AH Challange, Canadain Provice of New England

The New Brunswick provincial boundaries actually make some sense, though. Ontario and Québec, however, just look suspicious - I see that Québec is still holding onto a piece of the NWT, as is Ontario. Like Daði said - Western Canada is going to look different in TTL, and that's not even including that idea-now-turning-into-a-cliché regarding future possessions in the Caribbean.

BTW, Labrador's boundary also looks a bit suspicious - the current border was only the result of a JCPC decision in 1927, and it could change in Québec's favour.
 
The New Brunswick provincial boundaries actually make some sense, though.

Figured based on the scenario we crafted long ago that the New England states would just settle the border in favour of the British claim at the time in return for the assistance they received in 2 wars with the USA.

Ontario and Québec, however, just look suspicious - I see that Québec is still holding onto a piece of the NWT, as is Ontario.


Remember, it is just a rough map. Also it's for basically present day.

Like Daði said - Western Canada is going to look different in TTL,

I suppose so. But then as it was the ideas at the time were for 1-3 provinces in what is now Alberta and Saskatchewan. One fella wanted a big province of "Buffalo" which would have included both but the people who mattered (the leaders from Ontario and Quebec) didn't want a big province that would rival Ontario and Quebec. That is unlikely to change in any TL unless that province would be viewed as a power base for Ontario and Quebec. The PM at the time (which is also unlikely to change given that the butterflies would mainly be affecting the USA and New England and less so Ontario and Quebec) preferred multiple provinces but didn't think 3 provinces were viable.

In this TL there may be more emigration to the Prairies and to Oregon Country (in spite of the HBC's discouragement of settlement) and with most of the furtrade in OTL off Oregon being conducted by ships from New England then up until New England rejoins the Empire in this rough TL it would mainly be New England interests in Oregon Country (New Englanders might even take to calling the area by the old name of New Albion/Nova Albion which more correctly applied to a longer stretch of coast) which would then become British interest and Canadian interests upon the rejoining of New England to the empire. So in TTL I think there would be more British settlement (and New Englander settlement) north and west of the Columbia River so at some point before the 1860s the border in Oregon Country would probably follow the 49th parallel and then the Columbia River.


More settlement in the area probably means 3 provinces (Alberta, Saskatachewan and Assiniboia) are probably formed and later maybe even Athabasca.

Can't see the Manitoba and Ontario borders changing much though unless someone can point me to a good bit of info on just how finely balanced the whole thing was and why mighty Ontario wouldn't win out in the end come the judicial ruling (plus since Manitoba's original border was said to extend up to the "western border of Ontario" it kind of puts the ball firmly in Ontario's court).

and that's not even including that idea-now-turning-into-a-cliché regarding future possessions in the Caribbean.

That would be much later and may still not happen.

BTW, Labrador's boundary also looks a bit suspicious - the current border was only the result of a JCPC decision in 1927, and it could change in Québec's favour.

As I said before it's a rough map.


So here is a new and better map showing things as they might have been around the 1860s (don't pay attention to the exact dates). It included the Labrador-Quebec border as existed at the time. Note that here we have PEI and Newfoundland enter the Confederation early probably due to their issues and grievances being addressed (I think the PEI had a monetary grievance which would probably not arise now that the New England province(s) would add to the coffers of the Confederation government to put towards PEI):

Canada with new england provinces and columbia river border 1867 PNG.png
 
Figured based on the scenario we crafted long ago that the New England states would just settle the border in favour of the British claim at the time in return for the assistance they received in 2 wars with the USA.

True - but what could also be a possibility is if the Massachusetts/New Brunswick border (Maine most likely remaining a region of Massachusetts in TTL, unless stated otherwise) could be along new lines. The current border between Maine and New Brunswick, based on Webster-Ashburton in the 1840s of OTL (as is the Maine/Québec border), could be changed from the Saint John River to, say, the Penobscot and Allagash Rivers. (That's what I'm using for a TL I'm working on).

Remember, it is just a rough map. Also it's for basically present day.

True, but isn't that how all maps start out as?

I suppose so. But then as it was the ideas at the time were for 1-3 provinces in what is now Alberta and Saskatchewan. One fella wanted a big province of "Buffalo" which would have included both but the people who mattered (the leaders from Ontario and Quebec) didn't want a big province that would rival Ontario and Quebec. That is unlikely to change in any TL unless that province would be viewed as a power base for Ontario and Quebec. The PM at the time (which is also unlikely to change given that the butterflies would mainly be affecting the USA and New England and less so Ontario and Quebec) preferred multiple provinces but didn't think 3 provinces were viable.

Well, since the PMs may be different in TTL, I could see someone going for three big provinces in what are now Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In this TL there may be more emigration to the Prairies and to Oregon Country (in spite of the HBC's discouragement of settlement) and with most of the furtrade in OTL off Oregon being conducted by ships from New England then up until New England rejoins the Empire in this rough TL it would mainly be New England interests in Oregon Country (New Englanders might even take to calling the area by the old name of New Albion/Nova Albion which more correctly applied to a longer stretch of coast) which would then become British interest and Canadian interests upon the rejoining of New England to the empire. So in TTL I think there would be more British settlement (and New Englander settlement) north and west of the Columbia River so at some point before the 1860s the border in Oregon Country would probably follow the 49th parallel and then the Columbia River.

Hmm, interesting idea - or, in case of a Mexico that retains its northern territories in TTL, minus Louisiana, why not go straight for the Mexican border? I know it will be giving stuff away regarding the long-awaited Part II of my TL, Kunado el Rey Nimrod (for which virtually most of what you've done so far would fit perfectly in - so again I ask, would you mind if I used your ideas?), but in my TL Mexico is pretty much a Brazil analogue, partly because it retained the monarchy longer than in OTL (since basically only the competent side of the Spanish royal family are ruling Mexico) - if Mexico in my TL retains its northern territories, it could be possible for a definitive Mexico-Canada border that would allow BC to retain most, if not all, of the Oregon Country.

More settlement in the area probably means 3 provinces (Alberta, Saskatachewan and Assiniboia) are probably formed and later maybe even Athabasca.

Makes sense.

Can't see the Manitoba and Ontario borders changing much though unless someone can point me to a good bit of info on just how finely balanced the whole thing was and why mighty Ontario wouldn't win out in the end come the judicial ruling (plus since Manitoba's original border was said to extend up to the "western border of Ontario" it kind of puts the ball firmly in Ontario's court).

Well, I just like the idea of Northern Ontario being separate from Southern and Eastern Ontario, but if one can hold Ontario's boundary at the provisional expansion, that would be fine.

That would be much later and may still not happen.

A man can dream, can't he? :D A place in the sun under Canadian control sure sounds very attractive.

As I said before it's a rough map.

Understandable.

So here is a new and better map showing things as they might have been around the 1860s (don't pay attention to the exact dates). It included the Labrador-Quebec border as existed at the time. Note that here we have PEI and Newfoundland enter the Confederation early probably due to their issues and grievances being addressed (I think the PEI had a monetary grievance which would probably not arise now that the New England province(s) would add to the coffers of the Confederation government to put towards PEI):

Looks good so far - with the possibility of some adjustments, but would be until much later. Oh, and why not have Alaska as part of Canada? It's a cliché, yes, but that would be cool to see.
 
True - but what could also be a possibility is if the Massachusetts/New Brunswick border (Maine most likely remaining a region of Massachusetts in TTL, unless stated otherwise) could be along new lines. The current border between Maine and New Brunswick, based on Webster-Ashburton in the 1840s of OTL (as is the Maine/Québec border), could be changed from the Saint John River to, say, the Penobscot and Allagash Rivers. (That's what I'm using for a TL I'm working on).

True. Either the New Englander and British could settle in favour of Britain or a new border could be agreed upon.



True, but isn't that how all maps start out as?

Yeah, just needed to reiterate that it was rough so that folks shouldn't read too much into it.


Well, since the PMs may be different in TTL, I could see someone going for three big provinces in what are now Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The PMs will definitely be different eventually, but early on the political lives of most of the first few or so PMs will probably not be changed too much by these events. What will change a lot is the course that many people's lives would take in New England (and those would came to New England in OTL). That will have knock-on effects on the whole of Canada later, and within about 2 generations I think it would become pretty difficult writing about anybody who actually existed in OTL and postulating what might have been.

However, unless the PM comes from the territories in which Alberta and Saskatchewan would be formed I doubt they would suppport one big province and I don't think the inhabitants supported one big province so much as provincehood for their individual district. Slightly different settlements though mean that 3 provinces could be viewed as more viable though.

Hmm, interesting idea - or, in case of a Mexico that retains its northern territories in TTL, minus Louisiana, why not go straight for the Mexican border?

That's a possibility as well although the TL hasn't been developed sufficiently to determine whether or not it is likely that Britain would end up controlling everything to the Mexican border in California or even if Mexico would retain its northern territories.


I know it will be giving stuff away regarding the long-awaited Part II of my TL, Kunado el Rey Nimrod (for which virtually most of what you've done so far would fit perfectly in - so again I ask, would you mind if I used your ideas?),

Well as I said before, feel absolutelt free to use whatever you want from here. If it makes a TL better, then great.


Well,
I just like the idea of Northern Ontario being separate from Southern and Eastern Ontario, but if one can hold Ontario's boundary at the provisional expansion, that would be fine.

Can't see northern Ontario remaining separate except as some kind of Keewatin territory. It never struck me as being heavily populated enough to become a separate province and often it seems the population of an area needs to have actively sought and agitated for provincehood in order for the idea to be considered. I suspect the population would also have to be European dominated. That's probably why a place Ungava (Inuits and other Native Americans) would probably never become a province until well into the 1900s, even if the Inuits and Native Americans actually wanted it. Thus it seems more likely that Ungava and Keewatin would remain as districts of the NWT or become separate territories or be absorbed by existing provinces (Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba).


A man can dream, can't he? :D A place in the sun under Canadian control sure sounds very attractive.

Yeah it could still happen. Seems like there were plenty enough instances between the 1870s and 1960s in OTL when the idea was considered. It is even considered a bit today with the Turks and Caicos Islands.


Looks good so far - with the possibility of some adjustments, but would be until much later. Oh, and why not have Alaska as part of Canada? It's a cliché, yes, but that would be cool to see.

A bit too cliched I think. I'm doubtful it was even likely. Would Russia have even considered selling it to Britain? And if Britain couldn't win it and didn't bother taking it in the Crimean War why would they even bother in the future?

I think it may end up as a US territory if the US ends up with a slightly stronger culture of expansionism in a kind of backlash to the losses (perceived and real) in the 2 wars with Britain after independence (including a war with Spain). Either that it may just remain a Russian territory that experiences an influx of Russian, American and Canadian/British settlers when gold is discovered (but even then there would probably be a large enough influx of Russian settlers that the territory would never be in danger of become Americanized or Canadianized). It would just be more interesting I think if it remained Russian.
 
True - but what could also be a possibility is if the Massachusetts/New Brunswick border (Maine most likely remaining a region of Massachusetts in TTL, unless stated otherwise) could be along new lines. The current border between Maine and New Brunswick, based on Webster-Ashburton in the 1840s of OTL (as is the Maine/Québec border), could be changed from the Saint John River to, say, the Penobscot and Allagash Rivers. (That's what I'm using for a TL I'm working on).



True, but isn't that how all maps start out as?



Well, since the PMs may be different in TTL, I could see someone going for three big provinces in what are now Alberta and Saskatchewan.



Hmm, interesting idea - or, in case of a Mexico that retains its northern territories in TTL, minus Louisiana, why not go straight for the Mexican border? I know it will be giving stuff away regarding the long-awaited Part II of my TL, Kunado el Rey Nimrod (for which virtually most of what you've done so far would fit perfectly in - so again I ask, would you mind if I used your ideas?), but in my TL Mexico is pretty much a Brazil analogue, partly because it retained the monarchy longer than in OTL (since basically only the competent side of the Spanish royal family are ruling Mexico) - if Mexico in my TL retains its northern territories, it could be possible for a definitive Mexico-Canada border that would allow BC to retain most, if not all, of the Oregon Country.



Makes sense.



Well, I just like the idea of Northern Ontario being separate from Southern and Eastern Ontario, but if one can hold Ontario's boundary at the provisional expansion, that would be fine.



A man can dream, can't he? :D A place in the sun under Canadian control sure sounds very attractive.



Understandable.



Looks good so far - with the possibility of some adjustments, but would be until much later. Oh, and why not have Alaska as part of Canada? It's a cliché, yes, but that would be cool to see.

Well should the Stikine incident of the late 30's go in Britain's favour instead of standoff and then negotiated settlement then the HBC might just strangle the RAC trade enough that thinkg are not so cordial between the RAC and HBC during an equivalent Crimea.

Otl..the Russians had an ex New Englander ship ( or maybe it was just American, can't remember exactly) in service that out gunned the Dryad..here the New Englanders are likely to bound up inthe coastal trade of the NW either in partnership with the HBC or as competitors. either case probably weakens the position of the RAC considerably.
 

Skokie

Banned
Too early a POD and you'd wind up with a New England stretching from Vancouver Island to St. John's, rather than a larger Canada. New England lead in population, industry, trade and most everything else for a long time.

A POD with the dissolution of the US government, either through a Southern win in the ACW or some kind of settlement, would be my bet. New York, PA and other northern states join with the slave states in a loose confederation. New England stays true to its abolitionist spirit, and (ironically, after fighting for union) secedes or rather never accedes to a confederation with slave states.

By the late 19th century, Canada was an actual country (I'm assuming, they don't teach us these things in the US ;)), and the radical Puritan element of New England had dissipated, so there would be much less resistance on both sides to accession to the Federation.

The addition of New England, with its mills and universities, would transform Canadian life in fantastic ways. Or maybe not. You could have three solitudes with their backs to each other.
 
Too early a POD and you'd wind up with a New England stretching from Vancouver Island to St. John's, rather than a larger Canada. New England lead in population, industry, trade and most everything else for a long time.

Skokie, read the first two pages. This idea seems to be a misconception. As best as I can tell New England and Canada (Ontario, Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland) had roughly the same population between 1840 and 1870 and could well have had similarly sized populations from as far back as 1800 (the data I've come across is too sketchy before 1840). At worst New England went from have a 2:1 ratio in terms of population with Canada in 1800 to having 1:1 (and at one point 0.99:1) ration by the mid 1800s.

A POD with the dissolution of the US government, either through a Southern win in the ACW or some kind of settlement, would be my bet. New York, PA and other northern states join with the slave states in a loose confederation. New England stays true to its abolitionist spirit, and (ironically, after fighting for union) secedes or rather never accedes to a confederation with slave states.

By the late 19th century, Canada was an actual country (I'm assuming, they don't teach us these things in the US ;)), and the radical Puritan element of New England had dissipated, so there would be much less resistance on both sides to accession to the Federation.

The addition of New England, with its mills and universities, would transform Canadian life in fantastic ways. Or maybe not. You could have three solitudes with their backs to each other.

A POD after the ACW might well be too difficult. By 1860 it had been 84 years since the American Revolution began and 77 years since the war for independence ended. I don't think anyone was even alive who had experienced the conflict much less what life was like before it. A POD after 1860 might well see an independent New England that became an effective British protectorate sort of like all of those Latin American republics which were protected by the Monroe Doctrine as unofficially enforced by the Royal Navy. So New England under that scenario might well wind up as an odd combination of Portugal (with a treaty of alliance) and parts of Latin America (within the unofficial trade empire). It's also difficult to see New England going back to monarchial rule and colonial rule after 70-odd years under a republican system and effective independence. It could happen but it seems less likely. Of course the Boer Republics ended up under a monarchial system but it wasn't a really a choice....
 
So here is a new and better map showing things as they might have been around the 1860s (don't pay attention to the exact dates). It included the Labrador-Quebec border as existed at the time. Note that here we have PEI and Newfoundland enter the Confederation early probably due to their issues and grievances being addressed (I think the PEI had a monetary grievance which would probably not arise now that the New England province(s) would add to the coffers of the Confederation government to put towards PEI):

NO, my friend, that is most certainly NOT the Québec-Labrador border as it existed at the time of Confederation. The border you laid out in your map wasn't decided until 1927. Until then, NFL's came to Labrador didn't extend beyond the coastal regions...

Here's a map of Canada in 1905:

1905-v5-e.jpg
 
Well should the Stikine incident of the late 30's go in Britain's favour instead of standoff and then negotiated settlement then the HBC might just strangle the RAC trade enough that thinkg are not so cordial between the RAC and HBC during an equivalent Crimea.

Otl..the Russians had an ex New Englander ship ( or maybe it was just American, can't remember exactly) in service that out gunned the Dryad..here the New Englanders are likely to bound up inthe coastal trade of the NW either in partnership with the HBC or as competitors. either case probably weakens the position of the RAC considerably.

Makes sense. If that is the only plausible way to have a British/Canadian Alaska, then so be it.

Too early a POD and you'd wind up with a New England stretching from Vancouver Island to St. John's, rather than a larger Canada. New England lead in population, industry, trade and most everything else for a long time.

True, unless Metro Boston could be incorporated into the Toronto-Montréal axis.

A POD with the dissolution of the US government, either through a Southern win in the ACW or some kind of settlement, would be my bet. New York, PA and other northern states join with the slave states in a loose confederation. New England stays true to its abolitionist spirit, and (ironically, after fighting for union) secedes or rather never accedes to a confederation with slave states.

Interesting.

By the late 19th century, Canada was an actual country (I'm assuming, they don't teach us these things in the US ;)), and the radical Puritan element of New England had dissipated, so there would be much less resistance on both sides to accession to the Federation.

The addition of New England, with its mills and universities, would transform Canadian life in fantastic ways. Or maybe not. You could have three solitudes with their backs to each other.

True.
 
NO, my friend, that is most certainly NOT the Québec-Labrador border as it existed at the time of Confederation. The border you laid out in your map wasn't decided until 1927. Until then, NFL's came to Labrador didn't extend beyond the coastal regions...

Here's a map of Canada in 1905:

Actually, I doubt any map shows the correct border between 1905 and 1927. The map I am using is from take-with-a-lot-salt wikipedia (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Canada) and it shows exactly the border I've used as well as a different border in 1927. Granted a couple of things I guess need to be borne in mind:

1. From what I understand of the Labrador dispute (I think there were actually 2 disputes at different times if I'm not mistaken) the map you've provided shows the OTL Canadian claim as to what the border was.

2. Most likely the map I found shows the Newfoundland claim (which extended to the watershed/height of the land, it was Canada which claimed it only went about 1-2 miles past the coast).

In any event, I'd be guessing that one of the conditions needed to get Newfoundland to join would be for the Newfoundland claim to be accepted. This would probably obviate Newfoundland getting the small rectangular portion of territory that it disputed with Quebec at some point.

EDIT: Actually if one looks at the Canadian government's own "Atlas of Canada" site one will see the border used in the map I modified (as well as a different border in 1927) and not the one with Labrador's border only hugging the coast.
 
Last edited:
You guys do realize that by the 80s and 90s, that with such radical demographics (IE Quebec and Western Canada being such small portions of the nation) that both would likely have declared independence by now.
 
You guys do realize that by the 80s and 90s, that with such radical demographics (IE Quebec and Western Canada being such small portions of the nation) that both would likely have declared independence by now.

You are assuming that by now the Western Canada in any TL with New England in it and possibly a whole host of different settlers and settlement patterns will be just as different from the rest of Canada as Western Canada is today.

You are also assuming that Quebec experiences a revival of the nationalism in the 1950s that was lost in the 1830s/1840s (and would probably still be lost in this TL since it was more of a local affair than something heavily dependent on the status of New England or what the US was up to). As Quebec went for basically 100 years without serious nationalist agitation I don't see why it should be assumed that they will experience it again, especially if this different Canada goes through a lot of different experiences (there may be no World Wars for instance which I'm sure helped to foster a rebirth of Quebecois self-identity).
 

Skokie

Banned
Skokie, read the first two pages. This idea seems to be a misconception. As best as I can tell New England and Canada (Ontario, Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland) had roughly the same population between 1840 and 1870 and could well have had similarly sized populations from as far back as 1800 (the data I've come across is too sketchy before 1840). At worst New England went from have a 2:1 ratio in terms of population with Canada in 1800 to having 1:1 (and at one point 0.99:1) ration by the mid 1800s.

I was thinking 17th and 18th centuries. But even an 1840 POD might make Canada unrecognizable.

New York is a good example. New York and (Eastern) New Jersey, even before the hand over from the Dutch to the British, was basically a colony of New England. New Englanders settled New York, New Jersey, the Great Lakes, Midwest, Great Plains, Mountain West and West. They had very large families and a self-assured culture. Wherever they went they replicated their towns and institutions.

That's why I say a later POD is necessary. You need to have New England be in relative decline, otherwise they'll be taking over rather than joining Canada.

A POD after the ACW might well be too difficult. By 1860 it had been 84 years since the American Revolution began and 77 years since the war for independence ended. I don't think anyone was even alive who had experienced the conflict much less what life was like before it. A POD after 1860 might well see an independent New England that became an effective British protectorate sort of like all of those Latin American republics which were protected by the Monroe Doctrine as unofficially enforced by the Royal Navy. So New England under that scenario might well wind up as an odd combination of Portugal (with a treaty of alliance) and parts of Latin America (within the unofficial trade empire). It's also difficult to see New England going back to monarchial rule and colonial rule after 70-odd years under a republican system and effective independence. It could happen but it seems less likely. Of course the Boer Republics ended up under a monarchial system but it wasn't a really a choice....

I think the trauma of the dissolution of the Union would be enough for them. But it might take some time, with an independent republic in between. The existence of hundreds of thousands of Canadian immigrants in New England might complicate things. They might be seen as fifth-columnists. Or maybe they'll form the core constituency that is for accession, if they're able to vote.

Another reason why I say a later POD is necessary is the political and religious culture of New England. It was violently Puritan in the early period. How are you going to reconcile that with the Toryism/Anglicanism and (egads) Catholicism in Canada?
 
That's why I say a later POD is necessary. You need to have New England be in relative decline, otherwise they'll be taking over rather than joining Canada.

By the middle of the 19th century, it was already starting to decline anyway since millowners started to move their operations to the South, because it was cheaper to produce textiles there. It was also during the middle of the 19th century that the first French-Canadian "wave" of immigration came to New England (I being a product of the French-Canadian immigration to New England), which allowed some millowners to continue operations since French-Canadians, because of their Catholicism, were considered to be easier to use than native-born Yankees (because they were so docile and were willing to work for almost nothing).


Another reason why I say a later POD is necessary is the political and religious culture of New England. It was violently Puritan in the early period. How are you going to reconcile that with the Toryism/Anglicanism and (egads) Catholicism in Canada?

That's mainly Massachusetts - New Hampshire, Connecticut, and (especially) Rhode Island were not into the whole Puritanism thing (in Rhode Island's case, it was part of its ideal "to hold forth a lively experiment" in the separation of church and state, to use Roger Williams's words); thus, it would be easy to reconcile Toryism/Anglicanism with the cultures of New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. It's mainly Massachusetts (and, by extension, Maine) where that would be a problem, but that could be dampered by the whole mercantile aspect of the place. New markets found? It's an opportunity to do business! :cool:
 
I was thinking 17th and 18th centuries. But even an 1840 POD might make Canada unrecognizable.

New York is a good example. New York and (Eastern) New Jersey, even before the hand over from the Dutch to the British, was basically a colony of New England. New Englanders settled New York, New Jersey, the Great Lakes, Midwest, Great Plains, Mountain West and West. They had very large families and a self-assured culture. Wherever they went they replicated their towns and institutions.

That's why I say a later POD is necessary. You need to have New England be in relative decline, otherwise they'll be taking over rather than joining Canada.

Not necessarily. A later POD would also allow a New England identity (and more importantly specific state identities) to develop that much further and become cemented.

Have you read through the ideas thrown about on the first two pages? Basically in pulling them all together we postulate that a failed constitutional convention leads to the Articles of Confederation period US continuing for a bit longer and then disputes arising between the states (or rather old disputes continuing compounded by some new disputes). This eventually could have led to a rupture between the New England states and the likes of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia (along with the rest of the states more or less). Couple that with the occasional war scares in OTL developing into an actual war with Britain in the early 1790s and you could get a New England that within 17 years had moved from being a set of British colonies in dispute with Britain over trade/taxes to being independent states in league with other states to being basically kicked out the confederation and ending up in a war against their former brothers-in-arms and allied to their former cousins-in-arms. That time period is easily a short enough time frame for a lot of the adult population to remember the whole experience and what life was like when there was peace (1770). So now with an early split in the US and a new war the idea that independence was a mistake would probably take seed (after all striving for it has resulted in 2 wars in 17 years and serious disruption in trade during those times and even during some of the times of peace). Throw in an a slightly alternate war of 1812 and by the mid 1810s New Englanders would have faced one (increasingly distant) war against Britain and two (fresh and bitter) wars with America and been independent for about 32-39 years with not much to show for it.


I think the trauma of the dissolution of the Union would be enough for them. But it might take some time, with an independent republic in between.

Yeah that's pretty much what we came up with. Figured though that a bit more trauma would have been required (war against the Union).

The existence of hundreds of thousands of Canadian immigrants in New England might complicate things. They might be seen as fifth-columnists. Or maybe they'll form the core constituency that is for accession, if they're able to vote.

The earlier POD would butterfly this away and allow for the New England population to still know some of their former compatriots who became United Empire Loyalists in the 1770s-1780s. If correspondence is re-established (as could happen if some of those Loyalists end up in the British military and help to relieve beseiged New Englanders or as could just happen with mail and travel and business) then to a number of New Englanders life might seem better for these Loyalists than for themselves.



Another reason why I say a later POD is necessary is the political and religious culture of New England. It was violently Puritan in the early period. How are you going to reconcile that with the Toryism/Anglicanism and (egads) Catholicism in Canada?

As Dan said that was mainly Massachussetts and even so, Massachussetts wasn't so violently Puritan so as not to cooperate with the rest of the American colonies in pressing for independence. Besides hadn't the Puritanism been dampened somewhat by the 1780s anyway? If not 2 wars between 1790 and 1816 would probably help dampen it in relation to their Tory/Anglican-Catholic allies as would the disruption in trade between the late 1780s and mid 1810s caused by war and any trade wars between the US and Britain and later between the US and New England (coupled with the fact that even an independent New England might not get as favourable trade terms as Canadian colonies).
 

Skokie

Banned
That's mainly Massachusetts - New Hampshire, Connecticut, and (especially) Rhode Island were not into the whole Puritanism thing (in Rhode Island's case, it was part of its ideal "to hold forth a lively experiment" in the separation of church and state, to use Roger Williams's words); thus, it would be easy to reconcile Toryism/Anglicanism with the cultures of New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

Meh! RI wasn't that tolerant. They still managed to kick out Anne Hutchinson (who found refuge in the Bronx, btw. Nieuw Amsterdam, ftw!).

Chris S said:
As Dan said that was mainly Massachussetts and even so, Massachussetts wasn't so violently Puritan so as not to cooperate with the rest of the American colonies in pressing for independence.

Well they were up against the Crown, for pity's sake. They'd have allied themselves with Beelzebub or the Pope.

Besides hadn't the Puritanism been dampened somewhat by the 1780s anyway? If not 2 wars between 1790 and 1816 would probably help dampen it in relation to their Tory/Anglican-Catholic allies as would the disruption in trade between the late 1780s and mid 1810s caused by war and any trade wars between the US and Britain and later between the US and New England (coupled with the fact that even an independent New England might not get as favourable trade terms as Canadian colonies).

Definitely, it had died down by then. But! Puritanism simply became Yankee culture.

Puritan immigration
New England extended west into New York
...and the Great Lakes
...and eventually beyond, to the great plains
And finally to the West Coast (key)

We are Puritans. We are legion. Well, not quite. But they were prolific. Probably the most prolific colonizing people in the New World. I suppose I looked at it from the point of view of demography and certain theories about founder effects in the cultural background of Canada vs. the US.
 
Meh! RI wasn't that tolerant. They still managed to kick out Anne Hutchinson (who found refuge in the Bronx, btw. Nieuw Amsterdam, ftw!).

Yes but that was in the 1640s. We are talking about more than 130 years later and at least 4 whole generations later in the 1780s.

Look on it this way. In the 1600s people who were accused of being witches would have been executed in various fashions both in (Old) England and New England. By 1740 witchcraft was no longer a legal offence in Britain and people accused of such were then viewed as being fraudsters instead of a threat to society and children.

Likewise in New England people had been accused of and murdered for witchcraft and by the early 1700s members of a congregation in the Salem Church had voted to reverse the excommunication of one of those poor bastards. Other reversals of excommunication happened also in the early 1700s and the court itself later reversed judgement on about 20 people whom it had previously judged and convicted of witchcraft.

Well they were up against the Crown, for pity's sake. They'd have allied themselves with Beelzebub or the Pope.

Yes, and likewise if they were up against any invading army they would ally themselves with Catholics and Tory-Anglicans (after the Pope was Catholic and Beelzebub might as well have been Catholic for some people). So if an American army invades New England, razes some towns and beseiges Boston, I don't think the New Englanders would find it difficult accepting aid from the Crown and it's Anglican and Catholic subjects.


Definitely, it had died down by then. But! Puritanism simply became Yankee culture.

Puritan immigration
New England extended west into New York
...and the Great Lakes
...and eventually beyond, to the great plains
And finally to the West Coast (key)

We are Puritans. We are legion. Well, not quite. But they were prolific. Probably the most prolific colonizing people in the New World. I suppose I looked at it from the point of view of demography and certain theories about founder effects in the cultural background of Canada vs. the US.

But all of that would have occurred long after any early POD and could well be butterflied away. Basically the Puritans of 1640-1680 would not have as much effect on New England in 1780 (or even later) since by then a lot has happened.
 
Top