WI: Dominion of New England lasts longer

In OTL 1686 King James II of Great Britain established the Dominion of New England, which would eventually comprise Maine, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. It was for most of its short life run by Sir Edmund Andros, who took power just a few months after his predecessor Joseph Dudley had in May 1686. His title was Governor in Chief, and he was absolutely hated by many colonists for his hostility towards the Puritans and his tax laws. He restricted town meetings, declared many land titles to be void, ended the governments and charters of the New England colonies, ticked off the Indians, and reproved Maine's colonists for striking back at Indian towns after the Indians raided Maine's towns. When the glorious revolution came in England, it inspired the colonists to try their own, peacefully arresting Andros. The new King in Great Britain ended the Dominion of New England, and the colonies were promptly restored back to what their governments had been like before.

My question to you guys is, what if the Dominion of New England had lasted longer? What if no one arrested Andros, or he managed to protect himself and continue his rule? Would the American revolution have broken out some 100 years sooner? Or maybe the revolution would have never happened, leading to simply a strong British colony in the north that stays loyal to the mother country? My opinion is that the revolution may kick off sooner. And if it did, what would be the effects of that?

With or without the Glorious Revolution, the Dominion of New England wasn't going to survive. It might limp along another few years, but eventually some powerful families would get crossed and Andros would die. A more hostile New England earlier might actually result in New England being treated better later on, to avoid another "incident". Hard to tell with butterflies, though.

If you want an earlier American revolution, you've gotta have the King replace Andros with a "better" guy who's just as bad. Tax laws incited the 1770s revolution - if you can get bad treatment and taxes from Andros's successor, you may see an American Revolution in the 17th century. Of course, the colonies would be weaker, less populated, and the French is to the west of the Appalachians... the USA, free or not, is screwed in a timeline like that.

Any rebellion in this era would be squashed flat for about a dozen reasons;

First of all there are simply a lot less people inhabiting a much smaller area, which is obviously much easier to crush.
Secondly the other colonies wouldn't revolt as they don't have an proximate cause.
Thirdly the colonists are going to be even more divided due to a weaker distinct American identity because a much higher percentage are born in England or no one is more than three generations away.
Fourth the French threat is much more real making the advantages of loyalty (military protection) much greater.
Fifth much more viable American Indian communities who like in OTL will probably side with the Crown who generally protected them against Colonists who generally exterminated them.

Maybe have Dudley stay longer in his position and try to bring as much goodwill as he can to keep the Dominion afloat?

Thoresby said:

Any rebellion in this era would be squashed flat for about a dozen reasons;

First of all there are simply a lot less people inhabiting a much smaller area, which is obviously much easier to crush.
Secondly the other colonies wouldn't revolt as they don't have an proximate cause.
Thirdly the colonists are going to be even more divided due to a weaker distinct American identity because a much higher percentage are born in England or no one is more than three generations away.
Fourth the French threat is much more real making the advantages of loyalty (military protection) much greater.
Fifth much more viable American Indian communities who like in OTL will probably side with the Crown who generally protected them against Colonists who generally exterminated them.

Click to expand...

The first two factors are real - there were revolts against James II's colonial policies in New York (Leisler) and Maryland. If the Dominion's longer-lasting these are unlikely to coincide, although I suppose it's possible for the forces who supported Leisler to take advantage of a revolt in New England to rebel as well.

I'm not sure about the third. New England has a very coherent local identity, even if historically divided into separate colonies, and this was if anything stronger in 1692. The population descended predominately from Puritan exiles and by this point had a strong cultural disconnect with England, who saw them as backwards religious fanatics and who they didn't exactly think highly of either.

With regards to the fourth and fifth, everything depends on France, which frequently warred with England in this period. Indian communities vis-a-vis New England are only an issue along the French border after King Philip's War, and those communities are staunch French allies and didn't raid New England unless France and England are at war. English New York separates them from the stronger confederacies further west. Who would see little interest in crushing New England - settlers without a border can't exactly steal their land.

IMO, New England can indeed gain independence if they revolt and throw in with the French during an Anglo-French war. However, if it's just them against the empire they're toast, and they're not important enough to start a major European war over. And if they refuse to side with the French (a very real possibility, given the religious differences) they're also toast.

You want an earlier revolution?

Easy. Give the colonies direct representation with MPs in Parliament and equalise the tax system so that the taxes are the same in America as they were in Britain.

Then you have taxation with representation: enjoy!

The Indian MPs might have a few items to bring before the House.......

yulzari said:

You want an earlier revolution?

Easy. Give the colonies direct representation with MPs in Parliament and equalise the tax system so that the taxes are the same in America as they were in Britain.

Then you have taxation with representation: enjoy!

The Indian MPs might have a few items to bring before the House.......

Click to expand...

Lol. America wanted special treatment, not equal treatment. Revolution is still on the cards.

euromellows said:

Lol. America wanted special treatment, not equal treatment.

Click to expand...

No. Please don't say falsehoods.

Umbric Man said:

No. Please don't say falsehoods.

Click to expand...

Yes. The Thirteen Colonies were the mostly lowly taxed and lightly governed place in the Western World paying taxes roughly 10% of those levied in the UK at the time. As for representation this was 50 years before the Great Reform Act so it's hard to argue they were much less represented than Manchester. In addition Great Britain had just spent a vast amount of money defending the colonies and securing their borders by capturing Quebec during the Seven Years War and was facing severe fiscal problems. The Thirteen Colonies wanted it both ways, the protecting umbrella of the British Empire without having to pay for it. In other words special treatment.

euromellows said:

Lol. America wanted special treatment, not equal treatment. Revolution is still on the cards.

Click to expand...

I disagree. If the Americans got the same trading rights England had, then they would have probably accepted the higher taxes. At this point in time, all American trade had to go through England first, meaning English merchants got a cut of all American trade. The colonists, understandably, felt this was taxation enough.

Thoresby said:

As for representation this was 50 years before the Great Reform Act so it's hard to argue they were much less represented than Manchester.

Click to expand...

Not really. There were people in Manchester who got to vote in parliamentary elections, as part of the Lancashire constituency. There were no people in America who got the same.

Thoresby said:

Yes. The Thirteen Colonies were the mostly lowly taxed and lightly governed place in the Western World paying taxes roughly 10% of those levied in the UK at the time. As for representation this was 50 years before the Great Reform Act so it's hard to argue they were much less represented than Manchester. In addition Great Britain had just spent a vast amount of money defending the colonies and securing their borders by capturing Quebec during the Seven Years War and was facing severe fiscal problems. The Thirteen Colonies wanted it both ways, the protecting umbrella of the British Empire without having to pay for it. In other words special treatment.

Click to expand...

You're severely underestimating the degree to which enlightenment ideals influenced the early Americans. Right up until the DOI the colonies were still proffering loyalty to the king: there only argument was that parliament had nothing to do with them and so no right to tax them. In their view the Kig of England was also the King of the colonies but parliament was there to rule England, not the colonies.

It really was a about the representation not the amount of tax; this is born out by the fact that taxes were higher after independance and most Americans, certainly those in the leadership were ok with that. The argument was that they either get represented in parliament or parliament can butt out.

This is probably hard for cynical 21st century folks to understand: but these men really beleived, they basically were commuting suicide by warring against Britain, thy just got lucky Britain was ok withering them go.

The other thing people fail to realise is that, while tax issues were the reason for the protest movement, they weren't the main reason for independence. The intolerable acts were what turned a civil disobedience movement into a violent conflict.

Socrates said:

I disagree. If the Americans got the same trading rights England had, then they would have probably accepted the higher taxes. At this point in time, all American trade had to go through England first, meaning English merchants got a cut of all American trade. The colonists, understandably, felt this was taxation enough.

Click to expand...

Exactly, the "Americans" wanted to he treated like every other Englishman.

I'm new to this American history so bear with me.

From what I can tell there seems to have been a trend toward union running through colonial American history, before the Dominion there was the New England Confederation and the Albany Congress of 1754 provided many of the ideas for the 1777 Articles of Confederation. Viewed from this perspective the 13 colonies were bound to coalesce into a union at some point.

Is there anything inherently wrong or impractical with the idea of providing a central government for the colonies, which the Dominion did? (despite the terrible execution in practice)

I think an attempted revolution by New England at this point might actually make the colonies more loyal in the long term. As mentioned earlier England could crush the colonists on their own but it might serve as a lesson that in the future the colonies would have to be treated better. It's also worth noting that at this time Virginia was extremely loyal to the monarchy.