Canada Wank (YACW)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Infrastructure development in the coming decades

Infrastructure development in the coming decades



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Canals[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Transportation was a huge problem for both parties during the war, more so for the US. The British managed to gain and keep control of the Lakes, which was a huge advantage, and the only reason that she was able to win the war so decisively. Still, getting goods and men up the St. Lawrence from Montreal, then into the various Lakes was hard and expensive.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The US problem was even worse. They lost control of the lakes, so much of their supply had to go overland on bad roads (if any).[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is obvious that little could be finished during the course of the war, so both sides basically limited themselves to some road building/improvement and studies of canal routes.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Immediately, once the war is over, both sides start digging canals. (Road building continues, too, but the only good all-weather road system known is very slow to build and expensive. The US National Road continues, slowly, and work is started near Pittsburgh to improve the portage between the Ohio and the east.) While money is tight, in 1816 farmers (on both sides) whose crops have failed are put to work on digging the canals, and they and their families are at least fed.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The main US effort is focussed on the Erie Canal (a barge canal) to connect the Hudson River (and therefore New York City) with Lake Erie (and Lake Ontario). [OTL, started 1817 finished 1825], lock size is 90'x15'x4' Construction started in the summer of 1815 and was finished in time to send a few barges through in the fall of 1824. It took a year longer than OTL, because the Oswego canal connecting the Erie Canal (and thus the Hudson) to Lake Ontario was constructed at the same time (due to the extreme strategic importance of Oswego iTTL) In fact the Oswego canal iTTL is finished before the Erie canal reaches Buffalo, (thus before it was approved iOTL) While the financial condition of the US was pretty miserable, these canals were one of the Government's top priorities. Note that there is significant Federal funding for these canals, iTTL, unlike OTL where it was an entirely New York project. Canals 1) connecting the Hudson river north to Whitehall on Lake Champlain, and 2) branching from the Erie Canal at Rome leading north to the Black River, and hence Sackett's Harbor, are also given high priority.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British work primarily on a series of short canals along the St. Lawrence, to allow (small) ocean-going vessels to sail all the way to Chicago. (As they did OTL. This is a forerunner of OTL's St Lawrence Seaway. They will later build a canal at Sault Ste. Marie to allow access to Lake Superior, but that is a project of no military and far less commercial interest.) Since this is being run as a unified project, all the locks and channels are built to the same specifications. They really want to be able to bring full-sized warships in, but that's out of the question at the moment. Work started on the Lachine canal already in 1814 near the end of the war, but the other canals start in the spring of 1815. The standardized size of of the locks in the system are 100'x20'x7'. [This is essentially the length and width of the first Lachine canal OTL, but deeper. It is smaller in all dimensions than the first Welland Canal.] Due to a shortage of masons many of the first locks, especially upstream, are made of wood. These will be replaced over the years by stone. (It's relatively easy to find men who can stick a shovel in the ground, some of the more demanding crafts are in rather shorter supply.) Work is started on all the canals at once, the 7 shorter canals on the St. Lawrence and the longer Niagara Canal [OTL's Welland canal]. The canals are all open for business by fall of 1821, almost 6½ years after the sod turning of most of the canals. [Note, the OTL First Welland Canal, with slightly larger locks and canals, took only 5 years, start to finish. It takes longer because they're working on more canals at once, thus there is more competition for labour; because the canal is built almost a decade earlier than OTL, so the OTL canal could make use of experience gained elsewhere. It doesn't take any longer than it does because it's a high priority.] With the British/Canadian canals completed some 3 years before the Erie canal, much of the US trade from New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio is carried in those years through the Canadian canals. When the Erie Canal opens, much of that trade goes there, but the Canadian St. Lawrence system allows much larger boats, and connects directly to the sea. Since the Erie canal charges fee by weight and the St. Lawrence system by lock transit (i.e. it costs the same to run the lock whether you've got a big boat or a small one, so the same fee is charged), smaller loads use the Erie and larger ones are more likely to use the St. Lawrence.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]True, most goods are transshipped to bigger ocean-going vessels either at Montreal (for the St. Lawrence system) or New York (for the Erie system), but for goods being exported to Europe or further, the St. Lawrence system is easier, faster and cheaper. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British/Canadians also work on the Rideau Canal system connecting the Ottawa River at [OTL's] Ottawa with Kingston on Lake Ontario. This would allow the conveyance of goods and materiel even in event of war, if the Americans managed to cut the St. Lawrence system. As it was a back-up plan iTTL, it was started later, and not pushed quite so hard, so it wasn't ready until 1830 or so. Other canals that are of medium high priority are canals connecting the Illinois river to Lake Michigan (at Chicago – essentially the same as OTL's Sanitary and Ship Canal), and canals connecting Lake Champlain to the St. Lawrence.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British also build a few special 6th rate frigates that will fit in the new canals, so that at least some of the RN can then be shifted from lake to lake if they should be needed.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]roads[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Both sides cut roads to all their border forts, and improve the roads as time and finances permit. The frontier forts are initially supplied (in terms of food, at least) by local settler/militias. But any future conflict will require ammunition and other military supplies, as well as reinforcements, to be brought forward in volume lots, and wounded to be evacuated. So the best roads that are possible/affordable are built. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the early 1820s, once word of Macadam's new method of road construction (developed ~1820) comes out, it is seized on avidly. With a method of road construction that provides the same all-weather benefits, but is much cheaper, road construction makes a huge leap forward. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Rail[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Rail roads are the next major transport project. Once railways are proven in England, experiments start in North America. The US starts building a railway from Baltimore towards the Ohio River and the Canadians build one at Montreal. Molson expands from the steam boat business to building locomotives and track. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Americans mostly build their railways in the East connecting their major cities, but the Pittsburgh portage is a prime military bottleneck to fix. While British capital and engineers are welcome to finance the commercial networks, the military roads are strictly American financed and built. This slows the progress. Also, Congress demands that if these are US roads, they have to be built with US rail and equipment. Since British rail, e.g., was MUCH cheaper, this, too, slowed the project. The expense, the US financial condition, and Ohio river providing an excellent artery for most of the supply needs of their border forts mean that the fort road network is more a series of roads to the river than an actual network, and little of it is connected by rail. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British are certainly interested in connecting their cities, so track is laid from Montreal to Kingston, then York, then Detroit and Chicago and St. Louis. Among other things, this provides a back-up to the canals when those are iced over. However, they, too, have military interests in mind, and during the 1830's track creeps out to connect the border forts on the frontier. Rail to St. Louis would never have happened in this time period if it was just a commercial proposition. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Of course, these early railways are nothing like modern rail. The rails are still wrought iron, and light weight. Engines are small, pulling only a few cars, and the cars don't carry much cargo. Speed is sometimes as slow as 10 mph. Still, it is a huge advance over animal drawn wagons.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Edit: while the various rail and canal projects are of intense military value, and thus are supported by the Crown/Federal Government, they obviously have vast commercial value, too, and much of the construction is public/private with some government investment and oversight, but much of the capital being private. Sometimes (part of) the government contribution is guaranteeing loans one way or another (the easiest being to guarantee a certain rate of government traffic using the canal or RR or road). Some of the monies come from Provincial/State sources as well as 'Federal' sources. E.g. the Erie canal is largely funded by NY state, although not entirely so, unlike OTL.
[/FONT]

 

[KingByng]

Another interesting update. Great work Dathi, I really enjoy this.

 

[stevep]

Dathi

The canals and railways may well be strongly supported by the military but they will have a huge economic and social impact on the development of Canada. Much, much easier to move people and goods in and even more goods out so internal markets will be larger and links to more distant ones better.

How is New England developing? Is it still trading closely with Canada and possibly exporting sizeable numbers of people? Possibly also trying to get its own trade links with the Canadian hinterland?

Also while that shows a lot of development in northern America and Canada what is the situation in Louisiana and the American south. Most especially possibly with the latter how is that developing. Have the southern tribes been subdulled and driven off their lands. If so largely replaced by plantations or small farmers?

Also given the expensive and predominantly military programmes in the north how are the southern states reacting to this. Unless there is also a lot of similar spending in the south there could be resentment that taxes from them are going to those projects in the north. On the other hand with the south largely helmed in by the Spanish to the south and the British to the west and with the latter having removed slavery there would be demands for a lot of military projects in the south as well I would expect.

This presumes that the Spanish empire is still in existence, at least in Florida. If its declined or had disorder that could affect things. Although possibly the most likely thing if Spain is having problems is that the idea of selling Florida to Britain?

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The canals and railways may well be strongly supported by the military but they will have a huge economic and social impact on the development of Canada. Much, much easier to move people and goods in and even more goods out so internal markets will be larger and links to more distant ones better.

good point. There was a brief mention of commercial use, but I've decided to take this prod as an opportunity to add the following to the end of that post.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Edit: while the various rail and canal projects are of intense military value, and thus are supported by the Crown, they obviously have vast commercial value, too, and much of the construction is public/private with some government investment and oversight, but much of the capital being private. Sometimes (part of) the government contribution is guaranteeing loans one way or another (the easiest being to guarantee a certain rate of government traffic using the canal or RR or road).[/FONT]

How is New England developing? Is it still trading closely with Canada and possibly exporting sizeable numbers of people? Possibly also trying to get its own trade links with the Canadian hinterland?

Wait and see. I have some ideas, haven't worked them all out. They'll be pretty peripheral unless and until they join *Canada, but that'll be a long time (if ever).

Also while that shows a lot of development in northern America and Canada what is the situation in Louisiana and the American south. Most especially possibly with the latter how is that developing. Have the southern tribes been subdulled and driven off their lands. If so largely replaced by plantations or small farmers?

Again, pretty peripheral to the TL, but, ya I'd better do some coverage of where I think things go.

Also given the expensive and predominantly military programmes in the north how are the southern states reacting to this. Unless there is also a lot of similar spending in the south there could be resentment that taxes from them are going to those projects in the north. On the other hand with the south largely helmed in by the Spanish to the south and the British to the west and with the latter having removed slavery there would be demands for a lot of military projects in the south as well I would expect.

One of the reasons the Creek War failed iTTL is the state of the roads in the south, especially south from Tennessee. Wilkinson had actually had a net of roads in the south, to and from Mobile built - but the Spanish have them now, mostly. I think there's going to be a LOT of road building and development in the south. Getting access to some of the south-flowing rivers so goods can be exported through Spanish ports (with occasionally bribeable officials) instead of British New Orleans will be important. Certainly they want to be able to get south if there should ever be conflict with Spain.

As for tax dollars, again, some of this is public/private or federal/state. OTL, the Erie canal was entirely NY state, here the Feds chip in some. So there isn't quite the disparity in income/expenditure as it might seem at first glance. Ya, I may want to take a closer look. Or I might not.

This presumes that the Spanish empire is still in existence, at least in Florida. If its declined or had disorder that could affect things. Although possibly the most likely thing if Spain is having problems is that the idea of selling Florida to Britain?

Spain has no intention of selling to anyone, and, while still allied, is not ENTIRELY trusting of Britain and her good intentions. Some of that will come out in a few posts. Still, she'd rather the land go to Britain than the US, if she had a choice, and had to make it.

 

[Coyote Knight]

Awesome stuff, dude.

 

[Dan1988]

Another great update, Daði.

Re the New England situation: in my opinion, what could probably happen is that some of the development taking place elsewhere (i.e. canals, roads, and rail) could also take place here, but more due to commercial purposes. As I already mentioned, in OTL it was due to the possibility of secession that New England was one of the first regions in the US to industrialize (though mainly concentrated on textiles). I could see the same here in TTL, including the growth of mill towns (i.e. Lowell, Valley Falls, Woonsocket), though the main ports would still be Boston, Newport, and New Haven. However, since in TTL New England has already seceded from the US, a lot of priority would also be placed on the border areas (western Massachusetts, Connecticut west of the Connecticut River, and the whole of Vermont). Thus, whilst in Eastern New England most of the development of industry would largely follow OTL, if only slightly accelerated, and the creation of transportation links would be purely for commercial purposes (i.e. in my state alone the Blackstone Canal and the Providence and Worcester Railroad), in Western New England development might resemble the rest of British North America, where commercial purposes co-exist with military purposes (i.e. if the US attacks New England, there would have to be a way to mobilize the men in New England's military).

Just my two cents.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Awesome stuff, dude.

Thanks filler

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Re the New England situation: in my opinion, what could probably happen is that some of the development taking place elsewhere (i.e. canals, roads, and rail) could also take place here, but more due to commercial purposes. As I already mentioned, in OTL it was due to the possibility of secession that New England was one of the first regions in the US to industrialize (though mainly concentrated on textiles). I could see the same here in TTL, including the growth of mill towns (i.e. Lowell, Valley Falls, Woonsocket), though the main ports would still be Boston, Newport, and New Haven. However, since in TTL New England has already seceded from the US, a lot of priority would also be placed on the border areas (western Massachusetts, Connecticut west of the Connecticut River, and the whole of Vermont). Thus, whilst in Eastern New England most of the development of industry would largely follow OTL, if only slightly accelerated, and the creation of transportation links would be purely for commercial purposes (i.e. in my state alone the Blackstone Canal and the Providence and Worcester Railroad), in Western New England development might resemble the rest of British North America, where commercial purposes co-exist with military purposes (i.e. if the US attacks New England, there would have to be a way to mobilize the men in New England's military).

Just my two cents.

OK, I'm confused. OTL, New England, at this time was the banking and manufacturing and trading powerhouse of the US. I would have thought that seceding would leave them massively OVER industrialized, etc., with the lack of any captive market. You're saying that they INCREASED their industrialization when they thought they might have to secede? I don't see how that works. Do you have any links/sources etc?

The Banking sector, having money and not as much to do with it any more, might invest heavily in Canada, I can see that, and I can see that Canada might make use of New England's industrialization - although by the time you load a ship in Boston and ship goods to Montreal, you might as well have loaded them from Bristol (not quite, but the competitive advantage is not that huge, I don't suppose).

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Slavery in British North America

I've now run out of completed segments (I had a really productive writing week, last week, and have been living off the fruits of that). So expect my output to slow down quite a bit.




Slavery in British North America



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Status OTL[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Slavery was not yet outlawed in any part of British North America, although steps in that direction had been taken. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In 1793, on the urgings of Governor Simcoe, the Slave Act of 1793 was passed [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] in Upper Canada[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]. This act was a compromise – it forbade the import of new slaves, and guaranteed that any children of slaves born after the act was passed would be set free at age 25. It did not actually free any slaves directly. However, it clearly made slavery an declining institution. In fact, there were slaves who escaped south INTO the US to gain freedom.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In Lower Canada, in 1803, William Osgoode, the Chief Justice, ruled that slavery was not compatible with British law. That ruling freed 300 slaves, but not all of them. Again, it marked a clear decline in the status of slavery.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In all British North American territories, there were slaves who remained in a state of slavery when they were freed along with the slaves in the rest of the empire when the British Parliament enacted Abolition in 1834.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Global status[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the British Empire, the “Slave Trade Act” of 1807 prohibited the import (sale or transfer) of slaves into any British territory from Africa, America or the West Indies. (I can't find the exact wording, so I suspect it might have been legal to move them between British colonies.) And Britain pressured other powers to do the same. Sweden and the Netherlands followed quickly. And the US outlawed slave TRADE in 1808. Spain actually outlawed slavery in MOST of her colonies in 1811 (excluding only Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo). France outlawed slavery under the French Revolution, then reimposed it in 1802 under Napoleon.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Status in Louisiana[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Now, the official position of the British government is that the transfer of Louisiana territory back to France was invalid. If this is the case, then it remained Spanish, and Louisiana's slaves became free in 1811. Realistically, slavery had been pushed hard, with the end result that in 1800, the population of 'Lower Louisiana', which then included (?parts of?) 'West Florida', was ~20k free, ~25k slave. Thus, suddenly announcing that all slaves were now free was simply not going to work. However, a judge iTTL rules in 1815 (in the first year of British administration), that the Lower Canada ruling of 1803 applies here, too, which puts the first nails in slavery's coffin. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Moreover, the next year, a case is brought before the courts, where a Louisiana slave owner recaptured an escaped slave. The latter maintained that he had crossed the river into the United States, and then crossed back, and was therefore free, since he had 'transferred' himself from America into British territory, and therefore had to be free. The judge sided with the (former) slave. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Given that, theoretically, all a slave had to do was cross the river in both directions to be free, the slave owners realized the writing was on the wall, and the price of slaves dropped dramatically. After several years of agitation, the Louisiana legislature finally passed a law providing for the gradual emancipation of slaves and (some) compensation for owners who freed their slaves. One of the means provided was conversion of 'ownership of a slave' into a 'lifetime indenture' – but that, at least, meant the blacks couldn't be sold, and it meant that all the children born were free.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note, of course, that the THREAT of self-emancipation by 'double baptism' (as some called it), was rather more theoretical than real. Hundreds of slaves tried it (possibly thousands – again the very nature of the thing means there are no records). But many were caught before they got across the river. And the crossing itself was perilous. Many drowned in the river, or were attacked by alligators or other predators in the bayous on one side or the other. The ones who DID cross the river might be caught and either enslaved on the US side, or returned to their owners on the British side. Once returned, how to prove they had done it? Sure, the slave could CLAIM they crossed the river twice, and were now free, but did they have proof? It often came down to the leanings of the judge pro-abolition or pro-slavery, as to whether such a slave was freed. Especially since many slaves lied about a crossing so that they could free themselves. Also, the double crossing was quite dangerous and strenuous - a man or a young woman could make the attempt, but for a family with small children or old parents, it was really not feasible. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]On the other hand, slave catchers crossing from the US side to return slaves escaped from the US were not welcomed at all. When caught, the best they could hope for was the loss of their captives, and expulsion. The worst involved prosecution for a whole series of crimes. An abolitionist leaning judge early on established precedent that their goods were forfit (merely for 'invading' British territory with hostile intent), and they themselves could be subjected to any punishments they had inflicted on their captives. They could even be tried for kidnapping and/or rape, and theoretically be hung for those crimes, but most places found prosecuting such cases to be more effort than it was worth (if the slavers had only been usually brutal). More often, whippings, imprisonment or 'informal punishments' (like leaving them tied up overnight at the mercy some of their victims) were applied.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The fact that confiscation of the slavers' possessions was part of the punishment helped ensure they were caught. Half the belongings could be kept by their captors, and half was to be given to the Crown (in practice, the local judge/courthouse/district). Thus there was more incentive to do more than just let them leave.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One consequence of this mess was that many (no one knows quite how many) slave owners smuggled some of their 'best stock' across the river and sold them on the US side. This was illegal under both British and American law, but widely winked at on the US side, and hard to prove on the the British side. Another consequence was that unrest (both from blacks who thought they should be freed faster, and slave owners who were losing their biggest capital investment) meant that Louisiana had a lot less independence and self-rule than the other colonies in British North America for some time to come. There was even some movement afoot in upper Louisiana (basically OTL's Arkansas) to split off from Louisiana, and join Missouri (and hence Canada, in some form), for better treatment. It also discouraged parties in Missouri who would rather have been part of their natural trading partner Louisiana than Canada.[/FONT]

 

[Dan1988]

OK, I'm confused. OTL, New England, at this time was the banking and manufacturing and trading powerhouse of the US. I would have thought that seceding would leave them massively OVER industrialized, etc., with the lack of any captive market. You're saying that they INCREASED their industrialization when they thought they might have to secede? I don't see how that works. Do you have any links/sources etc?

It was something that I learned in school, I'll give you that - but I'll try and find some (non-Wiki) sources to back me up - but, seeing as I'm from the area that claims "here is where the American Industrial Revolution began", I'd probably say that yes, New England (primarily Boston) might have been the powerhouse regarding banking and trading, but the first big expansion of industry was due to the threat of secession (maybe even earlier, but primarily driven by secession fears). Before that, if there was any industry in New England, it was mainly concentrated in the urban areas; yet with the first big expansion of industry, now rural areas could take part.

AFAIK, we hadn't over-industrialized since the major "industrial" product at the time produced by the mills was textiles, and because outside of urban areas, there was very little industry. New ways of manufacturing - i.e. the textile mills - were the main factor in industrializing the rest of New England, which were not used in urban areas. Fortunately for the mills, there was still a home market - in TTL, this home market would be limited to New England, unless there could be a way for the mills to sell their products in BNA.

The Banking sector, having money and not as much to do with it any more, might invest heavily in Canada, I can see that, and I can see that Canada might make use of New England's industrialization - although by the time you load a ship in Boston and ship goods to Montreal, you might as well have loaded them from Bristol (not quite, but the competitive advantage is not that huge, I don't suppose).

Sounds plausible - though there could also be the possibility of using new technology to link the two areas together - i.e., a Boston & Montreal Railroad by way of Springfield, MA and Burlington, VT?

 

[bm79]

Hmm, your population figures are out of date by the present day iTTL. Between 1800-20, the population of (OTL) La. doubled each decade, standing at 155,000 (of whom ca. 40% slaves) in the 1820 census. As for Arkansas and Missouri, their populations in 1820 were 14,000 and 66,000, respectively, of which in each state ca. 10-15% were slaves.

For that reason, I wonder why Missouri and Arkansas would want to gravitate more towards Canada when they'll also be dealing with their own slave troubles?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

AFAIK, we hadn't over-industrialized since the major "industrial" product at the time produced by the mills was textiles, and because outside of urban areas, there was very little industry. New ways of manufacturing - i.e. the textile mills - were the main factor in industrializing the rest of New England, which were not used in urban areas. Fortunately for the mills, there was still a home market - in TTL, this home market would be limited to New England, unless there could be a way for the mills to sell their products in BNA.

Didn't New ENgland produce the lions share of iron at this point? Or had Pennsylvania taken the crown by now?

Sounds plausible - though there could also be the possibility of using new technology to link the two areas together - i.e., a Boston & Montreal Railroad by way of Springfield, MA and Burlington, VT?

I'm sure something could be worked out. The first thing would likely be a connexion (via rail?? canal???) to Lake Champlain and then take things by water from there up.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Hmm, your population figures are out of date by the present day iTTL. Between 1800-20, the population of (OTL) La. doubled each decade, standing at 155,000 (of whom ca. 40% slaves) in the 1820 census. As for Arkansas and Missouri, their populations in 1820 were 14,000 and 66,000, respectively, of which in each state ca. 10-15% were slaves.

For that reason, I wonder why Missouri and Arkansas would want to gravitate more towards Canada when they'll also be dealing with their own slave troubles?

My info was Missouri was ~20k at the beginning of the war. I'd actually believe the population might double in that time period.

I'd believe my info on Louisiana is way off, too. I'll go back and check some other stuff....

I THINK I was assuming that the loss of 'West FLorida' from the figures might match the growth of the rest, but that was a silly thought given the number of people flooding into the territories at the time.

 

[Dan1988]

Didn't New ENgland produce the lions share of iron at this point? Or had Pennsylvania taken the crown by now?

K, I can give you credit for that one - in my state, the big industrial product was textiles, so that might've coloured my thinking a bit.

I'm sure something could be worked out. The first thing would likely be a connexion (via rail?? canal???) to Lake Champlain and then take things by water from there up.

More likely at first a railroad between Burlington, VT and Boston, MA by way of Springfield, MA (a canal would be a pain); though later on there could be the possibility of making a Montréal-Burlington connection via Iberville. To me, this is probably the more direct route.

 

[bm79]

My info was Missouri was ~20k at the beginning of the war. I'd actually believe the population might double in that time period.

I'd believe my info on Louisiana is way off, too. I'll go back and check some other stuff....

I THINK I was assuming that the loss of 'West FLorida' from the figures might match the growth of the rest, but that was a silly thought given the number of people flooding into the territories at the time.

The 20k figure for Missouri comes from the census of 1810, which is already a startling increase from the pre-purchase French settler base of about 5,000 at the turn of the century. Arkansas in 1810 contained no more than 1,000 non-natives. Louisiana in 1810 had 76,000 inhabitants, and that doesn't include the Florida Parishes. The part of West Florida that was incorporated into La. was probably the most thinly settled part of it, and would remain so well into the 19th century (Baton Rouge won't become the state capital until 1849, and the logging industry won't take off until after the Civil War).

 

[perfectgeneral]

Didn't New ENgland produce the lions share of iron at this point? Or had Pennsylvania taken the crown by now?


I'm sure something could be worked out. The first thing would likely be a connexion (via rail?? canal???) to Lake Champlain and then take things by water from there up.

Vergennes/Burlington to Bellows Falls RR? Bellows Falls to Concord RR?

I'm not sure how far up the Connecticut River could be made navigable.

 

[Northstar]

Je voudrais une autre carte, sil vous plait.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Je voudrais une autre carte, sil vous plait.

Carte de quoi? Je vous ai déja donné une carte de toutes les colonies de l'ANB, qui marque aussi les territoires de l'EU et d'Espagne. Et une autre des frontieres en Illinois et Indiane.

Seriously, would would you like a map of? I can't think of anything more useful to post, but if I've missed something, let me know. OK?

In general, saying 'Could I have another map' is a lot less useful to me than saying 'Could I have a map showing where ....'

I'm too close to the project (as in buried inside it) to realize what would be helpful in some cases.

 

[Archangel]

The measures against slavery are a good thing to see, and they can be a good example for TTL USA.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Didn't New ENgland produce the lions share of iron at this point? Or had Pennsylvania taken the crown by now?


I'm sure something could be worked out. The first thing would likely be a connexion (via rail?? canal???) to Lake Champlain and then take things by water from there up.

not sure a Canal would have been to Lake Champlain from the St Lawrence...which probably would translate to improvements in river course of the Richlieu R. if anything. Which leads to a trnshipment for trans-Atlantic Crossing at Trois-Rivieres or VdQ rather than Montreal.

the first RR in LC ( and the Canadas in general) though was....Longueuil to Lake Champlain, in the late 30's or Early 40's I think. this were followed of course by spurs in UC and other parts of LC linking the interior (the immediate hinterland anyway) with the St. Lawrence River for transhipment to a port of departure in Montreal or VdQ.