The South Wins the Civil War: Effects on Canada?

[Faeelin]

Okay, here's an odd thought, inspired by reading.

One of the side effects of the end of Civil War was the end of the Elgin-Marcy Treaty, which was a free trade agreement on raw materials ibetween the US and British North America.

The Treaty was ended after the Civil war; some thought it had outlived its usefulness, while Canada's own tariffs on manufactured goods (British and American) angered quite a few people.

It was poular in the midwestern farming states, however. And in a world where the mouth of the Mississippi is controlled by a foreign power that the US was just at war with, shipping goods through Canada would be a welcome prospect.

Of course there are other implications. So, let's assume that it isn't one of the typical "the war ends with the Enfield Rifles burning Washington" TLs.

[Zyzzyva]

But I like Enfields-in-Washington TLs! They make me feel warm and fuzzy inside!

...On a more serious note, I didn't think Canada had anti-British tariffs at that point. We weren't even a dominion (quite) yet and our government, such as it was, was pretty pro-British.

I guess it means that Chicago, Welland, and Montreal all get big boosts. The proto-St Laurence seaway eighty years earlier?

[67th Tigers]

The free trade agreement was primarily to please the South (as was a lowering of the tarriff), so when New England and the Industrialising Great Lakes cities were unfettered it's not surprising they'd turn protectionist.

However, with the mouth of the Mississippi gone, the main trade route from the cities fed by ores from the Canadian Shield will become the St. Lawrence, assuming they industrialise on schedule (some very minor border adjustments in Canadas favour could knock the legs out of the US's industrialisation).

Control of the St. Lawrence would become extremely important, and sooner or later the US must try and take Canada to secure their industrial growth.

[Zyzzyva]

Yeah, but the brits should know that too.

[Lord Grattan]

If the economic and political situations in what's left of the USA is in such flux, with the potential of economic turmoil and possible war, would the Crown permit confederation to go forward? I think it might be delayed a few years until the new reality on the continent becomes more settled.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

If the economic and political situations in what's left of the USA is in such flux, with the potential of economic turmoil and possible war, would the Crown permit confederation to go forward? I think it might be delayed a few years until the new reality on the continent becomes more settled.

Confederation was driven by the Crown, and was resisted by the Maritimes, PEI and Newfoundland (who put forward an alternate Maritime Confederation idea). The primary reasoning was military, to combine the forces of Canada (which was Federated post 1837 invasions) with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick etc.

[Zyzzyva]

By 1864 it was pretty much a done deal. Depends on when the POD is, of course, but from the late 1850s on comfederation was pretty much going to come.

You might have Nova Scotia staying out, though. They only barely came in OTL, and staying with the brits directly in this unsettled TL might strike more people as a good idea.

EDIT: At 67T: The perpetual gridlock in Prov. Canada's legislature was another reason. And it was pushed by the Canadians almost as much as the Crown.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

However, with the mouth of the Mississippi gone, the main trade route from the cities fed by ores from the Canadian Shield will become the St. Lawrence, assuming they industrialise on schedule (some very minor border adjustments in Canadas favour could knock the legs out of the US's industrialisation).

Control of the St. Lawrence would become extremely important, and sooner or later the US must try and take Canada to secure their industrial growth.

Unlikely. The South would be missing out on a major source of revenue if they closed New Orleans to Northern trade. Its likely that any treaty ending hostilities would have left open for further discussion the right of navigation upon major riverine waterways. There would be a negotiated grant of use since there are far more states that have access to the Mississippi than to the Great Lakes. Undoubtedly the St. Lawrence will eventually be made navigable, but there wouldn't be any war.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Control of the St. Lawrence would become extremely important, and sooner or later the US must try and take Canada to secure their industrial growth.

This is sorta how like Germany had to control the Rhine to develop, ain't it?

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

The free trade agreement was primarily to please the South (as was a lowering of the tarriff), so when New England and the Industrialising Great Lakes cities were unfettered it's not surprising they'd turn protectionist.

However, with the mouth of the Mississippi gone, the main trade route from the cities fed by ores from the Canadian Shield will become the St. Lawrence, assuming they industrialise on schedule (some very minor border adjustments in Canadas favour could knock the legs out of the US's industrialisation).

Control of the St. Lawrence would become extremely important, and sooner or later the US must try and take Canada to secure their industrial growth.

it would have to be later... much later. The US simply can't take Canada from Britain anytime soon... especially after losing a war.

Also... why would there be any border adjustments in Canada's favor... or any at all?

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

Also... why would there be any border adjustments in Canada's favor... or any at all?

Just an aside, move the border 50 miles south in Minnesota and the large manufacturing centres on the lakes ("The Arsenal of Freedom") will never develop.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Just an aside, move the border 50 miles south in Minnesota and the large manufacturing centres on the lakes ("The Arsenal of Freedom") will never develop.

you mean, like clear back in 1812 or so? I can't see it happening by the 1860's....unless the Brits force the US to lose the war and then take territory in the bargain as well..

[The Gunslinger]

This will throw Confederation way out of whack. By winning the war, the South proves that the federal government doesn't have to be mighty, it can be smaller and still function. I would expect that when confederation happens, there will be a smaller federal government... unless of course the Union gets more agressive, in which case an even more united Canada could happen.

Also, the United States probably won't pick up Alaksa, which means that relations with Russia will be much different in the future. Assuming someone doesn't pick it up in the intervening years, would Britain side with Cnada in the panhandle dispute?

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Just an aside, move the border 50 miles south in Minnesota and the large manufacturing centres on the lakes ("The Arsenal of Freedom") will never develop.

Assuming that no goods are traded across the border, yes.

[Grimm Reaper]

Canada is forced to establish a larger standing military earlier in response to the US and CS doing so. Not on a vast scale for the first generation but if the US has a standing force of 75-100K and the CS has 40-60K Canada will probably feel obliged to have something more than OTL.

What effect a Canadian Army of, say, 50,000 men in 1870 would have is not clear.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Canada is forced to establish a larger standing military earlier in response to the US and CS doing so. Not on a vast scale for the first generation but if the US has a standing force of 75-100K and the CS has 40-60K Canada will probably feel obliged to have something more than OTL.

What effect a Canadian Army of, say, 50,000 men in 1870 would have is not clear.

That's the 1862 proposal, a force of 50,000 full timers and 50,000 reservists.....

[Dan1988]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

What effect a Royal Canadian Army of, say, 50,000 men in 1870 would have is not clear.

Fixed it for you, Grimm.

[David S Poepoe]

The US eventually embrases hockey as its national sport and Canada becomes the main supplier of players.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Just an aside, move the border 50 miles south in Minnesota and the large manufacturing centres on the lakes ("The Arsenal of Freedom") will never develop.

Looking at this map, "never develops" is quite a stretch. While nice and conveniently near the great lakes for naval shipping to their processing points in Michigan and to Ohio, the Minessota mountain was hardly required for the Iron Belt industrialization. Lower Minessota, Wisconsin, and Michigan all have significant iron deposits, and the US rail network was well established and capable of being expanded to reach these points if they weren't already.

And, of course, there's always the potential for the sale of iron from Canada to the US, if tariffs allow it. Canada has another population nugget less than 50 miles from the border, is more entwined with the US economy earlier on, but there's hardly a catastrophic change. Though, as a double of course, this gain is offset by a higher defense bill.

Also found another map that actually shows economic zones and such of North America, and it also shows industrial districts. Many in Minessota are well passed that 50 mile line.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Looking at this map, "never develops" is quite a stretch. While nice and conveniently near the great lakes for naval shipping to their processing points in Michigan and to Ohio, the Minessota mountain was hardly required for the Iron Belt industrialization. Lower Minessota, Wisconsin, and Michigan all have significant iron deposits, and the US rail network was well established and capable of being expanded to reach these points if they weren't already.

Not that significant or easy to mine. It was this that drove US industrialisation.