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.
One thing about Southern California migration. Without the water resources to support large populated cities like OTL has, Southern California in the DSA would receive less immigration then it would and most would be concentrated around San Diego. Just my two cents.
And yes while I was overenthusiastic about immigration to Canadian territory TTL I also think those who are saying "half population" are totally wrong... Infrastructure will be built at least as fast as OTL into areas where people will want to move which means the Canadian great plains will become viable and I think will be settled earlier and faster due to Homestead like acts (especially if the govn't gives out more generous grants for the less desirable Canadian plains).
Quite true. SoCal is going to be the poor brother to NorCal since it doesn't have the ability to force construction of all those aqueducts to supply it water and voters in US California would laugh in the face of any proposal that basically said "Okay, we're going to wreck your farms/industry/etc... and impound your water to send it to another country...
1. The US is probably going to get less immigration than OTL because the DSA is more attractive than Canada and there are only so many potential European emigrants.
The fact that Mexico and other points south seem to be doing better further depresses US share of European emigration.
Hooray! Our first major possibly new Canadian State!
Gitchigumee is certainly a mouthful though... Can't wait to see more!
well USA is becoming a superpower in terms of territory and population.
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.
Given continuing [large] Immigration coming in thru NY, NE, Pa, I doubt even double the number of Quebecois, to start, can prevent Anglicization.
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
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.
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.
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!
Great map, the DSA clearly has a pretty good rail network, much better than the CSA.
I love that map...
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).
But I see no valid reason why those railroads should be slower than OTL, rather the contrary.
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 possibility 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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
You mean Russian Alaska?
In all likelihood, it is not going to stay Russian forever, and quite possibly even shorter than OTL. At the very least, once the gold rush starts, the USA is totally going to evict the Russkies, by peaceful purchase if possible, by force of arms if need be. All the concerns that drove the OTL purchase are magnified ITTL due to the direct border.
Not that much more attractive, no. Lack of climate-control technology hits both Canada and Dixie. And the USA remain much more friendly to immigration anyway, with their liberal immigration laws, their land grants, and their class-light, upward mobile society. And in the DSA, Blacks and Indians still compete with European immigrants for jobs, this is not the case in the USA.