It was a lose-lose position to be put in, and the cause of it was that+Williamson did not want what we wanted (and needed): A congregation, with all the structure, seminary, hierarchy, and stability which come with it.

I certainly had your vision in the early years, Sean. 
However, as the years have gone by I am more inclined to believe that Bishop Williamson was more likely to have been inspired by God in his actions than I was in my opinions!
The SAJM/Dominican fortress in France may well have been expected, by this reckoning, to have flourished to a much greater extent. Even the early reaction of the religious orders, such a clear sign from God of the subversion of the SSPX, did not bolster the resistance as we might have expected.
We can only conjecture...
No doubt it is all part of the punishment that we deserve and need to bring us to our knees leading up to the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, making her victory over the infernal serpent all the more glorious.

If +W had created an SSPX Resistance structure instead of  decentralizing and allowing for a leadership vacuum, there would be a Resistance managing team of priests and laity to assist Fr. Hewko. 

Fr Hewko could've joined the Resistance long ago, but he went with Fr Pfeiffer.  He made a bad choice.  He could obviously join the Resistance now, but (for reasons unknown) he has not, whether by his own choice or by the choice of others.

I think all the independent priests WANTED/WANT to be independent.

There's lots of reasons for this:

a.  The new-sspx has gone more and more extreme (i.e. friendly with new-rome), and some priests don't want any part of it.
b.  The sede-movement has gone more and more extreme (with "una cuм") and some priests don't want any part of it.
c.  The new-sspx's "property requirements" make working with the sspx problematic for the laity who bought/paid for the properties and don't want the new-sspx to have it.
d.  The sede-movement promotes a cult-like attitude where non-sedes are to be kept at a distance, even if family and friends.

There's a reason why priests like Fr Ringrose have stayed independent, at a chapel for decades, to care for souls in a long-term environment.  STABILITY is a beautiful thing.  Not every priest wants to constantly move around every 1-3 years, as the sspx does.  It's not normal; it's not how parishes operated long ago.  Moving like this is also harder when you decreasingly trust the leadership.

Of course, there are obvious reasons why some priests want to be independent (i.e. Fr Pfeiffer, who is a control freak) and run their own show.  Such is human nature and has been around since the dawn of time.

But with the increased extremism of the 2 major Trad movements, some priests just want to do their job and stay out of the politics.  Nothing wrong with this.  In fact, such attitudes were more common in the 70s/80s, when Traditionalism was growing.  Independence, just like in politics, offers a freedom and a stability.  "Following the crowd" and "group-think", which are prevalent mindsets of our modern age, lead to unnecessary fighting, unnecessary rules and unnecessary stress.

Then you have the actions of many Trad Bishops who impose rules which are not-canonical ("una cuм"), arbitrary ("belief in novus ordo miracles"), and downright controlling ("I'll ordain you if you do what I say").  Canon law is meant to protect priests from controlling bishops, just as much as it is meant to help good Bishops govern their dioceses.  But, if we look at the "modern age" of Traditionalism (i.e. 1990s - onward, post +ABL), there is a growing attitude among Trad Bishops of being "in charge" vs the attitude of being a facilitator, a helper, a provider of sacraments.

In this sense, I think +Williamson's instinct to make the Resistance less-autonomous was correct.  I'm sure he experienced all kinds of petty, stupid and narcissistic behavior at the hands of sspx district superiors in his day, which made his job harder to do as a seminary leader.  And, ultimately, this is the reason he was kicked out - because he wouldn't follow stupid rules, from stupid people.  Thus, when creating the Resistance, I see the wisdom in making it de-centralized, to try to return to the 70s/80s style.

And it may have worked, had Pfeiffer/Pablo not engaged a fight and gave the Resistance a bad name.  On the other hand, to "start from scratch" is extremely difficult and I think people underestimate the work, time and $ that it takes to build an organization...one which is international.

There will always be priests/religious who are independent by nature.  Some of the greatest religious organizations were formed by such people.  Some people just work better alone.  +W's instincts to make the Resistance different from the new-sspx were both of necessity (i.e. lack of resources) and also of purpose (i.e. less bureaucratic).  It is what it is, because God allowed such to happen (or not happen).  God is in control, He sees the future and knows what's best.  Let us not forget His Divine Providence governs things down to the smallest detail - ESPECIALLY in matters of religion.  Everything has happened for a reason.

Yes, I'm with you Sean, and thank you for all those details.
But how sad is that about Fr Gaudray?
The situation is what it is, for each and everyone of us. Even if there was no Resistance Society to receive priests at the time, happily there is now with the SAJM.
After Vatican II there was no traditional society for resisting priests to jump into, they stood up for the faith and the liturgy and suffered the consequences... yes, "independence"! All those hero priests to whom we owe so much.
Archbishop Lefebvre never considered them a public scandal... quite the contrary. They were an edifying testimony. He never required them to join his Society when it got going, though many chose to.
It is a shame more SSPX priests did not have the same convictions. Some were prepared to resist, but only so far, and then... silence. Bishop Huonder... silence. Where is the greater scandal?
A priest, or anyone else, can think whatever they like about what Bishop Williamson should have done. But more importantly for them, what should they have done? Resist IF...?
Perhaps the Good Lord was selecting out those prepared for martyrdom.

Well, the difference would be that, although Lefebvre worked with many independent priests, he never once ordained (much less consecrated) anyone for an independent apostolate (and refused to do so on several occasions).

You make very good points here.

Fr. Gaudray was my spiritual director. I chose him because he seemed like a good spiritual guide, and I wasn't wrong. I would choose him again. He reminded me of the Cure of Ars, of whom there was a painting I saw in the stairwell on the way to attend spiritual direction with Fr. Gaudray each week.

But you are correct -- Archbishop Lefebvre didn't consider the Resistants to be "scandalous" in the early 70s. Remember, there was no worldwide organization from day one! That came later. And even then, the Archbishop didn't cry "scandal" if any given priest CHOSE not to join the SSPX -- perhaps because he didn't have that particular vocation/charism? Being a priest and being an SSPX priest are two different vocations. And +ABL CERTAINLY didn't bind priests under pain of sin to join the SSPX or else be "a scandalous vagus".

No, before +Fellay's second term the SSPX was quite tolerant of Independent priests -- but they worked WITH the SSPX. They were called "friends of the Society".

As I've said before, it's not valid to say "We called first dibs". Whether you're talking about the State of Necessity which justifies consecrating a bishop without Papal Mandate, to save Tradition -- or talking about being an independent priest. Just because the SSPX already exists (while they didn't in the 70's) doesn't mean you're FORCED to join it now. It doesn't work that way. It's not "first dibs" or "king of the mountain". If being independent was legitimate in 1969, it's legitimate today. And if +ABL committed no sin on June 30, 1988, you also can't criticize Bp. McKenna for consecrating, say, Bp. Frank Slupski in the 1990s. Sure, the SSPX bishops "seem" more legit because their groups are large, their ceremonies lavish, and their bank accounts flush with cash. But that doesn't grant them jurisdiction or any bonus legitimacy. They are fundamentally the same, canonically speaking and before God, as any validly ordained, emergency Trad "garage bishop".

Lefebvre worked with independent priests who were refugees from the conciliar church, not with those ordained to independent apostolates (and the fact that he never ordained any such priests was not accidental).

That it was a huge dissuasion to otherwise resistance-minded SSPX clergy is exemplified by a letter I received from Fr. Thierry Gaudray (i.e., my former seminary professor in Winona, and one of the 7 French deans who opposed the SSPX's acceptance of Cardinal Muller's 2017 marriage guidelines.  He also refused to attend Cardinal Brandmuller's visit to Flavigny, for which he was summoned to Menzingen.  He also wrote a paper against +Fellay's ridiculous response to the Three Bishops, for which he was again scolded):

I wrote to him asking him about the Resistance, and he responded that these priests running around without superiors was a public scandal.  I followed up to plead our case, and was told to never contact him again.

This sounds to me like he was MILES away from the possibility of an SSPX II. He gave you one reason, but telling you to 'drop it' means he had many more.

Well, the difference would be that, although Lefebvre worked with many independent priests, he never once ordained (much less consecrated) anyone for an independent apostolate (and refused to do so on several occasions).

Perhaps Msgr. Lefebvre should have ordained vagus priests. It seems his Grace was too hopeful that the Crisis would be resolved before the end of the 20th century, and so, whilst laying aside some portions of canon law in order to address the emergency situation, did not set aside other canons that could have been ignored out of grave necessity.

No judgment is meant here against Msgr. Lefebvre. Just speculation as to why he chose to maintain those ordinations that he conferred within a more conventional ecclesiastical structure.