American States in Canada?

Umbric Man

Umbric Man

For all the maps and talk that America gets Canada, have we ever seen anyone develop what potential states would be if they took over? I don't mind from any point of divergence, clearly.

I'm thinking that we'd have more smaller states divided up from what would be the western provinces at the very least, and Ontario split up into two (Niagaran penninsula and perhaps the rest as a seperate state). It always struck me as amusing that maps of an uber-America have these suddenly-huge states up north, even if the population still stuck to the national border.
 

Hobelhouse

Well, the Maritimes would all be admitted as single states. The huge western ones would be trickier; they'd all probably be split in half. BC could be several states as well.
 

Lord Grattan

I've taken out my carving knife and here's what I came up with. The Nunavut & NW Territories I've left white. Labrador I've enlarged. The part of Quebec south of the St. Lawrence is now Brittany, Ontario is reduced to its southern peninsula. Superior becomes a state to its north and Hudson is to its north. Manitoba, Saskatchewan & Alberta lose land to Hudson as does Nanavut. The chunk of land between Hudson and Yukon is now Slaveela (I beleive that the Great Slave Lake is pronounced sla-vee rather than sl-ave). Victoria, Cascadia and Serengeti (A promotional pamphlet for this region referred to it as the "serengeti of North America").

GreatWhiteNorth copy.gif
 

Xen

Banned
Wendell said:
All of this depends on when and how the acquisition happened.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Was Canada conquered? If so when? Was it during the Revolution? During the War of 1812? Alternate World War I? Alternate World War II? A fictional war in the nineteenth century? twentieth century?


Or alternatively, did Canada join the US on its own merit? Again the question of when is very important
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Hobelhouse said:
Well, the Maritimes would all be admitted as single states. The huge western ones would be trickier; they'd all probably be split in half. BC could be several states as well.
Click to expand...

I do not see the necessity for bundling provinces together or splitting large ones apart in order to create states. It is population base that decides the threshold for representation in the Congress not area. It does not make sense to cut the Plains provinces in half if we've got practically empty states like Wyoming and the Dakotas.
 

Hermanubis

Lord Grattan said:
I've taken out my carving knife and here's what I came up with. The Nunavut & NW Territories I've left white. Labrador I've enlarged. The part of Quebec south of the St. Lawrence is now Brittany, Ontario is reduced to its southern peninsula. Superior becomes a state to its north and Hudson is to its north. Manitoba, Saskatchewan & Alberta lose land to Hudson as does Nanavut. The chunk of land between Hudson and Yukon is now Slaveela (I beleive that the Great Slave Lake is pronounced sla-vee rather than sl-ave). Victoria, Cascadia and Serengeti (A promotional pamphlet for this region referred to it as the "serengeti of North America").
Click to expand...

That doesnt really work too well,as a lot of these 'States' would just be way too small population wise; what has to be kept in mind is that a high percentage of the Canadian population lives within 90 miles of the US border, and the whole population of Canada isnt really all that big to begin with, compared to the US. The existing Provinces make the most sense to be admitted as States; if anything, you might see the Northern territories annexed to the other territories, or the combination of Western Provinces, according to the settlement pattern and population size of these areas in the specific TL...
 
Matt

Matt

DuQuense said:
disagree with #5, Quebec, didn't get the northern half of the province till after the 1860's. It would be cut up like the rest.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know. The US didn't acquire that land until that time anyways. It was giving to Quebec since there was little prospect of developing it to sustain it's own population for state hood, and it's too geographically removed from the most of the rest of Hudson.
 

rcduggan

Labrador and Newfoundland would be states, probably Vancouver Island would be its own also. the Yukon and Northwest Territories would be broken up, maybe a state named after the Metis somewhere... maybe a state of Cascadia too.
 

Dutchie

Assuming this was pre-1867:
  • Alaska wouldn't have the pan-handle. But the entire northern area from Alaska through Yukon into the NWT might just be lumped together into on Arctic Territory - that is, if the Russians still sell their NorAm holdings.
  • Vancouver Island would likely be it's own state. Oregon territory probably divided into Oregon (Southern part) and Columbia (northern).
    • Personally, I hate the name Cascadia and think it unlikely - why not Rockia, if we're naming after mountain ranges?
  • Labrador would likely not include more of OTL Quebec - the border is based on watersheds flowing to the Atlantic or Hudson's Bay, no reason to change that. As said earlier, northern Quebec is so thinly populated that it wouldn't warrant being split off. Also, the South Shore of the St. Lawrence river wouldn't be split from the rest of French-speaking Quebec, that just doesn't make sense - too small an area, too small a population.
  • North-West Ontario may end up as part of Red River State, which would stretch across the 49th parallel. Southern Ontario would be one state, possibly with a northern border on the Severn river.
  • The Prairie provinces would probably look more like the Plains states - still squared off borders but perhaps smaller in size. But likely no more than two states for each OTL province.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Whats the deal with dividing the Plains provinces into two states? Is there some rational reason? I think it would be only fair if in the same instance we divide Texas, California and Alaska into smaller states.
 

Dutchie

FYI, they're Prairie provinces, not Plains... regardless: for the same reasons the Plains states were drawn up relatively small, I would suppose. Why were North & South Dakota seperate? The same reasoning would lead to a North & South Athabaska (OTL Alberta, since there's little chance of naming states after English Royalty...)
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Dutchie said:
FYI, they're Prairie provinces, not Plains... regardless: for the same reasons the Plains states were drawn up relatively small, I would suppose. Why were North & South Dakota seperate? The same reasoning would lead to a North & South Athabaska (OTL Alberta, since there's little chance of naming states after English Royalty...)
Click to expand...

Holy Cow, better tell the citizens of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia and Maryland, New York that their states will be renamed - we certainly want little chance of naming states after English royalty.

Utter crap. If the citizens of Alberta want to split their state or even rename it it is up to them.
 

Wendell

Dutchie said:
FYI, they're Prairie provinces, not Plains... regardless: for the same reasons the Plains states were drawn up relatively small, I would suppose. Why were North & South Dakota seperate? The same reasoning would lead to a North & South Athabaska (OTL Alberta, since there's little chance of naming states after English Royalty...)
Click to expand...

The Dakotas were separated largely due to having two significant poles in the area, Edwinton (Bismarck), and Pierre.
 

Wendell

Dutchie said:
Assuming this was pre-1867:
  • Alaska wouldn't have the pan-handle. But the entire northern area from Alaska through Yukon into the NWT might just be lumped together into on Arctic Territory - that is, if the Russians still sell their NorAm holdings.
  • Vancouver Island would likely be it's own state. Oregon territory probably divided into Oregon (Southern part) and Columbia (northern).
    • Personally, I hate the name Cascadia and think it unlikely - why not Rockia, if we're naming after mountain ranges?
  • Labrador would likely not include more of OTL Quebec - the border is based on watersheds flowing to the Atlantic or Hudson's Bay, no reason to change that. As said earlier, northern Quebec is so thinly populated that it wouldn't warrant being split off. Also, the South Shore of the St. Lawrence river wouldn't be split from the rest of French-speaking Quebec, that just doesn't make sense - too small an area, too small a population.
  • North-West Ontario may end up as part of Red River State, which would stretch across the 49th parallel. Southern Ontario would be one state, possibly with a northern border on the Severn river.
  • The Prairie provinces would probably look more like the Plains states - still squared off borders but perhaps smaller in size. But likely no more than two states for each OTL province.
Click to expand...

Some of this does not make sense, particularly your approach to Alaska. I see no reason to divorce the panhandle from the rest of the state. However, it is plausible to have the panhandle be either larger or smaller than it is today. Some of the rest of this seems silly too, but I think that the 49th Parallel will serve as a border between several states if the POD is after 1819.
 

Dutchie

David S Poepoe said:
Holy Cow, better tell the citizens of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia and Maryland, New York that their states will be renamed - we certainly want little chance of naming states after English royalty.

Utter crap. If the citizens of Alberta want to split their state or even rename it it is up to them.
Click to expand...
Retaining an existing name is a little different than naming a new area after royalty from the country you fought a war to get rid of. More likely to name it after their own founding fathers or local inhabitants/geographical features.

Wendell said:
The Dakotas were separated largely due to having two significant poles in the area, Edwinton (Bismarck), and Pierre.
Click to expand...

And Alberta has Edmonton and Calgary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top