If we even see a Canada as we know it, it would lack a West Coast, perhaps anything west of the rockies.
The Pacific Coast would be much more important and likely more developed - TTL Seattle could be as big as New York, with Vancouver as its Brooklyn.
If we even see a Canada as we know it, it would lack a West Coast, perhaps anything west of the rockies.
The Pacific Coast would be much more important and likely more developed - TTL Seattle could be as big as New York, with Vancouver as its Brooklyn.
Probably a differently shaped Alaska.Well Alaska will be connected to the rest of the US. Perhaps earlier Alaskan statehood at most?
Sounds like perfect neighbors.Seattle and Vancouver are not neighbors - they are like 200 km apart.
Back when the Oregon Country was cut in half what if instead America got the whole Oregon country how would American/Canadian/British history change how would it happen?
Your assuming of course that Britain hasn't annexed Alaska during the Crimean war. Argueably they now have more reason to do so instead of waiting for low hanging fruit to fall into their lap.Well Alaska will be connected t
t of the US. Perhaps earlier Alaskan statehood at most?
Probably more like NYC and say Boston or Philly.Sounds like perfect neighbors.
![]()
Britain would still be a global empire and Alaska wouldn't be it's #1 priority. Also if Britain didn't want it enough to take it in the Crimean War then they probably still wouldn't have taken it.Your assuming of course that Britain hasn't annexed Alaska during the Crimean war. Argueably they now have more reason to do so instead of waiting for low hanging fruit to fall into their lap.
This is a nonsensical arguement. The HBC was the principle supplier of goods for the RAC. Their increasinfg dependence of the RAC led them to believe that the company and its assets would in time by and large would be acquired by them. Hence the gentlemen's agreement between the two not to extend overt hostilities to their corporate territories. That would not be the case here. The company did also try to establish direct access to the Stikine territory during the thirties. But did not push the issue at that time. Here direct access would be more desirable.Britain would still be a global empire and Alaska wouldn't be it's #1 priority. Also if Britain didn't want it enough to take it in the Crimean War then they probably still wouldn't have taken it.
Maybe in a world where Napoleon won but other than that this is as realistic of a scenario as Britain conquering all of USA in 1812 war.
The US was not able to project power that far west to wrestle BC from Britain. To have that happen you need a different US with different leaders. Plus a navy that could challenge British navy.
The most important ports for the US were in California with San Francisco Bay being vitally important to American ambitions of America in the Pacific.
What would the USA of done if Britain had decided that Columbia river border was their final position. Would we of had a war in the 130s-1850s?
Britain also had the ability to send troops from British India if needed.America was able to project power to Oregon much more easily than Britain after the annexation of California and the gold rush. It was good for Canada that the British negotiated the border before San Francisco became a major port. But when the only way to fight over Oregon was to send troops around South America Britain had the advantage.