What if the pilgrims weren't saved by Squanto and the Wampanoag tribe?

[Reflection]

One of the earliest colonization efforts almost ended in utter failure when the pilgrims sent to America, originally bound for Virginia but ended up in what is now Massachusetts, nearly died of starvation in the harsh winter of 1620. They, in particular Squanto, taught them how to hunt, plant crops, and get the best harvest in the climate of the area, and trade with the other Indian tribes. Famously, the pilgrims and the Indians had the first ever Thanksgiving in 1621.

But what if this never happened? What if the pilgrims were never found, and they all died off?

What kind of effect does this have on American history?

Well, for starters it would butterfly away the first Thanksgiving. Would it also butterfly away, or at least delay, the colonization of New England since the original mission would have failed? Keep in mind that them landing in Massachusetts was an accident to begin with. Notably, the methods that the Wampanoag people taught them were passed down to later colonists, and became essential to survive in the American colonies. Without that, there might be some wide reaching effects. Another thing to keep in mind is that more English settlers came to New England after the successful settlement of the original pilgrims, which wouldn't happen here.

What do you think?

 

[Triune Kingdom]

Well there are Spanish, French and Dutch to pick up the slack?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Well there are Spanish, French and Dutch to pick up the slack?

Spanish not because they have other priorities. The French begun to explore Quebec first and while it is possible they go South I think they would still prefer to explore the rivers (and they also tried to colonize Brazil but lost to the Portuguese). The Dutch seen to me the most likely candidate vut they also don't necessarily end up there.
And GB could try again.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Would it also butterfly away, or at least delay, the colonization of New England since the original mission would have failed?

Would it have? I mean, Virginia was already being settled, and there was enough religious violence over in England and Northern Europe that there's a demand for ships to colonize the region, so hm... maybe Virginia would be much more central to the English settlement of America as a whole?

 

[twovultures]

Would it also butterfly away, or at least delay, the colonization of New England since the original mission would have failed?

What do you think?

I think New England is indeed butterflied away. Without the accidental success of the Plymouth colony, there isn't much in that region to have the English come back. There's probably still demand for a 'Puritan' colony in the New World that's removed from the immoral degenerates (from the puritan perspective) of Virginia, but they're going to want to settle in a region where there's a track record for building a successful colony. The 'puritan' colony is going to end up somewhere in the south, far enough from Jamestown to keep a social distance but close enough that they can turn to it for supplies or military assistance-so I guess that would place it somewhere between OTL's Delaware and North Carolina?

The region of New England is colonized by the start of the 18th century, though it's anyone's guess as to who gets it. It's definitely a possible alternative location for New Sweden or New Amsterdam. Having either of these colonies be in what ITTL is going to be a more backwater region definitely has them survive for longer ITTL. If you're trying to build a scenario where Sweden or the Netherlands have a surviving North American colony this is a good one-the colony could survive into the modern world by diplomacy if the French and English agree to keep it as a buffer state between them.

Most likely scenario is a different British colonization. New England might end up being New Scotland ITTL, though I don't see any reason that colony would be more successful in the ATL (I guess the weather is a comparatively nicer than OTL's Nova Scotia, so perhaps that could make the difference?) Later colonization by a different nonconformist religious group like the Quakers or the Catholics is definitely possible-New England could end up being the ATL Pennsylvania or Maryland. But just as likely, New England is simply colonized by natural population expansion from the British colonies to the south as the productive land on the coastal plains is either claimed or exhausted by tobacco farming. In this scenario, OTL's Boston is a wild frontier rather than a cultural center of British North America.

France taking the region satisfies my inner jingoistic Frenchman, but the limited settler population of Canada makes this scenario unlikely IMO. However, having New England settled later or not at all by the British does put French Canada in a stronger position-New England being butterflied away makes the survival of a French Acadia and Quebec more likely, I think, since they will be less militarily vulnerable.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I agree with Two Vultures. I think there will be a puritan or non-conformist area of settlement. Boston, New Haven, and Providence were settled by different non-conformist groups. However, without the success of Plymouth, the puritan settlement may well not be in what became New England. Where it is located eventually makes a huge difference. Maryland and the Carolinas are the logical locations. Assuming they don't displace the Dutch and the Swedes, they will replace one of the OTL southern colonies and greatly change the development of the south.

The lower Hudson and Delaware are obviously good locations for colonial ventures, so I don't see the course of OTL changing, with the Dutch and Swedes trying there first, and their colonies eventually being taken over by England.

My impression is that England was the only European country capable of producing large amounts of settlers, so England will wind up being the most successful with settler colonies. That means English colonies will dominate what became the East Coast of the USA. However, what could happen is that OTL New England winds up as a sort of frontier region, maybe a northern version of Florida, and the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies get more settlement and the settlers there push into the interior earlier and with more force.

"New England" not really existing starts to have a huge effect on the American independence movement, though it may also weaken the British position in the wars against the French.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Note that the "Thanksgiving" tradition is pretty much mythical, though they myth was heavily promoted by the New England educational establishment, which ITTL does not exist. The actual "first thanksgiving" was held in Virginia. This fact probably remains as obscure as it does in this timeline.

 

[jacob ningen]

I agree with Two Vultures. I think there will be a puritan or non-conformist area of settlement. Boston, New Haven, and Providence were settled by different non-conformist groups. However, without the success of Plymouth, the puritan settlement may well not be in what became New England. Where it is located eventually makes a huge difference. Maryland and the Carolinas are the logical locations. Assuming they don't displace the Dutch and the Swedes, they will replace one of the OTL southern colonies and greatly change the development of the south.

The lower Hudson and Delaware are obviously good locations for colonial ventures, so I don't see the course of OTL changing, with the Dutch and Swedes trying there first, and their colonies eventually being taken over by England.

My impression is that England was the only European country capable of producing large amounts of settlers, so England will wind up being the most successful with settler colonies. That means English colonies will dominate what became the East Coast of the USA. However, what could happen is that OTL New England winds up as a sort of frontier region, maybe a northern version of Florida, and the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies get more settlement and the settlers there push into the interior earlier and with more force.

"New England" not really existing starts to have a huge effect on the American independence movement, though it may also weaken the British position in the wars against the French.

OTL the separatists wanted the Hudson but lost the argument to continue to the Hudson when they realized how far off course they were. So what if the argument to course correct occurs

 

[jacob ningen]

One of the earliest colonization efforts almost ended in utter failure when the pilgrims sent to America, originally bound for Virginia but ended up in what is now Massachusetts, nearly died of starvation in the harsh winter of 1620. They, in particular Squanto, taught them how to hunt, plant crops, and get the best harvest in the climate of the area, and trade with the other Indian tribes. Famously, the pilgrims and the Indians had the first ever Thanksgiving in 1621.

But what if this never happened? What if the pilgrims were never found, and they all died off?

What kind of effect does this have on American history?

Well, for starters it would butterfly away the first Thanksgiving. Would it also butterfly away, or at least delay, the colonization of New England since the original mission would have failed? Keep in mind that them landing in Massachusetts was an accident to begin with. Notably, the methods that the Wampanoag people taught them were passed down to later colonists, and became essential to survive in the American colonies. Without that, there might be some wide reaching effects. Another thing to keep in mind is that more English settlers came to New England after the successful settlement of the original pilgrims, which wouldn't happen here.

What do you think?

what if Hunt haddnt radically altered New England geopolitics is another question as Phillbrick claims that Squanto was attempting to use the Pilgrims to regain power after Hunts pandemic reshuffled the cards. P.S. how reliable is Philbrick as a source?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

OTL the separatists wanted the Hudson but lost the argument to continue to the Hudson when they realized how far off course they were. So what if the argument to course correct occurs

If the POD is that the Pilgrims aren't off course, and land further south, this works as the start of a different timeline.

However, the POD in the OP is that the Plymouth colony fails completely. That is a completely different situation.

I did a brief check, and the Plymouth settlement was in 1620, and New Amsterdam in 1624. Boston was settled in 1629, and that appears to be the start of puritan New England.

So if the Plymouth colony fails completely, it seems clear that New Amsterdam will be established before any other Puritan attempts at establishing a colony in the New World. Where this timeline's version of Boston is located will have a huge effect.

New Sweden wasn't established until 1638, so that leaves the Delaware open for settlement.

 

[AsukaEMP]

Would it have? I mean, Virginia was already being settled, and there was enough religious violence over in England and Northern Europe that there's a demand for ships to colonize the region, so hm... maybe Virginia would be much more central to the English settlement of America as a whole?

I mean, most likely yeah. Setting up colonies was a risky venture that required both a lot of work and money to be invested. Had Plymouth failed few would have been willing to try again in the same area. So even if someone still gets the idea for another puritan colony on the NA mainland it's most likely not going to be in New England. Furthermore such a colony was hardly the only option puritans had to escape the Church of England anyways. The Caribbean, Ireland, and the Netherlands each received as many Puritan immigrants as New England did IOTL so there's a good chance that without New England these places would simply be getting more puritan immigrants instead.

Besides, any scenario that has the puritans succeeding only 2 years later isn't really relevant to this thread anyways, since it would defeat the point entirely.​

 

[jacob ningen]

If the POD is that the Pilgrims aren't off course, and land further south, this works as the start of a different timeline.

However, the POD in the OP is that the Plymouth colony fails completely. That is a completely different situation.

I did a brief check, and the Plymouth settlement was in 1620, and New Amsterdam in 1624. Boston was settled in 1629, and that appears to be the start of puritan New England.

So if the Plymouth colony fails completely, it seems clear that New Amsterdam will be established before any other Puritan attempts at establishing a colony in the New World. Where this timeline's version of Boston is located will have a huge effect.

New Sweden wasn't established until 1638, so that leaves the Delaware open for settlement.

there was also the Merrytown Strangers but a they werent puriitan b settled by the same company as Plymouth and were heavily reliant on Plymouth for survival and thus would fail if Plymouth doesnt succeed.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I mean, most likely yeah. Setting up colonies was a risky venture that required both a lot of work and money to be invested. Had Plymouth failed few would have been willing to try again in the same area. So even if someone still gets the idea for another puritan colony on the NA mainland it's most likely not going to be in New England. Furthermore such a colony was hardly the only option puritans had to escape the Church of England anyways. The Caribbean, Ireland, and the Netherlands each received as many Puritan immigrants as New England did IOTL so there's a good chance that without New England these places would simply be getting more puritan immigrants instead.

Besides, any scenario that has the puritans succeeding only 2 years later isn't really relevant to this thread anyways, since it would defeat the point entirely.​

Didn't they leave the Netherlands partially because the 30 Years War was brewing?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Didn't they leave the Netherlands partially because the 30 Years War was brewing?

Pilgrims left the Netherlands because of fears of their members converting to Dutch Protestantism if I am not mistaken.

 

[AsukaEMP]

Didn't they leave the Netherlands partially because the 30 Years War was brewing?

Never heard of that. But it doesn't seem likely as the pilgrims left Leiden in 1617 already, before the 30YW actually broke out and while the 12 Years Truce was still in effect (until 1621). And even after war broke out again the Netherlands were barely affected by it (except North Brabant, which was conquered by the Republic after the initial loss of Breda, but that was a Catholic area).
Furthermore other puritans continued to immigrate to the Netherlands by the thousands until the English Civil War broke out, when many returned to England (as did many who had settled in New England). The pilgrims were the odd ones out.​

 

[Don Corleone]

The Cavaliers might use it as proof that God didn't like the Puritans.

 

[pompejus]

Pilgrims left the Netherlands because of fears of their members converting to Dutch Protestantism if I am not mistaken.

It wasn't realy that they were converting to Dutch protestantism. It was just that they were simply becoming more Dutch while living in the Netherlands, as in for example their children started to speak Dutch and take over some Dutch customs. Also they weren't happy with Dutch tolerance towards other religions. As in the Dutch allowed the Jews to be Jewish, the catholics to be catholica, the Anabaptists to be Anabaptist, the Lutherans to be Lutheran, etc. Well as long as they were doing it out of sight and as long as they were fine that they could not become part of the government (not religious freedom as we think of it now, but pretty tolerant compared to the rest of Europe). And the puritans did like it. So several of them moved towards the Americas (mind you, not all of them. Some stayed in the Netherlands and simply became Dutch, exactly were the puritans were afraid of happening).

I doubt it had anything to do with the 30 year war. The Dutch weren't involved in it. They were fighting their own (80 year) war with Spain. It seems kind of weird that the Puritans were fine with the 80 year war the Dutch were actualy involved with*, but not the 30 year war the Dutch weren't (realy) involved with.

*To be fair, most came to the Netherlands during the 12 year truce, but not all of them. that said at that point the fighting was far away from Holland, mostly in Brabant, Flanders, Gueldres and Overijssel..

 

[Analytical Engine]

Hmm, I came across it somewhere - can't even remember where it was now, and can't find the source anywhere. I think it was more that they feared that war would come to the Netherlands

 

[Analytical Engine]

Hmm, I came across it somewhere - can't even remember where it was now, and can't find the source anywhere. I think it was more that they feared that war would come to the Netherlands

Found the source in the end. Turns out I was misremembering - it was the end of the truce between Spain and the Netherlands in 1621 they were more concerned with

Starts at 15:30

 

[Sarufiyyun]

If Plymouth Colony fails and New England does not come to be, the Pequots continue to maintain their political, military and economic dominance in central and eastern Connecticut. The smallpox epidemic of 1616–1619 preceded the arrival of the English and it did kill many Native Americans in the eastern coast of New England. That said, the epidemic did not reach the Pequot nor the Niantic and Narrangansett. This puts the Pequot in a decent position to extend their hegemony over the tribes in what's now Massachusetts.

If there's no English presence, I can assume that the Dutch will extend their presence, likely installing trading posts along the coast. Similar to the Mohawk, the Dutch traders will exploit demands by the Pequot for guns, powder and shot. Maybe you'll get something akin to the slave trade on a small scale where the Pequots would use Dutch weapons to expand their reach, conquer more hunting grounds and bring back slaves to be sold to the Dutch in New Netherlands. Some slaves would be absorbed into the Pequot, likely to offset deaths from disease and warfare.

This does not guarantee that there would be a cohesive Pequot entity. A good example would be the Wabanaki Confederacy which formed as a response due to English encroachment onto their lands. I don't think the same demand would exist unless the English make another attempt at forming a colony and make some headway of encroaching on native land. That said, they were also pushed to forming a confederacy to counteract the Iroquois. So maybe the same happens to the Pequot?

There's more possibility than just being another settler colony.