence", as opposed to that of Boston... it's status as a "New England state" could even be disputed in the present day. (I've met people from western Connecticut who proudly declare that their regions aren't part of New England)
 
Well, by "liberal" I'm going by the definition that they'd be opposed to the governmental status quo as opposed to "conservative" which is trying to continue the government's status quo.

Ex. 1850s. New England is the hot-spot of abolitionism. Just because New Haven is an extremely religious and judicially-controlled state as well as socially-conservative, doesn't mean they're going to be very conservative and want to keep slavery in the system.

As for supporting socialism, it's a possibility. I'd think New Englanders were more socialists than southerners during the Gilded Age. I certainly don't see it past 1917 though, they'd be as anti-communist as the rest of the USA.

EDIT: I made an alternate states map with a New Haven POD. All I did was cut CT throught the Connecticut River. west of the river was New Haven. East of the river combined with Rhode Island to form Providence Colony.
 
EDIT: I made an alternate states map with a New Haven POD. All I did was cut CT throught the Connecticut River. west of the river was New Haven. East of the river combined with Rhode Island to form Providence Colony.
No offense but this sounds very much like "it looks neat on a map" syndrome, which admittedly was the motivation for many of the western borders of the US, was definitely not so in colonial-era New England... I don't think a union of eastern CT and RI is particularly likely- Connecticut was a Puritan colony, and Rhode Island was most certainly not a Puritan colony- RI was seen as a bit odd by the other states as late as the American Revolution, and was the only state not to attend the Constitutional Convention. There was a consolidation movement in New England OTL, and Rhode Island was excluded, which I think says something.

I think it'll be difficult to prevent CT from wanting to annex the New Haven Colony if Massachusetts-Bay gets to annex Plymouth Colony, the Province of Maine, and Cornwall County (northern Maine). There existed at several points in this period a rivalry between Connecticut and Massachusetts-Bay.
 
Well my idea was his, by looking at the map. Suppose that New Haven gets Fairfeld, New Haven, and Middlesex counties in Connecticut, and to put it solidly in New York's sphere of influence, it also gets Long Island.
 
Well my idea was his, by looking at the map. Suppose that New Haven gets Fairfeld, New Haven, and Middlesex counties in Connecticut, and to put it solidly in New York's sphere of influence, it also gets Long Island.
Perhaps eastern Long Island, but I definitely wouldn't give it, say, Queens. Suffolk County NY at the most, I'd say.

Some random thoughts here- we'd probably want to get rid of their attempt to claim New Jersey, as that settlement turned out to be a big loss to the colony. Perhaps instead of that they send more settlers to Long Island?

The other issue was New Haven Colony's support of the judges who sentenced King Charles I to death, which was one of the reasons Charles II found it so easy to wipe the colony out with a stroke of a pen on Connecticut's charter...

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, settlers from New Haven Colony who left after the colony was abolished were responsible for the creation of Newark... so could this mean no Newark in TTL? (Well, something's going to be there in any case)

The big question is what the different situation looks like by 1776. Of course, butterflies become an issue if we're talking about the ARW.
 
I could say that they could just not support the judges, or do so more implicitly.

More people would go to long Island. I am thinking that it would be possible for all of the island to be taken by New Haven. Brooklyn and Queens were not too populated then, so the whole island could be brought into New Haven, which would make it more into New York's sphere of influence.
 
I could say that they could just not support the judges, or do so more implicitly.

More people would go to long Island. I am thinking that it would be possible for all of the island to be taken by New Haven. Brooklyn and Queens were not too populated then, so the whole island could be brought into New Haven, which would make it more into New York's sphere of influence.
Hm, I suppose it might be possible in the aftermath of the Dominion of New England when the colonies were reorganized to an extent. Still, it seems a bit difficult since Brooklyn and such were clearly recognized (or as clearly recognized as anything was back then) as part of New York even back in the days of New Amsterdam- the name Brooklyn is even of Dutch origin, heavily corrupted of course.

But you have to wonder if that means they'd be part of New Haven forever. I submit as an example East Providence, Rhode Island, which had formerly been part of Massachusetts but was ceded to RI.
 
You got some really good points there, but that was willingly. I don't think that New Haven will want to do that.
 
You got some really good points there, but that was willingly. I don't think that New Haven will want to do that.
True- Brooklyn will probably be one of the most important cities in New Haven, while East Providence wasn't too important to Massachusetts, which had several other important urban centers, such as say, Boston.
 
True- Brooklyn will probably be one of the most important cities in New Haven, while East Providence wasn't too important to Massachusetts, which had several other important urban centers, such as say, Boston.

Well Fall River had some importance to RI - indeed, I would think that some Rhode Islanders would secretly want Fall River to be once again part of RI.
 
True- Brooklyn will probably be one of the most important cities in New Haven, while East Providence wasn't too important to Massachusetts, which had several other important urban centers, such as say, Boston.

I am thinking of having New Haven be a much more liberal "commuter state" of New York. Maybe, because New Haven would be liberal, there might not be as many uber rich living in the Hamptons.
 
Perhaps eastern Long Island, but I definitely wouldn't give it, say, Queens. Suffolk County NY at the most, I'd say.

Some random thoughts here- we'd probably want to get rid of their attempt to claim New Jersey, as that settlement turned out to be a big loss to the colony. Perhaps instead of that they send more settlers to Long Island?

The other issue was New Haven Colony's support of the judges who sentenced King Charles I to death, which was one of the reasons Charles II found it so easy to wipe the colony out with a stroke of a pen on Connecticut's charter...

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, settlers from New Haven Colony who left after the colony was abolished were responsible for the creation of Newark... so could this mean no Newark in TTL? (Well, something's going to be there in any case)

The big question is what the different situation looks like by 1776. Of course, butterflies become an issue if we're talking about the ARW.
The REAL Irony would be if King Charles II is in an Especially Spiteful Mood, And Decides to Make The Colony his Bitch by Converting their Charter to a Royal One Instead ...

As in OTL Happened with New Hampshire, A Later King like George II will then Come Along to Settle a Land Dispute Over and Above The Formerly Cantankerous Colony's Favour ...

Whereupon New Haven gets Awarded Western Massachusetts and Long Island both!

:D

Edit: Darn Lesdyxia, lol
 
Last edited:
Top