Canada Wank (YACW)

[stevep]

Futurely the populational trend will be even more favourable to Canada, and the more or less mixed pattern of settlement may help forge a strong national identity, by not having anyone with strong majorities in most places.
There are also interesting implications for the future of other Dominions.

Archangel

That's probably the most important change in the scenario. Given more land and more rapid economic development, plus the hostility of the US, Canada will reach an economic breakthrough point so that even if relations with the US improves and it develops rapidly itself it won't drain off population and investment from Canada. With the higher rate of immigration and greater prospects it could well surpass the US in economic strength by the end of the century.

Interesting that despite the highly flow to Canada the cut in movement to the US means a boost for the other British settlement areas. S Africa could be especially interesting.

Steve

 

[Nugax]

Archangel

That's probably the most important change in the scenario. Given more land and more rapid economic development, plus the hostility of the US, Canada will reach an economic breakthrough point so that even if relations with the US improves and it develops rapidly itself it won't drain off population and investment from Canada. With the higher rate of immigration and greater prospects it could well surpass the US in economic strength by the end of the century.

Interesting that despite the highly flow to Canada the cut in movement to the US means a boost for the other British settlement areas. S Africa could be especially interesting.

Steve

Dunno about that, even if UltraCanada maintained a very high birthrate and getting all of the OTL US immigration it'd still be only 60-70% of the US population by 1900 (the Americans have that big a head start after all). Whilst I'm sure it'd be richer per capita too I'm don't think that'd make up a 30% differential to be economically stronger than the US.

Wait for 1925 .

 

[stevep]

Dunno about that, even if UltraCanada maintained a very high birthrate and getting all of the OTL US immigration it'd still be only 60-70% of the US population by 1900 (the Americans have that big a head start after all). Whilst I'm sure it'd be richer per capita too I'm don't think that'd make up a 30% differential to be economically stronger than the US.

Wait for 1925 .

Nugax

Must admit I haven't really looked at the maths but there was a hell of a lot of immigration, especially towards the end of the century. If the US stays strongly nativist, which is unlikely but possible, then very few of the latter settlers will be heading that way. Coupled with a very high rate of population growth, it must be close. Especially since a lot of the mineral wealth will not be available, which was so important for the economic development. Coupled with higher military spending I could see the US staying more agarian longer as well.

This is presuming that neither powers suffers any serious conflict or internal disruption, which is probably unlikely.

Steve

 

[Nugax]

Nugax

Must admit I haven't really looked at the maths but there was a hell of a lot of immigration, especially towards the end of the century. If the US stays strongly nativist, which is unlikely but possible, then very few of the latter settlers will be heading that way. Coupled with a very high rate of population growth, it must be close. Especially since a lot of the mineral wealth will not be available, which was so important for the economic development. Coupled with higher military spending I could see the US staying more agarian longer as well.

This is presuming that neither powers suffers any serious conflict or internal disruption, which is probably unlikely.

Steve

I was speaking from a maths position, not out of my arse - the OTL US never dipped below 84% foreign born. Even if all the 20 million odd of the 19th century go to Canada, and the 2.32 million of Dathi's current figure remain doubling every twenty years, they'll still be smaller (my absolute maximal scenario has ~42 million) than the 50 million the US can easily produce by native growth alone for 1900.

Since the US will still get some immigration, and other settler regions will also draw off people from Canada, and there is little chance of Canada retaining that doubling rate throughout the century (as they run into urbanisation and out of land), the ratio is likely to be even more in favour of the US. The US staying more agrarian means higher population growth not lower.

Dathi's doing a Canada-Wank, not a Great-White-North-Draka .

 

[stevep]

I was speaking from a maths position, not out of my arse - the OTL US never dipped below 84% foreign born. Even if all the 20 million odd of the 19th century go to Canada, and the 2.32 million of Dathi's current figure remain doubling every twenty years, they'll still be smaller (my absolute maximal scenario has ~42 million) than the 50 million the US can easily produce by native growth alone for 1900.

Since the US will still get some immigration, and other settler regions will also draw off people from Canada, and there is little chance of Canada retaining that doubling rate throughout the century (as they run into urbanisation and out of land), the ratio is likely to be even more in favour of the US. The US staying more agrarian means higher population growth not lower.

Dathi's doing a Canada-Wank, not a Great-White-North-Draka .

Nugax

OK, point taken. As you say your done the maths. Your right about the US staying more agrarian meaning higher population growth, at least at 1st. However it is likely to restrict economic development with a smaller urban population. Also as it fills up that will tend to put a break on rural population growth. Not massively, we're not going to have a massive Ireland, but it could be a factor. Especially if the plantations take up and possibly exhaust a lot of land in the next few decades. The US may stay higher in population but it could be pushed to stay the larger economy.

The Draka mentioned would be less than accurate on another point. I think Canada's going to have a fairly diverse population and might well see the Anglos as the largest minority rather than an absolute majority.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Nugax convinced me I was being too sloppy. Plugging reasonable immigration figures into a spreadsheet, doing natural increase every year. (3% Anglo, 3.5% Franco, 2% Indio) gives a 1841 data set of : 1245.7k Anglo; 1144.4k Franco; 58k Indio for a grand total of 2448.2k. Consider the earlier numbers wrong, and these correct.[/FONT]

 

[Archangel]

Archangel

That's probably the most important change in the scenario. Given more land and more rapid economic development, plus the hostility of the US, Canada will reach an economic breakthrough point so that even if relations with the US improves and it develops rapidly itself it won't drain off population and investment from Canada. With the higher rate of immigration and greater prospects it could well surpass the US in economic strength by the end of the century.

Interesting that despite the highly flow to Canada the cut in movement to the US means a boost for the other British settlement areas. S Africa could be especially interesting.

Steve

I agree, the implications of increased emmigration to South Africa are going to be very interesting, and better than OTL.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Nugax, IIRC, worried about finding places for all the Americans who would OTL have been in lands that are now not part of the US.

I cheerfully said 'OK they can go to land in other states'. I still think this is possible, and won't retcon (much), but I did do some checking. In 1840 the states and territories that are iTTL now British held some 2,336,537 people, which is more than New England. This is about double what I had expected.


OTOH... If every state has 10% more people (bigger cities, etc), and Upstate New York, Ohio, Kentucky and Alabama and Mississippi all fill up (+Pennsylvania), we can accommodate all those people. Just barely.

 

[stevep]

Dathi

Don't forget that some of that population you need to find homes for are people who came from New England/Canada/Britain and who OTL moved to the states but this time didn't. Or have you already allowed for them?

Alternatively you might see more attempts to conquer Florida or other areas in Central America by ot-settling them. Or possibly some who will swear an oath of loyalty in return for settlement in Canada/Louisiana.

Steve

Nugax, IIRC, worried about finding places for all the Americans who would OTL have been in lands that are now not part of the US.

I cheerfully said 'OK they can go to land in other states'. I still think this is possible, and won't retcon (much), but I did do some checking. In 1840 the states and territories that are iTTL now British held some 2,336,537 people, which is more than New England. This is about double what I had expected.


OTOH... If every state has 10% more people (bigger cities, etc), and Upstate New York, Ohio, Kentucky and Alabama and Mississippi all fill up (+Pennsylvania), we can accommodate all those people. Just barely.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

Don't forget that some of that population you need to find homes for are people who came from New England/Canada/Britain and who OTL moved to the states but this time didn't. Or have you already allowed for them?

Alternatively you might see more attempts to conquer Florida or other areas in Central America by ot-settling them. Or possibly some who will swear an oath of loyalty in return for settlement in Canada/Louisiana.

Steve

hmmm... OK, actually, you're right. When I did my 'proof of concept' spreadsheet for re-distributing the US population I didn't account for the lack of immigration. Even if I had, internal immigration (settlers from New England) wouldn't have showed up as 'different', and, yes, they'll be significant to a certain extent. John Deere, for one. But I have no clue how many they'd be.

Gahh...

Still, the US is filling up pretty fast, and they're going to run out of room soonish.

Thanks for catching that.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Oh, and the Métis cheese production is going to have to be something like a Swiss that ferments the Lactic acid (which is why it has bubbles). I had been thinking that lactic acid was reduced in cheeses, but apparently not, in general.

So... Maybe a goat's milk Swiss-oid? with wierd herbal seasoning?

 

[Dan1988]

Oh, and the Métis cheese production is going to have to be something like a Swiss that ferments the Lactic acid (which is why it has bubbles). I had been thinking that lactic acid was reduced in cheeses, but apparently not, in general.

So... Maybe a goat's milk Swiss-oid? with wierd herbal seasoning?

Sounds like my type.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Oops... Do you guys know how incredibly little of the stuff on French towns in the French Wiki actually is ported to the English wiki? Sheesh. Well 2 departments have their heraldry dealt with....

As I say... Oops


Anyway, here's a detail from a Nugax map that never saw light of day, showing the 'Grand' Duchy of Tejas.

Notice that they are much smaller in several directions than OTL's Texas, but do go east further.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Tejas problems...

Political furor due to Tejas



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]When Tejas declares independence in 1836, and makes itself a palatine duchy, there is an immediate uproar in British North America. Firstly, Louisiana makes loud noises that they are bigger than Tejas and really ought to be more than a conquered 'province', while Canada thinks 'Hey, if you're going to throw a sop at Louisiana which is a conquered province, that we should get more. And, of course, the Tejanos (and Texians) say 'Si, but WE are INDEPENDENT, not some colonial appendage'. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Since Canada is now rapidly approaching the size of Scotland, which is and always has been a kingdom, it seems entirely reasonable to raise Canada to the status of a Kingdom, with Queen Charlotte Queen of Canada as well as England, Scotland and Ireland. Louisiana is added as a ducal title for Leopold (Jr) with PEI and Bermuda as county titles, while Sophia (the eldest) gets the duchy of New Brunswick, and William (Prince of Wales) gets the Principality of Nova Scotia. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Unfortunately, all this negotiation takes time, and by the time it's ready to be implemented, events overtake the plan.[/FONT]

 

[Dan1988]

Oops... Do you guys know how incredibly little of the stuff on French towns in the French Wiki actually is ported to the English wiki? Sheesh. Well 2 departments have their heraldry dealt with....

As I say... Oops

Just a minor error that doesn't affect the TL, in my opinion.

In any case, so far so good.

 

[KingByng]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]When Tejas declares independence in 1936, [/FONT]

Perhaps you meant, 1836?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Perhaps you meant, 1836?

GAHH!!!!! yes of course. Frip!

 

[Dan1988]

GAHH!!!!! yes of course. Frip!

Now you'll need to compile a list of errata.

 

[Thande]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Since Canada is now rapidly approaching the size of Scotland, which is and always has been a kingdom, it seems entirely reasonable to raise Canada to the status of a Kingdom, with Queen Charlotte Queen of Canada as well as England, Scotland and Ireland.

Sorry but this is badly wrong. England, Scotland and Ireland had all ceased to exist as kingdoms since 1801 (since 1707 in the case of England and Scotland) and the only people who claimed they were still kingdoms were the Jacobite traitors, who had all pretty been gone for the last 50+ years anyway.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Sorry but this is badly wrong. England, Scotland and Ireland had all ceased to exist as kingdoms since 1801 (since 1707 in the case of England and Scotland) and the only people who claimed they were still kingdoms were the Jacobite traitors, who had all pretty been gone for the last 50+ years anyway.

Errr... Quite. I'm so used to ERII being 'Queen of Canada' and 'Queen of Australia', etc., etc., that I rather assumed that 'King of England' and 'King of Scotland' still existed as formal titles after the Union, in addition to 'King of the United Kingdom'.

Actually, they HAVE to have - the King of ENGLAND is head of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND - if he isn't King of England any more, he doesn't have any right to be head of the church, right?

Of course, this is partly common-law muddle, I'm sure. I'll try to figure out a way to fix the wording.