CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
With a PoD any time before 1867, have Upper and Lower Canada gain their independence as one or two independent republics. This independence has to last (so no annexation by the US or reconquest by Britain).
AHC: Independent Canada
- Thread starter CthulhuFhtagn
- Start date
We could have a bigger French presence in Lower Canada from the start, which would lead to more French troops in the French and Indian War, which could result in a more indecisive war. The treaty that ends it could result in Lower Canada being French and Upper being English, resulting in 2 countries.
TFSmith121
Banned
There's a question - it is certainly possible, but the reality
There's a question - it is certainly possible, but the reality is that in an era where great power politics was fixed on territorial control, rather than simply creating proxies, could either or both have been able to wrangle independence, as such?
Independence meaning something more than dominion status, I take it?
The problem with being a mouse (okay, a large mouse, but still) between two elephants is self-evident.
Independence for a (small) Canada (or Canadas) in this period would seem to require the acquiescence of at least one of the great powers, if only to provide a security umbrella for la petite Canada against the other...
I could see the US doing so, in the aftermath of say, an Anglo-American war in the 1860s
, but I have a harder time seeing Britain doing that, at least before the Twentieth Century.
Interested in the opinions of other, for obvious reasons.
Best,
There's a question - it is certainly possible, but the reality is that in an era where great power politics was fixed on territorial control, rather than simply creating proxies, could either or both have been able to wrangle independence, as such?
Independence meaning something more than dominion status, I take it?
The problem with being a mouse (okay, a large mouse, but still) between two elephants is self-evident.
Independence for a (small) Canada (or Canadas) in this period would seem to require the acquiescence of at least one of the great powers, if only to provide a security umbrella for la petite Canada against the other...
I could see the US doing so, in the aftermath of say, an Anglo-American war in the 1860s
, but I have a harder time seeing Britain doing that, at least before the Twentieth Century.Interested in the opinions of other, for obvious reasons.
Best,
Well there are minor problems with it becoming an independent republic. Post Revolutionary War the elites (and many average people in the Canadas) had by and large outright rejected republicanism (really bad experiences with revolutionaries tend to do that) which meant that when it came to setting up local governing bodies in the Canadas they of course turned to the Parliamentary model.
Now there are few chances to change this, most of the immigrants who came to the Canadas were perfectly comfortable as Imperial citizens and under the Colonial government, so no radical republicanism taking over in an easy sense.
However, a useful POD might be if there was anything resembling a coherent platform amongst the revolutionaries of 1837-38. The problem with those revolts being that their radical nature had a nasty habit of splitting the populations down the middle since they couldn't find a middle ground to appeal to, and the French vs English thing too. Find a way to butterfly that and you could get a coherent revolutionary group which manages to appeal to a broad base of the people of the Canadas and though it probably won't succeed (Britain is Britain after all, at the height of her Imperial power) you could at least get a post-revolutionary party which agitates for more control over its own affairs, which as time went on London would be more than happy to provide. A plausible way might be to make them more receptive to taking over the cost of their own defense, which had been a huge contention between Quebec/Montreal/Ottawa and London since the 1840s.
Now at best this would lead to earlier dominion status, with perhaps full functional independence coming in the early 1900s or even late 1890s should the government prove highly capable.
Although say for the sake of discussion the colonials somehow decide they want full independence by the 1880s, it would be very doable had they been taking over their own defensive measures since the 1840s, and if the US finally decides to back them on the issue, voila! Independence.
====
Now as to the idea that a foreign power could forcibly wretch the Canadas from Britain's grasp...well that's simply not going to happen before 1890, even then the possibility is remote.
The only power with the immediate ability to do so is the United States, and it has failed to do so twice by this point, and notably failed to seriously back any revolutionary groups (for practical reasons if nothing else, no point in ruining your biggest sources of foreign investment over ideological struggles). There is also the little issue that ever since the Revolution the people of the Canadas have thought of themselves as not American and even the American immigrants who settled there felt the same.
Put simply, no European power post-Revolution had the ability to make Canada independent, and the Americans are completely uninterested/unable to before 1890.
Therefore all change has to be internal, which requires some significant changes in the opposition inside Canada, which the British were rather ably capable to prevent. However, this can indeed be changed should people other than radical republicans and Canadien nationalists take over the rebel groups.
Getting the two to work together would be an interesting accomplishment in and of itself.
Now there are few chances to change this, most of the immigrants who came to the Canadas were perfectly comfortable as Imperial citizens and under the Colonial government, so no radical republicanism taking over in an easy sense.
However, a useful POD might be if there was anything resembling a coherent platform amongst the revolutionaries of 1837-38. The problem with those revolts being that their radical nature had a nasty habit of splitting the populations down the middle since they couldn't find a middle ground to appeal to, and the French vs English thing too. Find a way to butterfly that and you could get a coherent revolutionary group which manages to appeal to a broad base of the people of the Canadas and though it probably won't succeed (Britain is Britain after all, at the height of her Imperial power) you could at least get a post-revolutionary party which agitates for more control over its own affairs, which as time went on London would be more than happy to provide. A plausible way might be to make them more receptive to taking over the cost of their own defense, which had been a huge contention between Quebec/Montreal/Ottawa and London since the 1840s.
Now at best this would lead to earlier dominion status, with perhaps full functional independence coming in the early 1900s or even late 1890s should the government prove highly capable.
Although say for the sake of discussion the colonials somehow decide they want full independence by the 1880s, it would be very doable had they been taking over their own defensive measures since the 1840s, and if the US finally decides to back them on the issue, voila! Independence.
====
Now as to the idea that a foreign power could forcibly wretch the Canadas from Britain's grasp...well that's simply not going to happen before 1890, even then the possibility is remote.
The only power with the immediate ability to do so is the United States, and it has failed to do so twice by this point, and notably failed to seriously back any revolutionary groups (for practical reasons if nothing else, no point in ruining your biggest sources of foreign investment over ideological struggles). There is also the little issue that ever since the Revolution the people of the Canadas have thought of themselves as not American and even the American immigrants who settled there felt the same.
Put simply, no European power post-Revolution had the ability to make Canada independent, and the Americans are completely uninterested/unable to before 1890.
Therefore all change has to be internal, which requires some significant changes in the opposition inside Canada, which the British were rather ably capable to prevent. However, this can indeed be changed should people other than radical republicans and Canadien nationalists take over the rebel groups.
Getting the two to work together would be an interesting accomplishment in and of itself.
Canadians had very little interest in a Republic, and those that did probaly leaned toward joining the States.
I really dont see it as plausible.
You might, just might, maybe, get Upper Canada to join the States and Lower Canada be independent.
I really dont see it as plausible.
You might, just might, maybe, get Upper Canada to join the States and Lower Canada be independent.
I find the British grabbing anything north of the Great Lakes as iffy if they can't get the St. Laurence.
My best way to manage this is one of the following:
General trends lead to an alt-WWI(I) were Britain loses and Canada is pealed off in the peace treaty.
An alternate cold war sees Britain nuked, and Canada can't find a monarch so must admit it's now a republic.
Britain goes radical and the US invades Canada to set up a puppet.
Changing the Canadian Constitution is next to impossible. We'd end up with the 'Queen' as Head of State and stay a constitutional monarchy - even if the position is totally vacant! À la Horthy's 'regency' for an empty throne.
(OK, so, technically, this is only the case post repatriation. I could still see it happening before that. Shades of Cordwainer Smith's ''Old Norstrili' books.
I figure after being nuked there'd be major changes to the constitution. Legal succession would be questionable at best.Changing the Canadian Constitution is next to impossible. We'd end up with the 'Queen' as Head of State and stay a constitutional monarchy - even if the position is totally vacant! À la Horthy's 'regency' for an empty throne.
(OK, so, technically, this is only the case post repatriation. I could still see it happening before that. Shades of Cordwainer Smith's ''Old Norstrili' books.
It's an old thing of some languages as french and english, Low meaning 'lower ground, down the river, by the sea', and well... Upper (or High for that german dialectal group) 'higher terrain, up the river, away from sea'... And this by the Saint Lawrence.
In french, Haut- and Bas-Canada.
Standard usage in most languages, actually. Lower Egypt was the Delta, Upper Egypt up river up the Nile.
----
When my GreatGrampa was a postal clerk, you had to know all the towns, AND how to route mail to them. It was more fun when Xton, BC could be either Bas Canada or British Columbia, and you had to figure it out from context/the name of the town.