In 1643, there were four New England colonies who formed a confederation and they came up with the Articles of Confederation. In 1697, William Penn brought forth a plan of union which never was implemented. Last but not least in 1754, Benjamin Franklin came up with the Albany Plan of Union. “The history of colonial efforts to cooperate or unite demonstrates that the colonies had no strong or sustainable need for a common government.” All of those plans never went into effect but that doesn't mean that they didn't want to unite. In the following paragraphs I'm going to state why I think this statement is wrong by using documents A, B, and C.
Document A describe the New England confederation and the Articles of Confederation. The articles simply implied that they needed to unite so they could protect each other from common enemies such as the Native Americans, the Dutch and the French. The union was merely a business arrangement. By 1662 the union was very weak and by 1684 it had dissolved all together. Even though it was just a business arrangement I feel that they did try to make it work because if you have a union then you can have one big army and they would be able to protect each other better than if they weren't one big union.
William Penn's plan of union is Document B. Penn saw a need for military and economic cooperation among the colonies so he proposed his plan of union in 1697 but it never was implemented. His plan of union explained how the the uniting of the Northern parts of America would be more useful to the crown and would be more useful to the peace and safety of the people. His plan had seven major points. They were: 1. That two persons of substance from each Colony would make a Congress of the Union. 2. The King's Commissioner, for that purpose specially appointed, shall have the chair and preside in the Congress. 3. The Congress would meet in the Colony of New York, as it was the central Colony geographically, thus...