| December 12 |  |
Editor says, What if Benjamin Franklin got the Albany Plan approved? This story was published in the December 2008 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1992, on this day Buckingham Palace announced the appointment of the next President-General of the British North American Union.Join or die
As expected following the retirement of Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr Christopher Francis Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes, CH, PC (pictured) would take up the appointment at Her Majesty's pleasure. A prominent Tory politician and highly experienced diplomat, Mr Patten was considered a "safe pair of hands" - in his current role as Governor of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, the Baron had introduced limited democratic reforms with the Legislative Council and also negotiated with the Chinese Government on behalf of Great Britain.
A spokesman for the Palace confirmed that the Crown's most senior minister in North America would be presented to members of the Grand Council before the Queen retired to Balmoral Castle for the Christmas break. By January 20th the Crown's appointee would assume his full responsibilities for Indian relations, military preparedness, and execution of laws regulating various trade and financial activities. Historically, those responsibilities had been defined by the Articles of Confederation ratified at the Albany Congress - in 1754, representatives from the colonies of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island met at Albany, New York from June 19 to July 11 to discuss better relations with the Indian tribes and common defensive measures against the French.
In a loyalist appeal to Join or Die, the resulting Plan of Union was urged by a colonist, Benjamin Franklin who subsequently justified the plea in 1789 by explaining that "On Reflection it now seems probable, that if the foregoing Plan or some thing like it, had not been adopted and carried into Execution, a subsequent Separation of the Colonies from the Mother Country might have happened, with Mischiefs suffered on both sides, perhaps during another Century. For the Colonies, so united, were sufficient to their own Defence, and being trusted with it, as by the Plan, so that the different Parts of the Empire might remain in Peace and Union".
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Generals Source: Wikipedia Labels: Chris Patten, Benjamin Franklin, America, Albany Congress, United States. Editor says, With the appointment of Barack Obama so prominent in the media (Public OK with Obama so far being the most ludicrous headline of the day), we imagine a dystopian universe where a very different appointment occurs - some died in the wool Tories.
This concept was partly inspired by discussions with Eric Lipps over the Albany Congress (an alt-hist web site suggested the POD) and also the controversy in Canada over the Crown's role in the continuation of Stephen Harper's minority government which is repeated below.
Paul Sullivan in Let's retire the Queen writes ~ With apologies to Paul McCartney ... Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, but why is she running my country? As I've watched the remarkable events of the past week unfold, the most remarkable was the spectacle of Stephen Harper, hat in hand, tugging his forelock in the general direction of Micha?lle Jean, Mrs. Windsor's representative in Ottawa. You're familiar with Mrs. Windsor? That nice old lady in London with the corgis and the celebrity grandchildren? Her Majesty?
There hasn't been a lot of talk about the suitability of that exchange; I guess because most of us are relieved that Ms. Jean, a former Radio-Canada reporter with not one iota of experience in governance, just granted the prime minister's wish, and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition doesn't get to run the country, at least not yet.
But why do Mrs. Windsor and her envoy still run the country? Until last week, they have been little more than glorified lawn ornaments. Inviting them to your charity garden party adds instant class. But what if Ms. Jean, who probably doesn't like Mr. Harper any more than Mr. Harper likes her, had decided to give the reins of power to St?phane Dion and the balance of power to Chief Blochead Gilles Duceppe?
For one thing, we'd hear a lot more squawking about how it's time to end this outdated ridiculous subservience to Prince Charles' Mom. Instead, a grateful nation has decided to put aside any qualms about Ms. Jean, her former French citizenship, her rumoured separatist leanings, her absurd appointment as the Queen's representative, never mind the innate, fundamental absurdity of the Queen herself.
So what happens in January if Her Majesty's Loyal Etc. try to stick it to Stephen one more time? Back he goes, gripping his forelock, to visit Ms. Jean, and she informs him that ?we are not amused,? and turns the government over to Michael or Rae and their little dog Jack? She can do that! She's Mrs. Windsor's envoy. Mrs. Windsor runs the country!
I simply can't believe we're still letting this happen. Here's what we need to do. Immediately, as a nation, we should grow up.
Then, we should send Ms. Jean back to Radio-Canada, tell Mrs. Windsor that it's time to retire as the Queen of Canada; thanks for the memories. Then we elect a president at large (as everyone mistakenly believes they vote for the prime minister anyway), while preserving the parliamentary democracy that we've come to know and love.
We do this through proportional representation, so we get the parties and the policies we want exactly in proportion to the popular vote. Now that's democracy.
And God Save Mrs. Windsor for another day.
~ The American Revolution could easily have been avoided by a little common sense on both sides, and something like this may well have resulted. However, the "centre of gravity" of such a polity might well have gone across the Atlantic, with HM ruling from her palace in North America.
~ What rude consequences would have befallen the world had the American colonists chosen to separate from Mother England...
~ Sorry to disagree with Eric, but I happen to be of the school of thought that says a confrontation between the American colonists and the British crown was inevitable. George III was just too autocratic in his policies for things to have turned out any other way.
~ I'm with Chris Oakley in the "inevitable conflict" camp. There were simply too many issues between the colonies and the mother country, ie the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts. Even if a compromise had been worked out, I imagine more than a few colonists would take to the woods as bushwackers, Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty, for example.
~ Don't forget that the Revolution was actually supported by the minority of the general "American" population. So it is possible that the "clash" wasn't inevitable. Having said that, it would require the British to seriously deal with the issues with the colonies to the benefit of the colonies, at various times (not just in the 1770s), otherwise I would go along with the "inevitable conflict" taking place at some point in time.
~ Very well written.
I do wonder, however, how the resistance encoun tered by the Albany Plan in our history (not one colonial legislature voted in favor) could have been overcome: I'd ben looking for some key event to turn it around, and hadn't found one. Aand even if the Plan had been unanimously adopted by the colonies, many in Parliament opposed it: again, what could have turned it around?
I offer the following: Suppose the Seven Years' War (which its Wikipedia entry note actually lasted for nine years) had begun before the opening of the Albany Congress? In that case, facing actual raather than merely prospective armed hostilities, the colonial legislatures might have been more open to the Plan, and once they had, Franklin might have been able to talk Parliament into backing it too, on the basis of military expediency.
I don't have any specific POD in mind, but in the troubled atmosphere of the period, an "incident" might all too easily have happened in North America, say in late 1753 or early 1754. That in turn might have spurred an earlier outbreak of fighting in Europe, since the war there was spurred in p[art by reports of the clashes across the Atlantic.
Imagine further that in the aftermath of the conflict, popular young American officers such as George Washington were rewarded with titles. this would bind them more firmly to the Home Isklands and undercut any remaining sentiment for rebellion.
~ You may, of course, be right. I had envisioned, however, that the alteration of history involved in the success of the Albany Plan would have had the effect of ameliorating some of the causes of the revolution. I don't ereally believe that armed conflict was already "inevitable" by 1754.
One way in which this might have come about would have been if, in the aftermath of rthe war, the colonists had been granteds some representation in Parliament, at least in Commons, members perhaps chosen by the colonial legislatures to represent their ndividual interests. I don't know how feasible this would have been, though.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
