Butterflies of a 'Greater Canada'

[The Gunslinger]

Not to be confused with the entertaining Canada Wank by Dathi, this is just a few questions I've asked myself about some alterations to the Canadian border assuming a British victory in 1812.

If we assume the addition of Michigan and Wisconsin to Canada, that's roughly an additional 1.5 million people to the Canadian population of 3.17 million inhabitants.

• The dispelling of the militia myth in Canada. If there is a serious victory in Canada, it will be in spite of the militia's performance, not because of it

• I doubt the Winnebego or Blackhawk Wars occur given the original grievances seem extremely specific events

• Does the addition of the UP of Michigan as well as the Northern shore of Lake Superior support the creation of an additional province at some point? Or will Ontario, Michigan and Wisconsin feud over the territory?

• I assume that with the addition of the UP the Canadian transcontinental railway will travel south through Sault St. Marie closer to the population centers of Wisconsin. The route will also be shorter and easily built than OTL. Are there any other changes that a more southerly route will make?

• Which city would be the natural end to the transcontinental railway, Seattle or Vancouver?

• The 1837-38 Rebellions were quashed fairly easily in Upper Canada and slightly less so in Lower Canada. I'm going to go on a limb and say that Wisconsin and Michigan will largely follow what happened in Upper Canada (mostly mild discontent, trouble easily solved). But in Lower Canada, mighn't things be worse than OTL? This is a Quebec that is probably seeing a stronger middle class class (more trade, etc. from the new territories) and seems under threat more than OTL due to a slight bump in immigration. Either way, the 1840 Act of Union is probably different... and maybe if Britain is more serious with lord Durham's report (if it happens) maybe we see a Union of Canada shortly after..?

• How would a Quebec (or the Maritimes for that matter) cope in a Canada where the West (Ontario, Michigan, Wisconsin) has an even greater share of resources/population than OTL? Would there be a push for an elected senate?

• Lastly, how is the pre-Civil War era in the United States changed with the removal of two free states?

 

[Beedok]

Where are you getting that 1.5 million from? The best I can tell it adds a few hundred thousand.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Where are you getting that 1.5 million from? The best I can tell it adds a few hundred thousand.

That would be around 1860. You're correct that the populations were much lower previous to that.

 

[Warr]

That would be around 1860. You're correct that the populations were much lower previous to that.

Would the population really have swelled in the hands of the British/Canadians that much, though? Did Canada have as free an immigration policy that the USoA had? Would as much trade be going on in the Great Lakes if they were almost entirely Britis/Canadian?

I'm not so sure.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Would the population really have swelled in the hands of the British/Canadians that much, though? Did Canada have as free an immigration policy that the USoA had? Would as much trade be going on in the Great Lakes if they were almost entirely Britis/Canadian?

I'm not so sure.

I had thought about this and there's probably something to it. But even if we assume only 1/2 of the population of OTL (which seems low to me, I'd be more apt to put it at 3/4) that's still a huge increase to the Canadian population. The thing about the border changes is in the greater scheme of things, because America is so much more powerful than Canada (especially in the 19th Century), any increase in Canadian population is going to be felt much more dramatically than it will in the United States.

 

[Duke of Nova Scotia]

The Maritimes would be swallowed up into a bigger version of what we have today, of economic subservience and being strapped to the natural resources off its coast. If you wanted a more balanced confederation, allow the maritimes to unite before joining this "Greater Canada". Or for that matter have it not tied to the economically damning tariffs put in place by the National Policy at the time of confederation, that shut out the international trade that was fueling the "Golden Age" of the Maritimes.

Quebec wouldn't be so put out as those areas had substantial french speaking populations, if anything they would maybe have another french speaking province out of Minnesota, or Michigan, along with Manitoba, at the very least English with a large french minority. However, these areas are high in ore deposits, and could easily be Anglo-swamped with workers from Britain, Upper Canada, and the US.

An elected Senate would be in the wings, I feel.

 

[Beedok]

I'm not really sure why there would be any impact on the senate being elected or not.

 

[Dan1988]

The Maritimes would be swallowed up into a bigger version of what we have today, of economic subservience and being strapped to the natural resources off its coast. If you wanted a more balanced confederation, allow the maritimes to unite before joining this "Greater Canada".

Or have the Maritimes remain independent from the RoC, much like Newfoundland before 1949.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

• The dispelling of the militia myth in Canada. If there is a serious victory in Canada, it will be in spite of the militia's performance, not because of it

I don't think it would change anything in term of perception, the federal government would still try to sell that part of canadian history as a triumph of the locals *helped* by the british. I can't really think of an example where people at large would downplay the role their ancestors played in a victory.

• Does the addition of the UP of Michigan as well as the Northern shore of Lake Superior support the creation of an additional province at some point? Or will Ontario, Michigan and Wisconsin feud over the territory?

Depends on who settles it. One idea was to set aside all or part of it as Native land. One advantage would be to settle all remaining treaty dispute by given amerindian tribes some grants in the area and creating a cossack-like buffer between the US and the great Lakes.

If settlement is a mixture of british subjects and americans due to a porous border, trouble could arise easily.

• The 1837-38 Rebellions were quashed fairly easily in Upper Canada and slightly less so in Lower Canada. I'm going to go on a limb and say that Wisconsin and Michigan will largely follow what happened in Upper Canada (mostly mild discontent, trouble easily solved). But in Lower Canada, mighn't things be worse than OTL? This is a Quebec that is probably seeing a stronger middle class class (more trade, etc. from the new territories) and seems under threat more than OTL due to a slight bump in immigration. Either way, the 1840 Act of Union is probably different... and maybe if Britain is more serious with lord Durham's report (if it happens) maybe we see a Union of Canada shortly after..?

The Patriotes Uprising was against local authorities, since you had a certain of british subjects on their side due to their political leaning, slight immigration from the new territories might not make that big of a change. You might on the other hand see some greater emigration to them from the habitant class so if the local government end up being just as corrupted as in upper and lower canada, you would see another site of discontent.

On the subject of the uprising, a number of upper-canadian reformists avoided prosecution by fleeing to the US. Having to flee even further (assuming wisconsin and michigan isn't involved) could see them being arrested and much sooner.

• How would a Quebec (or the Maritimes for that matter) cope in a Canada where the West (Ontario, Michigan, Wisconsin) has an even greater share of resources/population than OTL? Would there be a push for an elected senate?

Not sure an elected senate would address this in any way.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

Or have the Maritimes remain independent from the RoC, much like Newfoundland before 1949.

might not be in their best interest considering the trade they would acquire from the west. If they stay out, "Canadalt" might chose to end the railway at montreal then ship it's produce by ships from there when the port is ice free or sign a tarrif treaty with the US and sent the freight by rail southward in winter. The Maritine Union would be in a great position to offer an ice free port in exchange for some concessions whereas to stay independent would be mainly shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Duke of Nova Scotia]

Or have the Maritimes remain independent from the RoC, much like Newfoundland before 1949.

Thank You. From the Androsscogin to the Watershed of Gaspe. Free and Strong

 

[The Gunslinger]

I'm not really sure why there would be any impact on the senate being elected or not.

An elected senate might push a little too much against British interests, but perhaps senators appointed from the provinces instead of from the PM?

 

[Duke of Nova Scotia]

That sounds more inline with the Canadian mentality of confederation. Centralization without the centralism.

However I am not too sure then that Ontario and Quebec are going to be as bloated with southern Canada being more hospitable for grain growing. Upper and Lower Canada's chief product

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Wouldn't this Greater Canada also be able to push for access to the Oregon Territory later on too?

 

[The Gunslinger]

Wouldn't this Greater Canada also be able to push for access to the Oregon Territory later on too?

I'm not sure Canada as an entity will even exist at the time of the Oregon boundary dispute. Even if Canada is united in 1840, it will be at best a British appendage. The concession will probably be completely in the hands of London and Washington as per OTL I would suspect.

In the map I've attached I pushed the border south to the Columbia River. I've made many assumptions with the border but my thinking is that the British will push a little further south than OTL, but not so far south to claim Oregon in it's entirety. The British will throw America a bone because of the wounded pride of a lost war in 1812.

Thoughts?

 

[Namayan]

Yes, the British can win battles vs USA 1821, I don't think the British could win a war. USA had already millions at their disposal while Canada had less than a million people in 1821. The USA can always reoccupy land they lost after the British left just like the first war of independence.

Even if somehow the British win and get Great Lakes, I agree that it won't have the same population as under otl USA.

 

[The Professor]

This previous thread may help. It extends the borders as a result of a better 1812 for the Canadas

 

[telynk]

Not to be confused with the entertaining
I assume that with the addition of the UP the Canadian transcontinental railway will travel south through Sault St. Marie closer to the population centers of Wisconsin. The route will also be shorter and easily built than OTL. Are there any other changes that a more southerly route will make?

Certainly the location of the railway will determine the location of cities in Western Canada. For example, Calgary and Regina will likely not exist (although Winnipeg might as it was already a major hub of the Red River Settlement before the railway came through). You might see a major Canadian city on the upper reaches of the Mississippi or Missouri.

Having Canadian access to the Mississippi/Missouri watersheds might also stimulate more North/South trade links. In the long run maybe ITTL transcontinental railways may actually end up being less important than North-South railways although I doubt it.

Which city would be the natural end to the transcontinental railway, Seattle or Vancouver?

Between the two, my bets would be on Vancouver, simply because the proximity to the Fraser River gives a relatively easy route past the Cascades, and the two branches of the Thompson Rivers lead so conveniently to two of the lowest passes over the Northern Rockies. Any route leading to Seattle could follow the Columbia until the Cascades, though. And the Columbia also leads similarly to those same two low passes (Yellowhead and Kicking Horse). I think it would really depend on which river valley is easiest to build in : Fraser-Thompson or Columbia, and I don't know the answer to that.

On the other hand, the Pacific terminus could be in a completely different location that isn't a major city OTL. The railroad could follow the Fraser River then cut South to Bellingham (a shorter route than to Vancouver). It could follow the Columbia Gorge to Vancouver, Washington with a spur North to Puget Sound. It could end in any number of other places.