AHQ: Canadian states and their names?

[phx1138]

Given: modern Canada controlled by the U.S.

What northern territories could (would) become states? (AIUI, there's a minimum population for statehood, and much of Canada north of about 52 is sparsely-populated...)

What might they be named?

How might the territory west of Missouri in the U.S. be divided (given OTL Canada is incorporated around 1812); it seems likely none of the OTL U.S. states would be identical...

Thoughts?

 

[1940LaSalle]

NEW BRUNSWICK would probably be the same. So would NOVA SCOTIA. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND might well be New Northumberland after the strait separating it from New Brunswick. NEWFOUNDLAND would probably remain as is.

QUEBEC...probably split into Quebec (Francophone, at least de facto) and Kanata (de facto Anglophone).

I could see OTL Ontario split into three states: a much smaller Ontario including Ottawa, Oshawa, Toronto and the Peninsula between Niagara and Detroit; a second called Mississauga mostly focused on the Georgian Bay area and Sudbury; the remainder named Algoma, centered on Thunder Bay.

No real reason to call MANITOBA anything different.

ALBERTA and SASKATCHEWAN might be split into three states: Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, and Athabasca.

BRITISH COLUMBIA is problematic. Perhaps as one latter day Canadian has suggested it could be Cascadia.

 

[Gabingston]

NEW BRUNSWICK would probably be the same. So would NOVA SCOTIA. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND might well be New Northumberland after the strait separating it from New Brunswick. NEWFOUNDLAND would probably remain as is.

QUEBEC...probably split into Quebec (Francophone, at least de facto) and Kanata (de facto Anglophone).

I could see OTL Ontario split into three states: a much smaller Ontario including Ottawa, Oshawa, Toronto and the Peninsula between Niagara and Detroit; a second called Mississauga mostly focused on the Georgian Bay area and Sudbury; the remainder named Algoma, centered on Thunder Bay.

No real reason to call MANITOBA anything different.

ALBERTA and SASKATCHEWAN might be split into three states: Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, and Athabasca.

BRITISH COLUMBIA is problematic. Perhaps as one latter day Canadian has suggested it could be Cascadia.

A few thoughts:

• In a country larger and much more populous than OTL's Canada, I don't know if PEI would ever qualify for statehood. Even today only 150,000 people live there, and even if it is higher than in our world, it'd likely be easily the least populous state. I think merging PEI into New Brunswick would be plausible. On another note, I wonder who controls Newfoundland.
• Mississauga could be named Huron for the lake. Similarly, Algoma could be called Superior or Gitchigami/Gitchigumee for the lake's Ojibwe name.
• British Columbia might just be called Columbia, though confusion with the country in South America would be an issue.

 

[Analytical Engine]

British Columbia might be named North Oregon, or <insert president's name here>

 

[Laqueesha]

Maybe BC could just straight-up be merged into Washington state, a la East Germany into the FRG c. 1990. Resultant population would be around 12-13 million. Big, but not humongously so like say a California or a Texas. Or maybe the name could be kept. A lot of East Coast places are named after foreign royalty with few objections (such as New York, Virginia and Maryland).

 

[Thisisnotausername]

What northern territories could (would) become states? (AIUI, there's a minimum population for statehood, and much of Canada north of about 52 is sparsely-populated...)

Northern BC (likely including the Alaska panhandle) and northern Alberta/Saskatchewan are possible, although not necessarily probable. You're not getting any new states north of 60 N though, although Alaska might extend further east.

What might they be named?

Depends on when and how Canada becomes a part of the US. You specify a c. 1812 acquisition, which means that British Columbia and Alberta are definitely off the table but New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island might be able to keep those names (assuming they do become states, which is likely for NB but chancy for PEI). Other than those four, all OTL province and territory names are still on the table, plus other names of indigenous origin (or at least not those given by the British post-ARW) such as Assiniboia, Athabasca, Winnipeg and the like. British Columbia and/or Washington might just be Columbia, Quebec might just be Canada.

How might the territory west of Missouri in the U.S. be divided (given OTL Canada is incorporated around 1812); it seems likely none of the OTL U.S. states would be identical...

Honestly, it could be surprisingly similar. There's no reason you couldn't see two long rows of states separated by the 49th parallel a la the 37th parallel IOTL, and once you have that a lot of existing borders both north and south of the line are pretty logical. A lot is going to depend on the ripple effects of the POD, though--you could, for instance, see a more northern-dominated Senate prevent or delay the acquisition of Texas and the Mexican Cession, which would naturally result in many changes to state borders in the west.

 

[phx1138]

QUEBEC...probably split into Quebec (Francophone, at least de facto) and Kanata (de facto Anglophone).

Bear in mind, around 1812, OTL (modern) Quebec didn't exist: It was much smaller.

I could see OTL Ontario split into three states

I'm thinking more like 5 or 6: 3 southern (around Toronto, along the border of Superior, nearer Montreal), 2-3 northern (along Hudson Bay & OTL NWT/Manitoba borders ) --if the population supports it.

No real reason to call MANITOBA anything different.

Given it's split in half, IMO there is, at least for the northern part. (I also like the idea of the southern part being something like Selkirk...)

ALBERTA and SASKATCHEWAN might be split into three states: Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, and Athabasca.

I could see four: the OTL lines (more/less), plus the (OTL proposed) north-south split. I kind of like Waskesiu as a name (instead of Saskatchewan).

BRITISH COLUMBIA is problematic. Perhaps as one latter day Canadian has suggested it could be Cascadia.

Caledonia, for the southern part? (Also including Oregon and/or Washington?) Cascadia for the north? Or Montgomery? (If you'll accept a very AH name, Arnold, for Benedict... )

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Someone on SHWI once proposed canada being divided into something like 20 states. You had the maritimes except for PEI, a few states each in quebec/ontario with western canada being divided into kansas/nebraska size states roughly up to the peace river region area in latitude. Don't recall if that area/ponits north were a state/territory.

 

[colonel]

I would see PEI being joined with New Brunswick. Ontario, and Nova Scotia have the same borders as today. The rest of the Confederation would enter as states with the following adjustments :
Quebec is independent due to language, thus likely requiring an adjustment of the border with NewFoundland.
Yukon Territory gets added to British Columbia, where I see no reason for a name change, but if necessary I guess West Columbia would work.
The Northwest Territories get divided between British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Manitoba may take some of Nunavut, but most of it remains native territory.
So in the end eight states, one independent nation (Quebec) and one territory (Nunavut).

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Upper Canada could become West Canada or it could be named Ontario like OTL. Erie, Huron, Toronto, and Ottawa are also plausible, since names of geographical features with indigenous etymology were popular state names. Lower Canada could either become East Canada or Quebec.

Maybe one of the prairies could be named after Rupert's land. Alberta is the only prairie province with an implausible name.

BRITISH COLUMBIA is problematic. Perhaps as one latter day Canadian has suggested it could be Cascadia.

It could be just Columbia after both the river and the explorer.

 

[PolishMagnet]

Given it's split in half, IMO there is, at least for the northern part. (I also like the idea of the southern part being something like Selkirk...)

"Manitoba" originally only referred to the southern part, so it would make no sense to use the name for the northern part on its own.

The Red River Rebellion also might not have happened, had Canada been annexed in 1812, meaning a completely different name might come about.

 

[phx1138]

"Manitoba" originally only referred to the southern part, so it would make no sense to use the name for the northern part on its own.

Given the Selkirk grant predates it becoming a province, Selkirk for the southern part (i.e., the grant area) makes sense, with Manitoba(h) for the rest.

 

[PolishMagnet]

Given the Selkirk grant predates it becoming a province, Selkirk for the southern part (i.e., the grant area) makes sense, with Manitoba(h) for the rest.

I'm fine with Selkirk, but iirc "Manitoba" was suggested by one of the rebels. Maybe "Manitoulin"? As long as it's got some of the lake area.

 

[Baffling]

I feel like since the POD is 1812 things in Canada would be massively different, a lot of names might never come around or could be different, like Manitoba and Saskatchewan follow the American trend of naming states after Indigenous people's words or names but you could end up with "Minnetoba," "Assiniboia," for Manitoba or "Keiskatchewan" for Saskatchewan (which dated before during the 1750s, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Henday) might be used instead. (I feel given the POD, the names Henday came up with might be resurfaced and used over any OTL Proposal).

I doubt that any of the OTL Canadian borders come around as they did IOTL (or even close to proposed Canadian ones like the Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, and Athabasca proposal). The exception to this is the Maritimes. And I think with the Maritimes being inducted, sure PEI could be remerged to New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, but it being part of the states would also mean it probably gets a lot of immigration (I mean look at early Maine, it grew a crap ton before it became a state). So there is a possibility it gets enough population to become a state in its own right (I mean Nevada was inducted when it had 60k people). PEI, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia all existed at this time as administrative units, and I mean when the US annexed Northern Mexico, it did keep California and Nuevo Mexico as administrative units.

The Canadian West overall looks massively different in how its organized and will definitely be having massively different immigration (given the Canadian government used directed migration of Ukrainians to the prairie provinces in hopes of lessening American settler influence, but this was during the 1910s I believe so). I think the skys the limit on how they're drawn.

 

[Analytical Engine]

After a quick trawl through Wikipedia (I know, I know) and Statistics Canada here's some pertinent information:

Population:

• Nova Scotia (1822) - 123,630
• Ontario (1824) - 150,066
• New Brunswick (1824) - 74,176
• Quebec (1822) - 427,465

Estimates from Statistics Canada:

• New Brunswick (1806) - ~35,000
• Nova Scotia - est. 65,000 (1807), est. 81,351 (1817)
• Upper Canada - est. 70,718 (1806), est. 95,000 (1814)
• Lower Canada - est. 250,000 (1806), est. 335,000 (1814)
• Newfoundland - est. 26,505 (1806), est. 52,672 (1816)
• Prince Edward Island (1822) - est. 24,600

If we compare that to the 1810 US Census, then Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and both Upper and Lower Canada would easily qualify as states in their own right. (Don't forget, Upper and Lower Canada were formed in 1791, and Cape Breton Island was a separate colony between 1784 and 1820.)

Even looking at the 1820 US Census, Lower Canada wouldn't even make it into the top 10 most populated state (it would be 12th, coming between Georgia and Maine). Meanwhile, PEI would have a population smaller than that of Charleston.

Therefore, I propose the following:

- the US admits Nova Scotia as a state, capital Halifax. The colony of Cape Breton is merged back into Nova Scotia, due to its low population
- the US admits New Brunswick as a state, capital Fredericton. Prince Edward Island is merged into New Brunswick, due to its low population
- the US admits Upper Canada as the State of Ontario, capital York (OTL Toronto). However, it is possible that the US decides to shave off Northern Ontario as a territory, to be admitted later
- the US admits Lower Canada as the State of Canada, capital Quebec City
- assuming the US also annexes Newfoundland (capital St John's), it probably gets organised as a territory first, and admitted as a state later on, since that near doubling in population over ten years would easily push it over the threshold

 

[Kermode]

With a POD in 1812, you're essentially redrawing the entire map west of the Mississippi. I doubt many (if any at all) of the OTL states and provinces would exist, since you're going to get different settlement patterns, no hard line at the 49th parallel, and entirely different methods of carving up the territories into states — the division of the Prairies is entirely arbitrary, several divisions were proposed, and the one they went with IOTL was not at all the most popular one and chosen mostly due to politics.

British Columbia is also going to go in a very different direction, here. IOTL, disagreements over who had the rights to the Columbia/Oregon region (respectively; they had different names for it) lead to an agreement, in 1818, to declare the region under a co-occupancy… but I doubt the UK would agree to that if the US just took all of the UK's other North American colonies. So you're going to see the area divided earlier, if nothing else, and the division is sure to be different: the 49th parallel was agreed to as a division only in the 1840s, and before then then the UK very much did operate below that line, so they'd push for more of OTL Washington to be part of their colony. And who can say where it'd go from there… the UK could decide to fortify, settle and otherwise double-down on Columbia to ensure they have a foothold on the continent; there might be a war fought over it; and Columbia could get annexed into the US or remain independent to this day.

 

[MrHappy]

I saw this thread late last night but it was past the time my doctor set for me to post alternative history discourses. After 11 pm my typing gets sloppy, I don't proof-read, and my demeanor gets a bit too punchy. Suggesting "Canuckland" or "Manitob-eh" doesn't add to the conversation. Jay Wright published a map in 1774 that envisions the Canadian and American colonies becoming a separate polity with about 21 states. Sadly, I can't download a good copy.

 

[phx1138]

The Canadian West overall looks massively different in how its organized and will definitely be having massively different immigration (given the Canadian government used directed migration of Ukrainians to the prairie provinces in hopes of lessening American settler influence, but this was during the 1910s I believe so). I think the skys the limit on how they're drawn.

I tend to agree, with a couple of provisions. One, the size of states would follow the U.S. conventions for length and width (a number of degrees of latitude and longitude; can't recall how many... ) and minimum population (as noted upthread).

I favor following natural boundaries, for simplicity, even if that wasn't done OTL. That makes rivers, mountain ranges, & river junctions much more likely (or significant) borders or markers.

With a POD in 1812, you're essentially redrawing the entire map west of the Mississippi. I doubt many (if any at all) of the OTL states and provinces would exist

My thoughts exactly. Even states admitted close to that date IMO are in some doubt. (Split Louisiana north & south?) Anything much further west (Arizona, Colorado, the Dakotas, easily different). Texas might be five states (as proposed).

British Columbia is also going to go in a very different direction, here. IOTL, disagreements over who had the rights to the Columbia/Oregon region (respectively; they had different names for it) lead to an agreement, in 1818, to declare the region under a co-occupancy

Also no Alaska Panhandle; the dispute would be settled internally by the U.S. Presuming the U.S. still buys Alaska. (The U.S. being so different, that may not be a given...)

49th parallel was agreed to as a division only in the 1840s, and before then then the UK very much did operate below that line,

As I'm imagining it, the U.S. conquers British-controlled territory and buys the rest (most of the West) from the Hudson's Bay Company soon after 1812. (HBC was looking to unload anyhow, AIUI.)