Looking into colonial America, I discovered to my surprise the Puritans that would later become New England had been even more expansive than one would think. To writ:
1620 - What would become Plymouth Colony had originally intended to settle Manhattan Island/the future New Amsterdam (and New York City) but sailed onwards to Plymouth Rock. Some wanted to turn back but the sailing was considered risky. Some even say the ship's navigator had been bribed by Dutchmen to sail past Manhattan and then fib on the aforementioned risk.
1638 - Anne Hutchinson and the crew who would settle Aquidneck Island had originally planned to settle Delaware Bay. I don't have sources where in the bay specifically, compared to New Haven below. Their Aquidneck settlement happened shortly before New Sweden was established.
1641, 1642, 1644, 1651 - New Haven attempted to settle Delaware Bay, specifically at Philadelphia just above New Sweden's stronghold at Fort Christina/*Wilmington. The first trip bought land at *Philadelphia from the local Amerindians and the ship's crew left an embryonic trading post and colony at the site; next year they sent more colonists but were driven away by a combination of New Swedes and Netherlanders. Come 1644 Theophilus Eaton (founder of New Haven) was sanctioned by the New England Confederacy as having patent to Delaware Bay to challenge New Sweden's claims, and in 1651 a new attempt to colonize was turned back after a stop in New Amsterdam.
1661 - The New Havenites, again. They tried to settle northern New Jersey but were turned back by Peter Stuyvesant. These specific settlers WOULD eventually settle Newark in 1666 and give north NJ a heavy Puritan influence, but two years earlier New Jersey had been created and given to proprietors who would allow extensive Quaker settlement (and eventually sell the colony to them).
So... with that overview....
What if every attempt for New England Puritans to settle these alternate equivalents to New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware succeeded? What would happen short and long term? What if ALL the colonies down to the Mason-Dixon line were considered 'New England'?
-New Netherland and New Sweden would be butterflied away if Plymouth Colony, Anne Hutchinson's, and all of New Haven's various attempts to settle the area had been accomplished. The entire original thirteen colonies would be English from the get-go.
-What would happen to the Quakers? Perhaps they could settle the western boundaries of *Pennsylvania and *New York like the Pennsylvania Dutch forerunners did (or even alongside them) since tiny New Haven could only send so many people to *Pennsylvania and *New Jersey? Maybe after the Act of Toleration had been applied to the colonies in 1692 like in OTL?
-I don't know where Hutchinson's band would settle specifically, as said. Perhaps the would-be Aquidneck Island colonists create TTL's equivalent to Delaware since New Haven was interested in *Philadelphia and *Wilmington is a sooner port than Philly when sailing up the bay and they tried to settle it first. They would definitely be a separate colony from New Havenite *Pennsylvania given the chance with their religious tolerance.
-The Duke of York will never be able to control New York and New Jersey if they were successfully settled in 1620 and 1661, respectively. The Puritans had heavy influence on those states in the real world, but here they completely control and influence the politics and culture from the get-go. Meanwhile, William Penn cannot be given Pennsylvania and Delaware as a debt-reliever and 'Holy Experiment.'
-Bonus note: for fun, we can even safely call the alternate *Pennsylvania 'Delaware' due to the New Havenites calling the corporation attempting this colonization the 'Delaware Company' and John Winthrop referencing it as the 'Delaware Colony' in his journals! *New York could keep the name of 'New Plymouth', since the Pilgrims would probably keep the name despite being at a different landing site. *New Jersey is a royalist name, so it wouldn't be used by Puritans founding the place... but there were references to a would-be grant of 'New Albion' created in the 1630s in the area that the New Havenite 1641-1642 Philly venture acknowledged being by their post and so is a toponym known to New Englanders. *Delaware is the only one I have no clue for. It's called so for the river but already has its name taken by the Puritan *Pennsylvania, so maybe the next-largest stream in the state's heartland of New Castle county would be used...in which case, 'Brandywine' as my best guess. That fits in with Puritans naming their colonies after local water features and assuming *Delaware's even split from *Pennsylvania.
(I'm aware the alternate Mid-Atlantic colonies may be broken up or rearranged here or there in boundary lines, or one or two not even having equivalents if first settled by New Englanders. But colonies centered around *New York City, *Philadelphia, and a buffer *New Jersey between them seem to be logical enough creations)
1620 - What would become Plymouth Colony had originally intended to settle Manhattan Island/the future New Amsterdam (and New York City) but sailed onwards to Plymouth Rock. Some wanted to turn back but the sailing was considered risky. Some even say the ship's navigator had been bribed by Dutchmen to sail past Manhattan and then fib on the aforementioned risk.
1638 - Anne Hutchinson and the crew who would settle Aquidneck Island had originally planned to settle Delaware Bay. I don't have sources where in the bay specifically, compared to New Haven below. Their Aquidneck settlement happened shortly before New Sweden was established.
1641, 1642, 1644, 1651 - New Haven attempted to settle Delaware Bay, specifically at Philadelphia just above New Sweden's stronghold at Fort Christina/*Wilmington. The first trip bought land at *Philadelphia from the local Amerindians and the ship's crew left an embryonic trading post and colony at the site; next year they sent more colonists but were driven away by a combination of New Swedes and Netherlanders. Come 1644 Theophilus Eaton (founder of New Haven) was sanctioned by the New England Confederacy as having patent to Delaware Bay to challenge New Sweden's claims, and in 1651 a new attempt to colonize was turned back after a stop in New Amsterdam.
1661 - The New Havenites, again. They tried to settle northern New Jersey but were turned back by Peter Stuyvesant. These specific settlers WOULD eventually settle Newark in 1666 and give north NJ a heavy Puritan influence, but two years earlier New Jersey had been created and given to proprietors who would allow extensive Quaker settlement (and eventually sell the colony to them).
So... with that overview....
What if every attempt for New England Puritans to settle these alternate equivalents to New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware succeeded? What would happen short and long term? What if ALL the colonies down to the Mason-Dixon line were considered 'New England'?
-New Netherland and New Sweden would be butterflied away if Plymouth Colony, Anne Hutchinson's, and all of New Haven's various attempts to settle the area had been accomplished. The entire original thirteen colonies would be English from the get-go.
-What would happen to the Quakers? Perhaps they could settle the western boundaries of *Pennsylvania and *New York like the Pennsylvania Dutch forerunners did (or even alongside them) since tiny New Haven could only send so many people to *Pennsylvania and *New Jersey? Maybe after the Act of Toleration had been applied to the colonies in 1692 like in OTL?
-I don't know where Hutchinson's band would settle specifically, as said. Perhaps the would-be Aquidneck Island colonists create TTL's equivalent to Delaware since New Haven was interested in *Philadelphia and *Wilmington is a sooner port than Philly when sailing up the bay and they tried to settle it first. They would definitely be a separate colony from New Havenite *Pennsylvania given the chance with their religious tolerance.
-The Duke of York will never be able to control New York and New Jersey if they were successfully settled in 1620 and 1661, respectively. The Puritans had heavy influence on those states in the real world, but here they completely control and influence the politics and culture from the get-go. Meanwhile, William Penn cannot be given Pennsylvania and Delaware as a debt-reliever and 'Holy Experiment.'
-Bonus note: for fun, we can even safely call the alternate *Pennsylvania 'Delaware' due to the New Havenites calling the corporation attempting this colonization the 'Delaware Company' and John Winthrop referencing it as the 'Delaware Colony' in his journals! *New York could keep the name of 'New Plymouth', since the Pilgrims would probably keep the name despite being at a different landing site. *New Jersey is a royalist name, so it wouldn't be used by Puritans founding the place... but there were references to a would-be grant of 'New Albion' created in the 1630s in the area that the New Havenite 1641-1642 Philly venture acknowledged being by their post and so is a toponym known to New Englanders. *Delaware is the only one I have no clue for. It's called so for the river but already has its name taken by the Puritan *Pennsylvania, so maybe the next-largest stream in the state's heartland of New Castle county would be used...in which case, 'Brandywine' as my best guess. That fits in with Puritans naming their colonies after local water features and assuming *Delaware's even split from *Pennsylvania.
(I'm aware the alternate Mid-Atlantic colonies may be broken up or rearranged here or there in boundary lines, or one or two not even having equivalents if first settled by New Englanders. But colonies centered around *New York City, *Philadelphia, and a buffer *New Jersey between them seem to be logical enough creations)