Allyn Cox. Earlier, Franklin had written to friends and colleagues proposing a Albany Plan of Union 1754 (1) It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, In others, however, the priority of the Albany Plan seems probable, and in a few almost conclusive. Hist., XXVI (1959), 315. It is well known that Governor Shirley, Hutchinson, and other Massachusetts leaders were strong advocates of a colonial union before the Albany meeting, and the commission Shirley gave his delegates was the only one which mentioned the adoption of “articles of Union and Confederation” as one of the objects of the Congress. Albany Plan of Union. Hist. Department, Buildings of the copy is the one BF sent to Colden with his letter of July 21, 1754. That after the first three years, when the Proportion of Money arising out of each Colony to the General Treasury can be known, The Number of Members to be Chosen, for each Colony shall from time to time in all ensuing Elections be regulated by that proportion (yet so as that the Number to be Chosen by any one Province be not more than Seven nor less than Two). Franklin spent much time among the Iroquois observing their deliberations and pleaded with the colonial leaders to consider the plan. Soc. The committee’s “Short Hints,” presented to the Congress on June 28 (above, p. 361); 3. 6. This similarity is found only in those parts of the last three documents where the framework of the proposed union is the same. meeting of representatives from 7 colonies. Reconciliation of Hutchinson’s one statement of his own authorship with his three statements of Franklin’s authorship and Franklin’s own three, is virtually impossible. The Pennsylvania charter required all laws to be transmitted to the Privy Council within five years of enactment but allowed only six months after delivery for any disallowance. The Trumbull Short Plan entirely omits the passage at the very end of the Albany Plan dealing with the emergency defense of individual colonies; in the Trumbull Long Plan the passage is written out in full but then struck through, suggesting that it had been copied from the Albany Plan but that the author or authors of the Trumbull Long Plan had later decided to eliminate it. Iroquois was the main purpose of the Congress, the delegates also met to discuss copy omits: “in Pensilvania.”. 6. The committee’s “Short Hints” makes no provision for filling vacancies on the Grand Council. He later signed the Declaration of Independence and helped frame the Constitution, urging delegates to cooperate and sign the final draft Confederation: The joining of several groups for a common purpose Albany … The Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland charters contain no requirement for the transmission of laws to England, and both the Trumbull Short and Long Plans omit this entire sentence. Albany Plan of Union, 1754. After careful study of all the available evidence, the present editors believe that neither the Trumbull Short Plan nor the Trumbull Long Plan, with or without the emendations appearing on the manuscripts, represents the text of a paper written before the Albany meeting and presented to the Congress or its committee for consideration. BF’s “Short Hints” is his earliest paper we know of which could be so described. Together, these two branches of Peace and War. Albany Plan of Union 1754 (1599 total words in this text) (2932 Reads) [1] It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its … a phrase that tells the colonies that the new plan will not interfere with their internal … The section of the Albany Plan dealing with the appointment of treasurers and the ordering of payments is repeated, with unimportant changes, only in part in the Trumbull Short Plan and then is followed by “&c. A further difficulty lies in the fact that the Short Plan specifies in one of its final paragraphs that in case of the death of the president general the “D Govr” of Massachusetts was to succeed him. copy omits: “Bay.”, 5. Lib. Hist., XXVI (1959), 290–316; Crane and Gipson, “Letters to the Editor On the Drafting of the Albany Plan of Union,” ibid., XXVII (1960), 126–136; Gipson, “Massachusetts Bay and American Colonial Union, 1754,” Amer. He had suggested a possible “excise on superfluities as tea &c.”; the Albany Plan recommended that the taxes levied should be aimed at “rather discouraging Luxury, than loading Industry with unnecessary Burthens.”. ... — Drafted by Benjamin Franklin and approved by the Albany Congress 10 July 1754. authority to deal with external relations. For this purpose an arrangement of the five documents in parallel columns is necessary, with those phrases or sentences relating to the same topics placed together, without regard to their order in the different documents.5 Such an arrangement reveals clearly the close relationship between Franklin’s “Short Hints” and the committee’s “Short Hints,” and between the final Albany Plan and the two Trumbull plans.6 An obvious reason for the considerable differences in wording between the two groups is that the first two papers are merely outlines of proposals for consideration, while those in the second group are fully worked out plans. Its framers saw it instead as a means to reform 1, 63–92. Almost certainly they would have preferred Massachusetts leadership in general to that of New York. It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of … Franklin's plan called for the formation of a permanent federation of colonies, as a means to reform colonial-imperial relations, and to more effectively address shared colonial interests. The numbers ranged from two each for New Hampshire and Rhode Island to seven each for Massachusetts and Virginia, but the plan provided that after the first three years the quotas were to be based, as they were in the committee’s scheme, on the relative amounts of money raised in each colony for the common treasury. Soc. it until they adopted a final version on July 10. The colonial And since they are in many details so contrary to what Franklin advocated, it is certain that he could have had nothing to do with their composition; hence their texts are not included in this edition of his papers.8 On the other hand, the sequence from Franklin’s “Short Hints” through the committee’s “Short Hints” to the final plan as written out by Franklin and approved by the Congress is clearly established by the complete textual analysis. Hist. The National Historical Publications and 2. The letter was probably addressed to Lord Halifax. Soc. appointed Franklin as a commissioner to the Congress, and on his way, Franklin The union committee That there shall be a New Election of Members for the Grand Council every three years; And on the Death or Resignation of any Member his Place shall be Supplyed by a New Choice at the next Sitting of the Assembly of the Colony he represented. seven of the British North American colonies adopted the plan. intercolonial cooperation on other matters. 9. An interesting reflection of BF’s views, not found in the committee’s “Short Hints,” appears in the final plan. 7. Par. copy is endorsed in BF’s hand: “Plan of a proposed Union of Massachusetts &c for their Mutual Defence &c.” The N.-Y. They had suggested particular duties and excises which seemed most equitable, but the final plan simply authorized the levying of “such General Duties, Imposts, or Taxes” as appeared most equal and just and least inconvenient.9 The committee had proposed the appointment of a treasurer in each colony and the local retention of funds until paid out on orders of the president general and Grand Council; the final plan contained a similar provision but also called for a general treasurer and common treasury to which funds might be transferred by the “particular” treasurers if so required. The only one of the earlier debates on which the “Memo Book” sheds light (other than the vote on the previous question, July 2; see above, p. 348 n) is an entry for July 4: “Attended at the Town Hall where the Commissioners again Debated on Sundry Paragraphes of the Comittees report in relation to a Union of the Collonies. Franklin. of the Department. Although only seven colonies sent commissioners, the plan proposed the union of all the British colonies except for Georgia and Delaware. Releases, Administrative 2. Published writings on this controversy include Gipson, British Empire, V, 126–38; Gipson, “Thomas Hutchinson and the Framing of the Albany Plan of Union, 1754,” PMHB, LXXIV (1950), 5–35; Verner W. Crane and Lawrence H. Gipson, “Letters to the Editor On the Albany Congress Plan of Union, 1754,” ibid., LXXV (1951), 350–62; Gipson, “The Drafting of the Albany Plan of Union: A Problem in Semantics,” Pa. Hist. Miss Valley Hist. Professor Gipson believes that the text of a plan of union prepared by Hutchinson before the Albany meeting is to be found in one of two draft plans located among the Trumbull Papers in the Connecticut State Library,2 and that Franklin used it extensively in preparing the “draught in a new form” he laid before the Congress on July 10, which became the text of the final Albany Plan. Many colonial commissioners actually wished to increase imperial Desired Mr. Franklin to reduce them to regularity. Revolution, Copyright Albany Plan of Union by Benjamin Franklin Plan for a unified colonial government 1754. The nature of these additions suggest strongly that the documents were composed in the order here indicated. Hist. July 1754 Papers 5:399--417 . Albany Plan of Union 1754 It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the … Gov.” of Massachusetts. In contrast, the plan approved by the Congress was less specific than either Franklin or the committee had been on the sources of revenues for the new central government. A complete exposition of the reasons for this conclusion would require far more space than is appropriate for this headnote. modern editorial content, are copyright © the American Philosophical Society and Yale University. The Albany Plan of Union was a proposal made at the Albany Congress back in 1754 aimed at a formation of a strong union of the colonies under one single government and direction. Proc., LXXI (1961), pt. Professor Lawrence H. Gipson has contended that Thomas Hutchinson played a much larger part in the framing of the plan than he has usually been given credit for; that, like Franklin, he had drafted a plan before the Congress met; that this paper was considered by the commissioners; and that many of its provisions and even more of its phraseology appeared in the final text that Franklin presented to the Congress on the morning of July 10, in obedience to the instructions given him the day before. It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general … copy has no postils. 8. R.I. Arch. [Note numbering follows the Franklin Papers source.]. Hist. own authority and territorial rights, either rejected the plan or chose not to Records Commission (NHPRC) is part of the National c) it was meant to put an end to the … The latter is especially the case if the emendations in the Trumbull documents are taken into account. Each part f the plan was what the colonies needed to be united and to defeat the French forces. copy omits “and South Carolina,” but inserts “and South” above the line between “North” and “Carolina.”, 1. The clause safeguarding the colonial constitutions and a similar one in the final paragraph concerning the civil and military establishments are not found in the committee’s “Short Hints.”, 2. N.-Y. 1. The committee “Short Hints” raised the question of a quorum in a query at the end, but did not answer it. The British Government had already dispatched General Edward every Commissioner Except the Connecticut Gentlemen who thot there was too great a Power, The History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, The History of the Late Province of New-York, The Albany Congress and Plan of Union of 1754, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, his letter to James Parker, March 20, 1751, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-05-02-0104, National Historical Publications and Long before the Albany Convention, plans to centralize the American colonies into a “union” had been circulating. 6. BF and the committee both omitted mention of the lakes and rivers. 8. The editors wish it were possible for them to solve the knotty problem of the origin of the two Trumbull plans, but do not consider it essentially their responsibility. colonial-imperial relationsand to recognize that the colonies collectively Valley Hist. The Albany Plan of Union was a proposal introduced by Benjamin Franklin during the Albany Congress in 1754. had formulated and published several tentative plans for centralizing the The full text is printed in Beverly McAnear, “Personal Accounts of the Albany Congress of 1753,” Miss. The author was thoroughly antagonistic to DeLancey and devoted nearly a page following the above quotation to somewhat discreditable reasons for the lieutenant governor’s opposition. The Albany Plan of Union was a proposal introduced by Benjamin Franklin during the Albany Congress in 1754.Franklin's plan called for the formation of a permanent federation of colonies, as a means to reform colonial-imperial relations, and to more effectively address shared colonial interests. Additional comment, generally adverse to the Gipson thesis, is in Robert C. Newbold, The Albany Congress and Plan of Union of 1754 (N.Y., 1955), pp. Writing to Colden from New York, July 21, on his way home, Franklin admitted that there had been “a great deal of Disputation about the Plan” during the Congress, “but at length we agreed on it pretty unanimously.”1 Thomas Pownall, who observed the proceedings, wrote in a letter to England, July 23, that “What appears in the Minutes was the Unanimous Opinion of all mett except N York and in some points Mr. Norris of Philadelphia and he only so far differ’d as the Principles of the Party he is at the head of lead him to appear.”2 A committee of the Connecticut Assembly appointed to study the Albany Plan reported in October that “The gentlemen, who went commissioners from the colony of Connecticut, objected to the proposed plan; and thought they were never answered or obviated, and therefore never came into, or gave any consent to the same.”3 Writing in the 1780s, Thomas Hutchinson declared flatly that the plan was “unanimously voted,”4 and Franklin stated twice in the same decade that it was “unanimously agreed to.”5 At about the same time or a little later, William Smith, the New York historian, whose father had been a member of the Committee on the Plan of Union at Albany, wrote that “Except Mr. Delancey, every member consented to this plan, and qualified as he was rather for short altercation than copious debate, he made no great opposition.”6 While these statements cannot be reconciled, probably Hutchinson’s and Franklin’s later memories were at fault, and there was opposition to the final vote at least from the Connecticut commissioners and from some of the New York representatives. plan also allowed the new government to levy taxes for its own support. It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony … unanimously to discuss the possibility of union on June 24. That a Quorum of the Grand Council impower’d to Act with the President General, do consist of Twenty-five Members, among whom there shall be one, or more from a Majority of the Colonies. It is therefore an assumption only, though not an unreasonable one, that there were other written plans similar in general purport to Franklin’s “Short Hints.” An equally reasonable contrary assumption is that Hutchinson and others presented their ideas orally rather than in writing. The Growth of the American Republic : Volume 1. 9. According to Theodore Atkinson’s “Memo Book” the Congress “went thro the report of the Committee on the affair of the Union Paragraph by Paragraph and Voted them. CHAPTER 7 | Document 2. 96–105; Malcolm Freiberg, “Thomas Hutchinson: The First Fifty Years (1711–1761),” 3 Wm. He believes that Franklin borrowed the phraseology of Hutchinson’s pre-Albany plan (exemplified in one of the Trumbull documents) for use in the “new form” into which he recast the committee’s “Short Hints” after the latter had been debated and amended in the Congress. policies, the Albany Plan gave the Grand Council greater relative authority. They are printed in Conn. Hist. No satisfactory explanation appears as to why, if either or both plans were composed in Massachusetts, they are found only in the handwriting of a Connecticut councilor, who was serving as a member of a Connecticut Assembly committee when he wrote them down. That the Commissioners from the several Governments be desired to lay the same before their respective constituents for their consideration, and that the Secretary to this Board transmit a copy thereof with their vote thereon to the Governor of each of the Colonies which have not sent their Commissioners to this Congress.”, Unfortunately, the minutes do not record the details of the vote on this resolution, and Atkinson’s “Memo Book” is no help, for, curiously enough, it omits all mention of this debate and vote. It is not surprising that this provision should cause disquiet among the Connecticut commissioners, all of whom were members of the Susquehannah Company, at that very time attempting to buy Indian lands within Pennsylvania’s boundaries on the strength of their colony’s prior charter. Through its grants program, the NHPRC supports a wide range of activities to The Trumbull Long Plan. Although only seven colonies sent commissioners, the plan proposed the union of The Albany Plan of Union was the work of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas hutchinson.p.114 Morison, Samuel Eliot and Henry Steele Commager, William E. Leuchtenburg. It may be noted in passing that Hutchinson does not even suggest here that he too brought a plan with him to Albany. The need was justified because of the necessity for defense against the threats and consequences posed by the infamous French … come under attack or invasion. 5. The editors have made such an arrangement for their own use, but its great length and cumbersomeness make it unsuitable for printing in full here. A major reason for rejecting the Gipson identification is found in a detailed textual analysis of the five central documents concerned. The parallel text version of four of these five documents (omitting the committee’s “Short Hints”) which Gipson printed in PMHB, LXXIV (1950), 29–35, fails to place in juxtaposition all the passages in each which deal with the same subjects and to show as such all the emendations in the two Trumbull plans. comparing the colonies to pieces of a snake’s body. 2. These two manuscripts are in Trumbull Papers, I, 93a–f (the Long Plan) and 94a–d (the Short Plan). Professor Crane has solid grounds for his contention that the 1801 editors of the Collections, who, he has shown, knew little about the Congress, must have interpolated the date into the heading simply because the Congress had been summoned for June 14, and that no such preliminary meeting among the commissioners was held as Gipson believes. saw the need to organize and defend common interests. All rights reserved. The Pennsylvania government Share: Share on Facebook Tweet Share on LinkedIn Send email. Incidents leading up to the French and Indian War. Timeline, Biographies Valley Hist. I. It is in a copyist’s hand, but at the end BF has written the text of the resolution for transmitting the plan to the assemblies and added: “Copy from the Minutes.” Significant textual variations of the other copies (except the Boston Univ. Colls., VII (1801), 203. Plan of a Proposed Union of the Several Colonies of Masachusets-bay, New Hampshire, Coneticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jerseys, Pensilvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, For their Mutual Defence and Security, and for Extending the … The Albany Plan of Union was a plan to place the British North American colonies &c.”: “That the President General and Grand Council may Appoint a General Treasurer, and a particular Treasurer in Each Government when necessary—&c. That the said General Government be administred by a President General, To be appointed and Supported by the Crown, and a Grand Council to be Chosen by the Representatives of the People of the Several Colonies, met in their respective Assemblies. No contemporary document has been found that mentions a written plan prepared by Hutchinson or any other person in Massachusetts before the Albany meeting. colonial governors to override colonial legislatures and pursue unpopular &c.” suggesting a previous document from which this passage is repeated. Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Cong. The Trumbull Short Plan; 5. Antiq. Albany Plan of Union plan proposed by Benjamin Franklin in 1754 that aimed to unite the 13 colonies for trade, military, and other purposes; the plan was turned down by the colonies and the Crown. It is true that in many passages there is nothing to indicate an order of composition. N.Y. Col. 1. According to Gipson, Hutchinson’s statement of 1769 that he “drew the Plan which was then accepted” at Albany “can only be reconciled with other known facts, and with Hutchinson’s rationality at the time of this disclosure, if one takes it to mean that the structure and language of the final Albany Plan were of his original drafting.” Pa. The Albany Plan was not conceived out of a desire to secure independence from Their altered phraseology appears to be a conscious effort to soften the implications of wording adopted by a more widely representative group: Franklin “Short Hints”: make all Indian purchases not within proprietary Grants. The fact that both provide, either in their original form or through emendation, that the governor of Massachusetts was to be ex officio president general of the union and that the first meeting of the Grand Council was to be held in Boston, suggests a Massachusetts origin. Albany Congress, between 1973 and 1974. Who shall meet for the first time at the City of Philadelphia, in Pensilvania. Rev., XXXIX (1952–53), 730–1. First page of the Proposed Plan of Union by Benjamin Franklin in his own hand. That the Grand Council have Power to Chuse their Speaker, and shall neither be Dissolved, prorogued nor Continue Sitting longer than Six Weeks at one Time without their own Consent, or the Special Command of the Crown. The former was the projection of Dr. F., and prepared in part before he had any consultation with Mr. H., probably brought with him from Philadelphia; the latter was the draught of Mr. H.”8. Docs., VI, 850–2. Colonial governments, sensing that it would curb their Soc. Note: The annotations to this document, and any other The committee’s scheme had authorized the president general and Grand Council to make such purchases only “of Lands not within the bounds of perticuler Colonies”; the Congress plan contains the same limitations but adds: “or that shall not be within their Bounds when some of them are reduced to more Convenient Dimensions.” As Franklin later indicated in his commentary on the plan,1 this addition was aimed at the colonies with sea-to-sea charters; they would include Virginia and the two Carolinas, none of which was represented at Albany, and Massachusetts and Connecticut, both of which were. Agreed to Several, I think every Commissioner Except the Connecticut Gentlemen who thot there was too great a Power Lodged in the President Genll but were Still ready to assist in the main Designe.” Ibid., p. 738. 9 After discussing in detail the negotiations with the Six Nations and the problems of Indian trade, he … Just why Franklin should have made such a borrowing is not clear. On the other hand, if the Connecticut people had to indicate a preference among possible appointees to the office, they would probably have favored the popular and experienced William Shirley of Massachusetts to James DeLancey of New York or any other royal official then in America, or to some unknown Englishman who might be sent over. Acknowledging the tendency of royal In conclusion, The Albany Plan of Union was truly a genius idea. The Albany Plan of Union was a proposal introduced by Benjamin Franklin during the Albany Congress in 1754. Although the plan was not embraced by all of the colonies and eventually fell through, it reflected the realization among Public domain, from the Architect of the Capitol. His Plan called for the creation of a legislative body that would have the power to control commerce and organize defense in the face of attacks by the … Braddock as military commander in chief along with two commissioners to handle Despite the failure of the Albany Plan, it served as a model for future attempts