Canada being integrated into UK in early 19th century?

Alaska was a territory until the 1950s; the OPer suggested full political integration before 1900 between (presumably) either the provinces and colonies that made up BNA and the UK prior to 1867 or the provinces of the Dominion of Canada and the UK after 1867.
;)
Little different situation.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the reason the British encouraged Canadian confederation is that London did not want BNA to continue to exist in the fairly ramshackle political state that it was in; it is pretty clear that confederation with the UK or into the UK was never an option, either.

There's something about the dog not barking n the night time;)

Best,

So you concede that distance was not an insurmountable barrier to integration between Canada and the UK then in the 1850's/1860's.

The political will to establish a transcontinental state was not there as you point out in the 1850's and 1860's based on the laissez faire liberalism of the UK at that time. And by the time that an Imperial Federation concept had become established in the 1880's after the economic downturn of the 1870's the moment had passed.

Conversely in the USA the "manifest destiny" mantra actively encouraged federation and expansion across vast distances.

Flip the opinions of the political elite and you could have a very different outcome.
 
So you concede that distance was not an insurmountable barrier to integration between Canada and the UK then in the 1850's/1860's.

The political will to establish a transcontinental state was not there as you point out in the 1850's and 1860's based on the laissez faire liberalism of the UK at that time. And by the time that an Imperial Federation concept had become established in the 1880's after the economic downturn of the 1870's the moment had passed.

Conversely in the USA the "manifest destiny" mantra actively encouraged federation and expansion across vast distances.

Flip the opinions of the political elite and you could have a very different outcome.

Which is what the OP is after.
So how does it happen?
What minimum changes are needed to create some UK-Canada entity?
Could this in fact head towards an Imperial Federation?
The ironies of Scotland et al getting devolved governments through the UK Parliament evolving into an Imperial one are delicious :D
 
Flip the opinions of the political elite and you could have a very different outcome.

Forget the political elite for a minute . . . do the Canadian people want this? I highly doubt the francophones would, and other posts in the thread suggest the anglophones wouldn't want it either. There is your problem - trying to convince the Canadians to go along with it.

In every British colony, the settlers eventually formed their own national identity. This was not an issue with the expansion of the United States. The anglophone settlers in Texas, the Oregon Country, California et al. always regarded themselves as Americans and favored annexation. If you want white settlers overseas to regard themselves as "British" to the end of time, you may need to go back pretty far and change the POD so that the circumstances of their emigration are different - many IOTL were all but driven out of the British Isles.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Insurmountable enough, me thinks...

So you concede that distance was not an insurmountable barrier to integration between Canada and the UK then in the 1850's/1860's.

Insurmountable enough, me thinks...

There are reasons "new cities" (Washington, Canberra, Brasilia, even Ottawa to a degree) become capitals of federations.

Where does the UKoGBaIaC go?

Rockall?:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Forget the political elite for a minute . . . do the Canadian people want this? I highly doubt the francophones would, and other posts in the thread suggest the anglophones wouldn't want it either. There is your problem - trying to convince the Canadians to go along with it.

In every British colony, the settlers eventually formed their own national identity. This was not an issue with the expansion of the United States. The anglophone settlers in Texas, the Oregon Country, California et al. always regarded themselves as Americans and favored annexation. If you want white settlers overseas to regard themselves as "British" to the end of time, you may need to go back pretty far and change the POD so that the circumstances of their emigration are different - many IOTL were all but driven out of the British Isles.

No, not at all. Typically the nations of Canada, Australia etc were created first and the identity came later. If California had become an independent nation, the national identity would have developed separately there too. These things are all led by the polity. I have read quotes of Australian politicians saying they wanted federation not because they weren't British but because they were. Even in the USA, which separated from Britain through violent revolution, the upper class were proud of their English ancestry for a good century and a half after independence.
 
Insurmountable enough, me thinks...

There are reasons "new cities" (Washington, Canberra, Brasilia, even Ottawa to a degree) become capitals of federations.

Where does the UKoGBaIaC go?

Rockall?:rolleyes:

Best,

Brasilia was built in 1960, 140 years after Brazilian independence.
 
Top