AHC: Have Canada Become The Superpower That The US Would

...they did?[1]
Okay, that is honestly hilarious.[2]

...can I bank this post and use it against any future appearance of 1800s American Exceptionalism?[3]


Sorry for the joshing. And fair points all... yes, SuperCanada is going to not stay within the Empire IF the Empire tries to pull it around. [4] OTOH, it's at least possible for the Empire to become more of a symbolic thing (like OTL Commonwealth, perhaps?) with maybe de facto Canadian steering, and...
Eh, it's a thought.


SuperCanada would be a strange place.

1] They did. Hey, it was the Hayes Administration, one so corrupt that the SecNav basically pocketed the entire naval budget for re-construction. The navy by this time consisted of a handful of old Civil war Monitors that were rotting away because the wood that they had been partially built with was not properly aged. Hayes simply called his SecNav into his office and told him: "Your resignation (unoffered) is accepted". Short of Benjamin Harrison, Hayes was the most Gilded of the Gilded Era presidents, and its most politically corrupt (one of the four "Stolen election" presidents, along with J.Q. Adams, B. Harrison, and G.W. Bush).

2] Not if you're in San Diego in 1879:eek:

3] 1800s? Who ever said that?

4] The real problem could be if Canada starts to become Super Canada while at the same time Britain is still being run by the same corrupt rotten borough mercantilist/submissionists that helped get the ARW going.:(
 
Super Canada, like the USA, would spend the 19th century obsessed with its own development. It wouldn't have the time, resources, or manpower to waste on foreign adventurism short of something like the Mexican War. Its hardly a coincidence that shortly before the last of the contiguous 48 states became full state status that full on American Imperialism began. I'd expect a Super Canada at this time to be a much warmer closer ally to the Empire once internal development was completed.

But as long as Super Canada is still basically a well-to-do Third World country, it has too much to do at home.

I'm not expecting it to provide the full force of the Royal Navy or anything. Canadians however were serving all over the place in the British Empire. A Canadian won the Victoria Cross during the Crimean War. If this nation is going to be any sort of Canada parallel it will view maintenance of empire to be a major issue. The frontier of Canada was seen as only one part of the British Empire.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
1] They did. Hey, it was the Hayes Administration, one so corrupt that the SecNav basically pocketed the entire naval budget for re-construction. The navy by this time consisted of a handful of old Civil war Monitors that were rotting away because the wood that they had been partially built with was not properly aged. Hayes simply called his SecNav into his office and told him: "Your resignation (unoffered) is accepted". Short of Benjamin Harrison, Hayes was the most Gilded of the Gilded Era presidents, and its most politically corrupt (one of the four "Stolen election" presidents, along with J.Q. Adams, B. Harrison, and G.W. Bush).

2] Not if you're in San Diego in 1879:eek:

3] 1800s? Who ever said that?

4] The real problem could be if Canada starts to become Super Canada while at the same time Britain is still being run by the same corrupt rotten borough mercantilist/submissionists that helped get the ARW going.:(

1) OW.
2) Fair point.
3) I've run into at least one person who claims the US could lose no war from 1776 onwards with the exception of the Mexican-American War.
4) Doubtful, since North basically lost his job for it. OTL policy to Canada was quite startlingly enlightened in general.
 
Easy. Water. Climate change will leave most of the USA a desert outside of the Northwest, Northeast, and perhaps the northern Rockies and the rest of the Eastern Seaboard. This process i am describing is one of generations, not just a few years or decades.

Doubtful. Many Americans love desert living - Arizona and Nevada are two of the fastest-growing states. What will probably happen is there will be greater desalination of ocean water. Government subsidies will reduce its cost. Americans are intensely patriotic and emigration from the U.S. has never been common. (Right now, immigrants from Canada to the U.S. outnumber the reverse by a four-to-one margin, despite the fact that the U.S. has nearly 10 times the population.) Those Americans who don't like the desert will just move to the northern states. Remember that Alaska also gets warm in your scenario.
 
Last edited:
Biggest things to me is trying to resolve the early political decisions that hemmed Canada in.

1) after the American revolution the western border was set basically at otl boundary. This actually set the border North of where the Montreal fur traders had outposts on the sw shore of Lake Superior. Keeping these lands allows for a difficult but doable lake land link to the plains and access to the upper waters of the Mississippi river
2) don't expell the Acadians. If truly a risk then move them west
3) the Hudson bay company was strongly anti settlement in its lands. A change in direction for them to be merchants earlier irrespective of good allows farmland settlement earlier and allows for greater settlement of the plains pushing furher south
4) immigration was limited for many years to Anglo Saxon races only up until the late 1870s changing this policy to allow for more British allies such as Venice gives a bigger population pool. Can also be expanded to become French monarchists sanctuary and hannouver settlement
5) an earlier veterans settlement grant. Large parts of the west were settled by boer war ww1 and ww2 veterans. An earlier program allows for structured settlement and a well trained militia pool for security
6) establishment of a native homeland in the northwest allows for a) sanctuary b) credibility and c) larger population Center. Issue is a leader like tsceumech (sp?) is needed
7) allow for earlier Irish migration. Even early 1800s irish were considered second class to the scots dominated culture. Could be tied to changes to enclosure laws requiring resettlement (and there is all those lumber ships returning empty) or as famine relief with crown sponsored immigration. Canada had both catholic French based communities and English protestant allowing dispersal on religious basis
8) need to encourage settlement sooner on the west coast. Trouble is this competes with Australia.
9) need to map the country sooner. This was a large part of problems at treaty negotiations where the crown did not have updated maps. Some companies (hbc) did not want to revel the size of their holdings which screwed Canada long term. Change it so crown support of a company meant reporting to the admiralty maps on a regular basis. Helps not just with Canada but worldwide as routes and access are known
10) allow for greater industrial development in all colonies. Manufacturing is allowed in the colonies sooner in exchange for English residents being part owners. Allows for greater infrastructure to be locally funded with cash still returning to England Need to break the cycle of being just hewers of wood
 

Kingpoleon

Banned
The UK has the Gulf Stream. Except for the Maritime Provinces, Canada doesn't. It's cold up there![/u] Not for nothing did the Lakota eventually give up and head back to the USA despite a dark fate awaiting them. Their way of life could not survive in the harsh Canadian winters. The Crow, Inuit, and other Canadian native tribes knew how, Sitting Bull's people didn't.

Is this a joke? "It's too cold! The British monarchy hates cold!" just might be the worst excuse I have ever heard. Not only that, you don't seem to understand that more land means that more people are possible. Until you read my posts, please stop listing uncivilized tribes that could not do it because they don't have the same technology as the mighty British Empire.
Also, @ above, I have a slight nitpick. The phrase: "more British allies such as Venice... 1870s... et cetera." Venice didn't exist in the 1800s... at all.
 
My fault on the Venice comment. Was reading a while back how select Europeans groups were targeted for settling the west. Polish Germans select Russian minorities etc but Italians were not recommended due to a misconception the were from a southern climate and would not flourish. Venice was the only city I culd think of at the time and was not a good call
 
7) allow for earlier Irish migration. Even early 1800s irish were considered second class to the scots dominated culture. Could be tied to changes to enclosure laws requiring resettlement (and there is all those lumber ships returning empty) or as famine relief with crown sponsored immigration. Canada had both catholic French based communities and English protestant allowing dispersal on religious basis

Irish immigration to Canada actually was substantial from the 1840s onward, particularly to Quebec. However, they found common cause with the French-Canadian population, which was also Catholic, and to a large degree assimilated into their culture. Many changed their last names into French-sounding ones. (For example, Riley would become Riel, and Sullivan would become Sylvain.) Today, it's been said that as much as 40% of French Canadians have some degree of Irish ancestry.
 
Last edited:
Can't be done, not with OTL territory and OTL technology. Canada could be a "superpower" as part of a larger entity, though (British Empire in a no Revolution TL, British Empire in an Imperial Federation TL, part of the US).
 
1781: Rochambeau cannot convince Washington to attack Cornwallis in Virginia instead of British-occupied New York. The Franco-American attack on New York is indecisive. Cornwallis escapes.

1784: Britain and the US sign a peace treaty which recognizes American independence. But the Americans are in a weaker bargaining position. Britain keeps what would have been the Northwest Territory OTL.

1803: The US purchases the Louisiana Territory from France.

1812: Britain and France are locked in a long war. The US, angered by British attacks on its shipping and impressment of its sailors, declares war. Britain curbstomps the Americans, who lose Maine, access to Lakes Erie and Ontario, and Louisiana north of the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi, which is 37 degrees north latitude.

1818: The US expresses interest in jointly settling the Oregon Country with Britain. The British refuse and the US, unable to press on the matter, back down.

1848: The US and Mexico go to war over the disputed territory of Texas, which both nations claim. The US is doing well on the battlefield. Many American politicians hope to compel Mexico to yield California and all of the desert lands between it and Texas. Britain bluntly informs the United States that it will accept American rule in Texas, but no land further west than the Rio Grande. The Americans acquiesce.

1860: Gold is discovered in California. British settlement in Oregon extends south. Britain purchases northern California and Nevada from Mexico, paying in cash to a government which barely rules past Mexico City.

1906: The Russian government, desperate for money after recently losing a war, sells the indefensible Alaska Territory to Britain. This land becomes a part of Canada, which gradually emerges as a completely independent nation in the early part of the Twentieth Century.

How's that?
 
I'm not expecting it to provide the full force of the Royal Navy or anything. Canadians however were serving all over the place in the British Empire. A Canadian won the Victoria Cross during the Crimean War. If this nation is going to be any sort of Canada parallel it will view maintenance of empire to be a major issue. The frontier of Canada was seen as only one part of the British Empire.

Yes, but both the economic and demographic draw of that hinterland will draw the adventurous Canadians inward, not overseas.

3) I've run into at least one person who claims the US could lose no war from 1776 onwards with the exception of the Mexican-American War.[1]
4) Doubtful, since North basically lost his job for it. [2] OTL policy to Canada was quite startlingly enlightened in general. [3]

1] There ARE a lot of kids on this forum.:rolleyes:
2] By then it was too late.
3] In the ARW, Canada was in a state comparable to the American Colonies in 1690. British policies towards the Colonies back then were pretty good too. And as far as how Canada was treated as opposed to the American Colonies from 1763 to 1783, "Once burned, twice learned".

Doubtful. Many Americans love desert living - Arizona and Nevada are two of the fastest-growing states. What will probably happen is there will be greater desalination of ocean water. Government subsidies will reduce its cost. Americans are intensely patriotic and emigration from the U.S. has never been common. (Right now, immigrants from Canada to the U.S. outnumber the reverse by a four-to-one margin, despite the fact that the U.S. has nearly 10 times the population.) Those Americans who don't like the desert will just move to the northern states. Remember that Alaska also gets warm in your scenario.

That desert water is running out, and seawater desalinization is not economically supportable over the long run. Change the temperatures, and those immigration-emigration numbers could change drastically.

Biggest things to me is trying to resolve the early political decisions that hemmed Canada in.

1) after the American revolution the western border was set basically at otl boundary. This actually set the border North of where the Montreal fur traders had outposts on the sw shore of Lake Superior. Keeping these lands allows for a difficult but doable lake land link to the plains and access to the upper waters of the Mississippi river

LOCs allow a flood of US settlers while the LOCs for Canadians suck canal water:(

3) the Hudson bay company was strongly anti settlement in its lands. A change in direction for them to be merchants earlier irrespective of good allows farmland settlement earlier and allows for greater settlement of the plains pushing furher south

How? How does the Hudson Bay Company come to this decision?

4) immigration was limited for many years to Anglo Saxon races only up until the late 1870s changing this policy to allow for more British allies such as Venice gives a bigger population pool. Can also be expanded to become French monarchists sanctuary and hannouver settlement

I know that you're not supposed to accuse the British Empire of racism, but not all racism crossed color lines.:(

5) an earlier veterans settlement grant. Large parts of the west were settled by boer war ww1 and ww2 veterans. An earlier program allows for structured settlement and a well trained militia pool for security

This will mean displacing Native Canadian tribes

6) establishment of a native homeland in the northwest allows for a) sanctuary b) credibility and c) larger population Center. Issue is a leader like Tecumseh needed.

Problem: The Natives, being mostly Stone Age nomads, could not even accept the very concept of "owned lands". Also, concentration of Native tribes would have to happen in regions where they lived, but where White men wanted to develop. Plus it helps spread White man's diseases.:(

7) allow for earlier Irish migration. Even early 1800s irish were considered second class to the scots dominated culture. Could be tied to changes to enclosure laws requiring resettlement (and there is all those lumber ships returning empty) or as famine relief with crown sponsored immigration. Canada had both catholic French based communities and English protestant allowing dispersal on religious basis

You'd essentially have to have NO United States of any kind ITTL, as many Irish Potato Famine refugees wanted to go anywhere but where the Union Jack flew.

8) need to encourage settlement sooner on the west coast. Trouble is this competes with Australia.

Not really. Oz wasn't a true settlement colony until long after Canada got going. And the California and Klondike Gold Rush(es) will be all the West Coast encouragemnt you'll need. That, and warm weather, good farmland, wine, tourism:p, invention of film:D, etc, etc, etc.

9) need to map the country sooner. This was a large part of problems at treaty negotiations where the crown did not have updated maps. Some companies (hbc) did not want to revel the size of their holdings which screwed Canada long term. Change it so crown support of a company meant reporting to the admiralty maps on a regular basis. Helps not just with Canada but worldwide as routes and access are known

This will require direct intervention by the Crown, #10, Whitehall, AND Parliament.

10) allow for greater industrial development in all colonies. Manufacturing is allowed in the colonies sooner in exchange for English residents being part owners. Allows for greater infrastructure to be locally funded with cash still returning to England Need to break the cycle of being just hewers of wood

That will require total abandonment of mercantilism. It took the ARW to do that in the Colonies. In a peaceful Empire where little or none of the Colonies were ever fully lost? Lotsa Luck!


Another Phi Beta Kappa Summa Cum Laude graduate of the Miss Manners School, I see.:rolleyes:
 
Top