Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

But why would the immigrants themselves prefer OTL Rupertsland to the American Great Plains if they had the choice? Sure the land is cheaper, but the lack of the proper tech is really going to discourage people when there's easier land to deal with down south.

Well, the real question is not how many, but how late...

On the other hand though, I do agree that parts of Canada like Manitoba could probably be more populous by default if the United States keeps up its currently much more generous immigration program than OTL's.

Noted.

Also, could we see some Native American Majority States (like what was attempted with Sequoyah) set up in original Canada? Perhaps as a form of compromise?

Well, there is the Hudson Territory....

 

[eschaton]

The latest update was interesting indeed Glen.

I have to say, given ITTL the Metis live right next door (sometimes literally) to the Quebecois, I'm not sure they'll maintain an independent culture in the longer run. Basically, as the territory gets developed, Quebecois will move there in somewhat larger numbers, which will eventually lead to extensive intermarriage between the two groups, as neither language nor way of life will be a great barrier (Local Quebecois of modest origins will probably live off the land in similar manners). It will be even worse if the "major" urban area (I'm assuming a small urban area ala Sudbury will develop), ends up predominantly Quebecois, as it will ensure that generations of children who want "bigger and better things" will move there and become acculturated.

On the other hand, if the Metis population booms enough, they should absorb the Quebecois who come their way, instead of the reverse. Which would mean Metis culture would survive largely intact, although the Metis themselves will probably progressively look more and more European, as Indians drifting in from the North won't be enough to counteract a southerly migration.

 

[DuQuense]

Given continuing [large] Immigration coming in thru NY, NE, Pa, I doubt even double the number of Quebecois, to start, can prevent Anglicization.

 

[Nugax]

I disagree in that I see no valid reason why TTL Canada should not get at least the same development as the northernmost row of US states, and both somewhat more popolous than their OTL counterparts.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH

What are you not getting? The OTL Canadian provinces are already MORE POPULOUS than the OTL northern tier of american states.

MODERN (advantage Canada, by a good distance):
Manitoba - 1.2 million
Saskatchewan - 1.0 million
Alberta - 3.7 million (skewed because of Oil, so can be skipped if you like)

North Dakota - 0.64 million
Montana - 0.9 million
South Dakota - 0.8 million

1910 (about the same):
Manitoba - 0.46 million
Saskatchewan - 0.49 million
Alberta - 0.37 million

North Dakota - 0.57 million
Montana - 0.37 million
South Dakota - 0.4 million

Why do you keep insisting the americans will do a significantly better job settling Canada than their OTL performance in their own northern tier of states - states which had better climates?

IMO I think the OTL canadian regions will see as much as half to third less people than the OTL thanks to slower railroads, whilst the extra immigration growth (remember the US is at a slightly worse native population than just splitting the northern states off would indicate, as seen in my graphs earlier in the thread) will occur in Oregon, *Iowa, *Minnesota, and the *Dakotas

 

[Falastur]

Also, it seems that the US government here has slated OTL Canada as "uncivilised Indian land" and somewhere they can ignore until they have the time and money to deal with the "pesky natives" and thus is unlikely - at least til many decades down the line - to receive much investment. By all accounts it seems that all north of the 49th parallel has been deemed wasteland.

 

[DuQuense]

Also, it seems that the US government here has slated OTL Canada as "uncivilised Indian land" and somewhere they can ignore until they have the time and money to deal with the "pesky natives" and thus is unlikely - at least til many decades down the line - to receive much investment. By all accounts it seems that all north of the 49th parallel has been deemed wasteland.

More like the 52nd Parallel - bottom James Bay/Great Slave Lake Across to the Great Divide.

 

[eschaton]

What are you not getting? The OTL Canadian provinces are already MORE POPULOUS than the OTL northern tier of american states.

To be fair, this is largely because they are greater size. Manitoba has a greater population density than both Dakotas, and Saskatchewan greater than North Dakota. However, considering nearly 2/3rds of each province is largely uninhabitable taiga, the settled area must be more densely populated than the U.S. northern tier.

Also, it seems that the US government here has slated OTL Canada as "uncivilised Indian land" and somewhere they can ignore until they have the time and money to deal with the "pesky natives" and thus is unlikely - at least til many decades down the line - to receive much investment. By all accounts it seems that all north of the 49th parallel has been deemed wasteland.

Not at all. Only the Hudson region seems to be "written off" - and this region IOTL was never really settled either. Since the U.S., unlike Canada, doesn't expand states once they are founded, my guess is all of the habitable bits will be incorporated in some state, but more of OTL's taiga belt will stay in territorial form.

 

[Nugax]

To be fair, this is largely because they are greater size. Manitoba has a greater population density than both Dakotas, and Saskatchewan greater than North Dakota. However, considering nearly 2/3rds of each province is largely uninhabitable taiga, the settled area must be more densely populated than the U.S. northern tier.

Uh what? The point was that Canada got more people to settle on worse land than the Northern US states, saying that they actually are crowded into a smaller region of each state makes the contrast more extreme, not less!

 

[Nugax]

Map:

LINK TO BIGGER VERSION

 

[Arachnid]

Great map, the DSA clearly has a pretty good rail network, much better than the CSA.

 

[thekingsguard]

I love that map...

 

[eschaton]

Uh what? The point was that Canada got more people to settle on worse land than the Northern US states, saying that they actually are crowded into a smaller region of each state makes the contrast more extreme, not less!

Sorry, was pressed for time given my wife was pestering me to go when I wrote that reply. My point was just overall population might not be the best measure compared to overall density. I agree with you overall. Canada pushed rather hard for the region to be settled after all, while the U.S. won't have any real reason to favor migration there as opposed to anywhere else (especially given by the time migration there becomes feasible, more immigrants will likely be moving into industrial jobs than agricultural ones).

 

[Glen]

Some population maps from OTL:

 

[Eurofed]

What are you not getting? The OTL Canadian provinces are already MORE POPULOUS than the OTL northern tier of american states.

Why do you keep insisting the americans will do a significantly better job settling Canada than their OTL performance in their own northern tier of states - states which had better climates?

Ok, I got your point.

IMO I think the OTL canadian regions will see as much as half to third less people than the OTL thanks to slower railroads, whilst the extra immigration growth (remember the US is at a slightly worse native population than just splitting the northern states off would indicate, as seen in my graphs earlier in the thread) will occur in Oregon, *Iowa, *Minnesota, and the *Dakotas

But I see no valid reason why those railroads should be slower than OTL, rather the contrary.

More like the 52nd Parallel - bottom James Bay/Great Slave Lake Across to the Great Divide.

Not at all. Only the Hudson region seems to be "written off" - and this region IOTL was never really settled either. Since the U.S., unlike Canada, doesn't expand states once they are founded, my guess is all of the habitable bits will be incorporated in some state, but more of OTL's taiga belt will stay in territorial form.

I agree. Me, too, think that the initial border of the Western Canadian states shall be on the 52nd Parallel. I would not entirely write off the possiblity that at a later date the Congress shall allow the northernmost row of states to expand their borders to the 54th Parallel, but in all likelihood never to the 60th one as OTL Canadian provinces. Alaska and Yukon in all likelihood shall become one state after the gold rush gets the area developed. Northern regions only populated by natives quite possibly remain autonomous territories up to modern times, since the Congress frowns on allowing severely underpopulated states.

 

[Glen]

But why would the immigrants themselves prefer OTL Rupertsland to the American Great Plains if they had the choice? Sure the land is cheaper, but the lack of the proper tech is really going to discourage people when there's easier land to deal with down south.

Most wouldn't, other than the odd trapper or ice fishing enthusiast, at least not at first. But once that land is mostly claimed, the north will become more attractive.

On the other hand though, I do agree that parts of Canada like Manitoba could probably be more populous by default if the United States keeps up its currently much more generous immigration program than OTL's.

And don't forget births!

Also, could we see some Native American Majority States (like what was attempted with Sequoyah) set up in original Canada? Perhaps as a form of compromise?

Maybe...

Well, even in this USA, the northernmost parts of Canada (except Alaska and Yukon, after the gold rush) are indeed going to remain largley as empty as IOTL. But both the OTL US and the Canadian Rockies and Plains are going to become more popolous than OTL, and southern Canada to become roughly as popolous as northern US states, simply because the USA is still going to receive a lot of European immigrants, the other areas can absorb only so many people, and the pressure to open up free space in the West and North is going to drive the construction of the necessary infrastructures.

Some of this is true, some perhaps exaggerated, but time will tell which is which...

While I understand your point, the idea [or perhaps it's the wording] that any region in America could reach that point comes off as odd from an American perspective. Admittedly, one could argue that's what helped caused Manhatten's population decline, but it seems like what you're talking about won't happen until the invention of Suburbia,...and even then, the Canadian West lacks a lot of conditions that made the Sunbelt such a popular destination choice among Northern Americans.

Huh?

I really don't get your point here. Why are you claiming TTL's USA will see much more immigration? I mean, it could, provided immigration restrictions don't pass similar to OTL's 1920s. But up until then (Chinese exclusion act aside) there was nothing stopping as many people from coming to the U.S. as wanted.

Or did economic conditions actually make it harder (couldn't afford the fare)? As of right now, one big difference is the continuation of indentured servitude - a knock off of the shorter slavery period. This will allow more poor Europeans and subcontinental Indians to come to the USA and the DSA than would have been able to do so IOTL.

The only way to boost U.S. immigration dramatically upward would be if things were far worse in portions of Europe, which would make more people want to leave.

That's certainly one way, but not the only way (see above), to increase immigration to the USA.

The other way I could read what you mean is that since the U.S. doesn't have the South, all those migrants need to go somewhere else in the U.S. But IOTL they didn't go to the South. Most of the South, after an early smattering of Germans, received essentially no immigrants, with the one notable exception being New Orleans. Of course, Southern California is also in the DSA, but this area will see immigration regardless. Add to that the DSA being more of a draw to immigrants than OTL's South, and if anything, I'd say immigration will be slightly reduced compared to OTL's "North" + Canada. This is before even taking into effect Latin America, where a stronger Mexico and UPSA could snap up a lot of migrants - possibly enough to cancel out no Brazil and then some.

Fairly reasoned, and possible, but in the end I think the countervailing forces will make for slightly more immigration rather than less.

 

[Venusian Si]

Huh?

Oh, I was simply mentioning that Eurofed's idea that overpopulation would actually force the U.S. government to build infrastrucutre elsewhere seemed odd IMO.

Or was it the Sunbelt part you didn't understand?

 

[Eurofed]

Oh, I was simply mentioning that Eurofed's idea that overpopulation would actually force the U.S. government to build infrastrucutre elsewhere seemed odd IMO.

"Force" is perhaps too strong a word, but there would be considerable political pressure from would-be settlers to open up the western and northern territories to colonization by building infrastructure there.

 

[Venusian Si]

"Force" is perhaps too strong a word, but there would be considerable political pressure from would-be settlers to open up the western and northern territories to colonization by building infrastructure there.

Ahh, that comes across much more clear. Thank you.

 

[eschaton]

"Force" is perhaps too strong a word, but there would be considerable political pressure from would-be settlers to open up the western and northern territories to colonization by building infrastructure there.

That's not how the West was settled though in the U.S. Here, settlers always reached an area first, and once they built up a significant base, clamored to the government for the rule of law, and eventually infrastructure, to be expanded to encompass them. This is pretty much the reverse of Canada, where the law came first, and then the settlers. It's one reason people hypothesize the U.S. has so much stronger of a vigilante/anti government tradition.

Also, if you're talking about something like rail, a rail line will only be built when it turns a profit to be built (I'm assuming we won't see nationalized rail building ITTL's USA, but it's possible). While the land in the middle could be a wasteland, both ends are going to need to have substantial economies to make the endeavor worthwhile.

 

[Cyrano]

Impressive

Just read through this whole thing today, and I have to say that it is very well done on the whole. There are several things I'm rather credulous of, others I am quite impressed by, and still a few more l would love to see elabotated further! All things considered this is a fantastic tl and you can consider me to be subscribed, this is an absorbing and credible take on the developement of an alternate U.S.