The Canadian States Of America

[Kenichiro Harada]

Let's speak of something different,often times threads speak of topics where Canada is annexed by the USA for what ever reason. But what about the opposite,that Canada annexes the United States Of America? Is this a crazy idea,or is it something that can actually make sense?

Let us say that the British take back the Colonies at a time,early in the USA's history..and when Canada is formed..the colonies could become some of the founding Canadian territories. Or perhaps Canada could have intervened and taken over a portion of the USA during the Civil War if the Confederacy won or even stalemated the war?

Is it odd to wonder about this,or is this just taboo because of the American domination of Canada? Bring out some reasons or theories of how the British or Canadians could have controlled all or most of what is currently the US of A,better if it is before 1900.

[Dan1988]

Well, for one thing, TTL Canada is not going to be called "Canada" by any stretch.

[Bear Flag Oligarch]

The problem is that the US has a much larger population, even before it became independent. If the US never rebels then any sort of super colony that would emerge would be focused more on the US. Afterwords its very hard for Canada to remain competetive population wise which would make capturing America, much less occupying it a nightmare.

[Count Dearborn]

It would probably be called something like "British America".

[Umbric Man]

post

Yep, crazy.

The notion of Canada exists with America's founding, and if America's scenario is that radically changed, so is Canada's.

'Captured colonies back becoming Canadian founding territories'? Yeah, no.

Also, Canada taking over territory in the Civil War. What are you expecting?

[Typo]

Is it odd to wonder about this,or is this just taboo because of the American domination of Canada? If it's taboo then it's probably similar to the one on Sealion

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I really need to get moving and actually post the Canada-wank I've started. It's actually pretty tough to get a Canada that would actually BE (or at least be called) Canada to be bigger than the US. I still haven't got more than a start on it.

[lonewulf44]

I really need to get moving and actually post the Canada-wank I've started. It's actually pretty tough to get a Canada that would actually BE (or at least be called) Canada to be bigger than the US. I still haven't got more than a start on it.



Actually technically Canada is bigger than the US right? Mind if I ask what is the crucial POD? I'm with you ... it's tough thinking of something that can curtail the US while involving a Canadian territory that would gobble up the coastal regions. I'm guessing a very early POD or nukes :)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Actually technically Canada is bigger than the US right? Mind if I ask what is the crucial POD? I'm with you ... it's tough thinking of something that can curtail the US while involving a Canadian territory that would gobble up the coastal regions. I'm guessing a very early POD or nukes :)

Canada is physically larger than the US, #2 second only to Russia. In terms of population, we've been ~10% the size of the US for a very long time, currently a bit more.

My tl is at http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=130408

I'm starting with a slightly different Vendee revolt in the French Revolution, bumping the population of Canada before the War of 1812, which means the Brits do better, which means... Well, I'm not entirely sure JUST what it means.

[B_Munro]

Well, you could certainly restrict the growth of the US if the British end up taking Lousiana from Napoleon, and that gives a lot more useable colonizable land -and a bigger population - for the Brits. [1] Probably means war(s) with the US, though...without the trans-Mississipi to expand into, does the South end up at odds with the more populous north early than OTL, or does the Limey Menace and the common desire to drive the British from N. America keep the US united in spite of that pesky slavery thing?

[1] A British snaffling of the NW, California, and Texas is also greatly enhanced in likelihood in this situation. Perhaps Mexico gets to keep New Mexico and Arizona.

Bruce

[Kenichiro Harada]

The reason why I brought this idea out,is that it is suggested from time to time..and if it's placed at the right time in the history of the two nations..and if the variation in the POC is accurate..then I could fully see "America" being incorpertated into British North America. As for the name of this possible country,would it be possible for it to still be called "Canada" that is if the British eventually relinquish control of the land..

[Tom Kalbfus]

I really need to get moving and actually post the Canada-wank I've started. It's actually pretty tough to get a Canada that would actually BE (or at least be called) Canada to be bigger than the US. I still haven't got more than a start on it.
The problem is Canada becomes its population, your not going to have 10 million Canadians dictating to 300 million Americans. If Canada absorbed the United States, then those citizens would still call themselves Americans, and they would elect an American Prime Minister and a largely American Parliment, then they might dicker and pass a few Amendments like the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press, the New "Canadians" would also insist upon their right to own guns, demand lower taxes, and the scrapping of the Canadian Health system for something thats more efficient.

The Original Canadians would become a minority within their own country if this ever happened, they would have to get use to the fact that some new Canadians would speak with a Southern Accent, while others have a western twang. The result of a Canada absorbing the United States ends up being similar to the United States absorbing Canada, and you'd still have 300 million Americans outvoting 10 million Canadians on alot of issues where the two groups are at odds.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The problem is Canada becomes its population, your not going to have 10 million Canadians dictating to 300 million Americans. If Canada absorbed the United States, then those citizens would still call themselves Americans, and they would elect an American Prime Minister and a largely American Parliment, then they might dicker and pass a few Amendments like the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press, the New "Canadians" would also insist upon their right to own guns, demand lower taxes, and the scrapping of the Canadian Health system for something thats more efficient.

The Original Canadians would become a minority within their own country if this ever happened, they would have to get use to the fact that some new Canadians would speak with a Southern Accent, while others have a western twang. The result of a Canada absorbing the United States ends up being similar to the United States absorbing Canada, and you'd still have 300 million Americans outvoting 10 million Canadians on alot of issues where the two groups are at odds.
Err... OTL, Canada is more like 30 million, but your point stands OTL.

To do make *Canada absorb the *US, the US is going to have to be restricted (e.g. east of the Mississippi, maybe 100 million), and *Canada to some how be bigger. Mind you, my TL isn't going to even ATTEMPT to swallow the *US. (Not all of it, anyway:)).

[Tom Kalbfus]

The reason why I brought this idea out,is that it is suggested from time to time..and if it's placed at the right time in the history of the two nations..and if the variation in the POC is accurate..then I could fully see "America" being incorpertated into British North America. As for the name of this possible country,would it be possible for it to still be called "Canada" that is if the British eventually relinquish control of the land..
If the British "crushed" the American Rebellion, there would still be alot of resentment at the British King and Parliment and it might boil over sometime later. Also a victorious British, might decide to levy those tea taxes and stamp taxes, and not even give that level of independence that Canadians would think their due. The British attitude might be, "to the victor go the spoils."

A realistic scenario might be for instance if the United States got into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union and Canada stayed neutral while the two countries destroyed each other in the 1980s. Now if Canada avoided getting Nukes, they could follow a Twilight 2000 scenario and start scavaging the United States, and start imposing their own rules on the surviving remnant population, of course there is alot of danger in this for the Canadians. Americans who see foreign troops that did not participate in the nuclear war come to occupy their country, might be grateful for any humanitarian assistance in the immediate aftermath, but after they recover a little bit they'll want revenge for all the carnage, they want to make someone pay for all that megadeath, and they'll see foreign troops occupying their country. Look Out!

[xchen08]

Err... OTL, Canada is more like 30 million, but your point stands OTL.

To do make *Canada absorb the *US, the US is going to have to be restricted (e.g. east of the Mississippi, maybe 100 million), and *Canada to some how be bigger. Mind you, my TL isn't going to even ATTEMPT to swallow the *US. (Not all of it, anyway:)).

The problem with that is that even absorbing a small chunk of the USA, like New England and New York, would already make Canadians a minority. And making "Canada" larger is problematic as well, since the most commonly used methods are all unlikely to work. A British North America after decisively defeating the U.S. in an 1812 analogue and gaining the Northwest Territory is both less likely to Federate, and unlikely to be named Canada if it does Federate. Britain gaining all the Oregon Country would most likely see it spun off as its own Dominion rather than attached to Canada since before an intercontinental rail, there is simply no connection between them, and Oregon/British Columbia would be fully self-sustaining by itself.

[B_Munro]

If the British "crushed" the American Rebellion, there would still be alot of resentment at the British King and Parliment and it might boil over sometime later. Also a victorious British, might decide to levy those tea taxes and stamp taxes, and not even give that level of independence that Canadians would think their due. The British attitude might be, "to the victor go the spoils."

And then, of course, "Revolution II" breaks out during the French revolutionary or *Napoleonic wars...one wonders what sort of US would be created by the "Generation of 1809?"

A realistic scenario might be for instance if the United States got into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union and Canada stayed neutral while the two countries destroyed each other in the 1980s.

Hm - fallout, global cooling if not outright winter - Canada may be hard-put to survive even if they remain neutral (and how convincingly neutral can they be unless they get rid of all those US radar bases on Canadian soil?[1] And would the US put up with it?)

Bruce

[1] I think there may have also been US air force bases in Canada in the 1980s, but I'm not sure.

[Hendryk]

the New "Canadians" would also insist upon their right to own guns, demand lower taxes, and the scrapping of the Canadian Health system for something thats more efficient.
Actually the Canadian health care system is both vastly more efficient and cheaper than the current American system. This is a fact and not something that can be argued.

[Doctor What]

[1] I think there may have also been US air force bases in Canada in the 1980s, but I'm not sure.

Nuclear bombs as well - Genie missiles went out of service in 1984.

[B_Munro]

Actually the Canadian health care system is both vastly more efficient and cheaper than the current American system. This is a fact and not something that can be argued.

Anything can be argued, Hendryk, including the shape of the planet. Whether such arguments are objectively worth a bucket of warm spit is one thing: whether they sway people's opinions is another.

Bruce

[Tellus]

It depends when and under what conditions. "Canada" dates back to the Indians, and the name was used in the times of New-France. It doesnt need to be synonymous with the mostly English Canada we are used to.

If you simply want the polarity of power to be situated in Canada and the name Canada to be synonymous with the dominant power in North America, a successful New-France that populates faster and absorbs the British colonies could very well gives you what you desire. Quebec City could well become in time the largest city on the continent despite the northern climate and rule over it all. Territorially speaking if nothing else, its less a stretch than what happened in OTL, considering that New-France was over ten times larger than the British colonies and yet was absorbed whole in a single war.

[Umbric Man]

The reason why I brought this idea out,is that it is suggested from time to time..and if it's placed at the right time in the history of the two nations..and if the variation in the POC is accurate..then I could fully see "America" being incorpertated into British North America. As for the name of this possible country,would it be possible for it to still be called "Canada" that is if the British eventually relinquish control of the land..

Your best bet is to have no ARW, in that sense, and tinker a bit with history to get whatever 'Canadian' traits you would like/feel are needed to replace 'American' ones.

After all, even today, taking politics out of things, both are still sea-to-sea English-speaking liberal nation states. Surely a loyalist continent-spanning British North America in general, assuming butterflies are fairly nonexistent, can also be one. ;)

[Tom Kalbfus]

Your best bet is to have no ARW, in that sense, and tinker a bit with history to get whatever 'Canadian' traits you would like/feel are needed to replace 'American' ones.

After all, even today, taking politics out of things, both are still sea-to-sea English-speaking liberal nation states. Surely a loyalist continent-spanning British North America in general, assuming butterflies are fairly nonexistent, can also be one. ;)
I think it wouldn't be called "Canada" in the absense of an "America" to differentiate itself from, the Canadians would have no reason not to call themselves Americans, and seeing how they would then occupy most of the Continent, would probably feel themselves every bit entitled to the right.

Truth be told, there is not really that much difference between the United States of America and Canada, they are different forms of Representative Democracy, but they are still Representative Democracies, if they use different words for their constitutions but still guarantee the same basic rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, then I don't see how what you call the country can make that much of a difference. If you can imagine us having the same jobs, pursuing the same careers and lifestyles but under a different flag from the Stars & Stripes, I don't see how makes much of a difference at all.

[Umbric Man]

Bingo, good sir, bingo.

[Dan1988]

It depends when and under what conditions. "Canada" dates back to the Indians, and the name was used in the times of New-France. It doesnt need to be synonymous with the mostly English Canada we are used to.

If you simply want the polarity of power to be situated in Canada and the name Canada to be synonymous with the dominant power in North America, a successful New-France that populates faster and absorbs the British colonies could very well gives you what you desire. Quebec City could well become in time the largest city on the continent despite the northern climate and rule over it all. Territorially speaking if nothing else, its less a stretch than what happened in OTL, considering that New-France was over ten times larger than the British colonies and yet was absorbed whole in a single war.

That I think would be more plausible - but then, as in OTL, the French language in this "Canada" is going to split into numerous dialects, yet since Québec City is the capital and largest city in TTL, then the dialect of Québec City might be the prestige variety of French in North America (as opposed to the Parisian dialect in France, compare the situation between RP in English English and General American in American English). Now, to tweak the Supreme Council of New France to allow anglophones in . . . .

[Skokie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IloIoGj5Mj0

:D

[T3h_shammy]

Actually the Canadian health care system is both vastly more efficient and cheaper than the current American system. This is a fact and not something that can be argued.

Sure its cheaper and more efficient at processing people. However it is no coincidence that Canada M.Ds practice in America because we have better facilities and more state of the art technologies.

[Dan1988]

Can we please avoid comparing and contrasting health care systems, please? If you want to do that, please - we have millions of threads on health care in Chat.

[Kenichiro Harada]

I suppose,the only real difference between Canada and America is that Canada holds a fondess for the empire and America turned it's back on it. I would guess,because of the British backdrop..the last time that Canada could have absorbed America is if the Confederates won the Civil War..and Canada made a deal with the Union to save the framework and become a single country. Would this be enough to thwart off a Southern advance? Enough reason for America to join with Canada? Common sense says a British victory in 1812..means American annexation..perhaps..

[Jord839]

I suppose,the only real difference between Canada and America is that Canada holds a fondess for the empire and America turned it's back on it. I would guess,because of the British backdrop..the last time that Canada could have absorbed America is if the Confederates won the Civil War..and Canada made a deal with the Union to save the framework and become a single country. Would this be enough to thwart off a Southern advance? Enough reason for America to join with Canada? Common sense says a British victory in 1812..means American annexation..perhaps..
Err, no. Just no.

Could they have reannexed the US after 1812 if it was a crushing victory? Yes, but it would be so extremely costly(maybe not in lives but certainly in money) to occupy the eastern states. They could claim the area west of the Mississippi and puppeted New England if they're extraordinarily wanked.

As for the ACW scenario, no definitely not. Even without the south, the Union is still a verly large nation with huge potential. You'd more likely get a far more belligerent Union that's going to just wait for the right moment to invade and finally crush the CSA. "Thwart off a southern advance"? The south has no reason to try and advance. They wanted to secede from the US, not conquer it and force it to conform to their views. Even if they were stupid enough to get involved in another war with the North, chances are they won't be so lucky because the advantages are so far in the Union's favor that it just wouldn't work. Sorry, but this idea is just plain ASB.

Eitherway, neither of these would be Canadianwanks, but Britwanks. Eventually(or in the ACW case almost immediately) it would be the Americans with their larger population and resources that become the dominant members of the agreement.