Canada Wank (YACW)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Intro and philosophy of a Canada-wank

Lots of people have tried Canada-Wanks before, so that it's almost cliche on this board. However, as usually gets pointed out, this is a REALLY tough problem.

The biggest problem for a Canada-wank, is how does it stay 'Canada'. It is 'easy' to have a 'British North America wank' (e.g. the 13 colonies stay part of the Empire), but in most such scenarios, it wouldn't be or be called 'Canada'. So let's establish some parameters


Any BNA that is united into one country needs a reason - otherwise, the various colonies would just stay single or merge into small 'dominions'. One of the prime drivers behind the creation of OTL Canada was the US to the south, with a big army that had just won the Civil War and didn't have anything else to do with it.


It would be easy to imagine at least 5 separate colonies/dominions if BNA includes everything west of the Mississippi and north of the Great Lakes - the Maritimes, 'Cascadia', California, Canada, Louisiana. There could easily be more (e.g. Newfoundland as OTL, some Indian state/states, etc., Texas)


So why are they one country - and why are they 'Canada'?


To have the dominions united requires an external threat of a largish/powerful external force (surely the US). To have them survive against such a US, we may need a state that would rival the US in size and power.


Possibly BNA just gets called 'Canada' because it's the biggest. But if we're merging most of the continent, it probably needs to be a bit bigger? Note, too, that it's going to be hard to keep new territories unless they can be filled by 'Canadians' – otherwise, we have a 'Texas' situation. More to come.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

more philosophy.

I'm going to start with a POD in 1793, and have somewhat of a butterfly net. We will assume that Prevost is appointed to Canada – or someone like him. We will assume that most of the same people show up in the same places – (although some people will survive that didn't - Isaac Brock will survive because he's got a larger force), but e.g. Wm.H. Harrison, Dearborn, etc. run the Northwest war on the American side. The only pure butterfly is Andrew Jackson will die either as a result of the brawl with the Bentons (which was almost fatal), or in one of his various duels. (Given his character and lifestyle, his survival OTL may actually have been a low probability).

Anyway. I'll take a wee bit of time before starting posting the actual timeline, as I've got a bunch of info collected (and I'm still doing it, working on the War of 1812 mostly), but so far it's all notes, not postable.

I'm posting this in partial reply to the 'Canadian States of America' (by Kenichiro Harada) thread started recently. I have also been partly inspired by 'Crown and Tomahawk', which has rather different purposes, but covers some of the same ground.

Anyway. This is my first TL, and as Thande said with LTTW, it's about time!

 

[Dilvish]

A couple of possibilites for giving a larger Canada reason for existing. One is that Napolean isn't defeated and France still has the Louisiana Purchase. A possible addition to that is Britain and the USA still having the War of 1812, with Britain inflicting a sizeable defeat on the USA. (and of course the USA doesn't have Louisiana in this scenario) The British though are weakened in Europe. This leaves a strong France in control of the middle of North America, with a weakened USA in not much position to counter French North America, or even allied to the French. The various British North American colonies have to band together for mutual security.

Another possibility is for Mexico to be much stronger. Perhaps Mexico gets the Louisiana territories, discovers the California gold a lot earlier, something like that. Then you have the possibility of a three-way power struggle for North America.

Oh, and the Russians can always be a threat in the northwest.

dilvish

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Visit MadMc's thread and you'll have the basics, although Canada Wank requires the Old Northwest being made part of Canada directly, not a buffer state.

So once Canada has that area you can easily assume Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington State eventually go to Canada and a case can certainly be made for California, Alaska and Hawaii...

 

[Redem]

So once Canada has that area you can easily assume Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington State eventually go to Canada and a case can certainly be made for California, Alaska and Hawaii...

For some reason I was always amuse by the possibility of the Briths Carabean possession being incorporated into Canada

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Let's start with a POD in the the Napoleonic wars. According to Wiki, the Vendée uprising had as a last hurrah an attack on Granville on the Channel in October of 1793. They had an army of 25,000 men + camp followers. They were expecting the RN and an army of Royalists to meet them, but that didn't happen (and there WAS a republican army). POD – communications are better or the republican army isn't there. Anyway they take Granville and hold it for a while. When the situation becomes hopeless, they are evacuated to England, along with their families and some of the townsfolk (who, reasonably, fear retribution from the republicans).
This establishes a precedent, and more royalists and Chouans and so on (priests who refuse to recognize the superiority of the state over the pope, etc. etc.), are picked up in various operations. Sometimes descents (amphibious operations) meant for other purposes pick up a few towns folk, sometimes specific operations are conducted to pick up fighting men.
This adds some 25,000 to army. Also, adds a bunch of non-combatants. Brits don't really want them around in England, so the non-combatants are encouraged to go to Canada. Note especially the numbers of priests picked up. The UK really doesn't want them wandering around England. The Brits want to encourage and support the Royalists, so are prepared to pick up and care for some non-combattants, but are primarily interested in increasing the fighting man-power available. Still, many men will not join the Royal/British cause unless their families are taken care of, so many non-combattants are picked up and have to be cared for.


Thus, during the war, some thousands of royalists sent to Quebec, mostly non-combattants, but with enough men (often older teens or men to old to fight) so that the families can support themselves farming (or whatever occupation they may have).


Then in the peace of 1801, when the (ex-Vendee) soldiers are demobbed, they are mustered out in Canada rather than in England or forced to Republican France. This, of course, also allows them to join their families, the ones that had already gone to Canada. Moreover, we will have some royalists are freed from prison/captivity, etc, and sent across. (The republicans would just as soon be rid of them.)


Quebec's population in 1790 was 161k, in 1806 250k, OTL. The influx of French royalists ups the population by some 25% perhaps? The increased population causes several things. 1) townsfolk (merchants, professionals) add to the population and versatility of the Quebec settlements 2) the farming folk cause massively increased settlement into Upper Canada. (There's not much good, available land left within reach of rivers in Lower Canada/Quebec, so most of the farmers will have to homestead in Upper Canada (what would become Ontario, OTL). With settlements and lots of available priests, some younger sons from established farms go west, too. (This slows the fragmentation of the land in Quebec, and increases settlement in the west.) With increased western settlement, comes increased commerce – ships on Lake Ontario, and more shipbuilding. This will have consequences later.


One of the major reasons that French settlement OTL didn't leave the St. Lawrence valley is that the authorities (in particular the church) wanted to keep control of their people. Having a chunk of extra priests available for establishing new parishes – and having a bolus of new settlers who have to go anyway, means that younger sons are freer to go.


OTL, the population of Upper Canada was some 70k (largely American in origin, some United Empire Loyalists, but some just farmers looking for land). ITTL, the population will be about half again the size – say an additional 35,000 royalists and some 10,000 Quebecers moving to new land. This means that the population available for militias will be greater – but it also means that there is far more agriculture, more food available to supply troops later.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

events of 1812, almost all OTL

Campaigns at the start of the war happen as OTL. Madison would prefer a thrust at Montreal, but that requires New England's cooperation, which isn't forthcoming. So three thrusts – via Detroit, to Kingston and to Montreal.
General (and Governor) Hull procedes to Detroit as OTL. While the Brits have more forces in Upper Canada, OTL Hull thought they had 20k regulars (!!) available, so we just assume his estimates are the same (but less inflated iTTL). He still loses his orders to the British. He still surrenders, Brock still enters Michigan and proclaims it to be part of Britain. Hull is still recalled and charged with treason, cowardice and neglect of duty, all OTL.


Encouraged by British success, the Indians around Chicago become more hostile. In August, Captain Heald with his officers and 54 men and the civilians (12 men, 3 or 4 women, 'several' children) from Chicago leave Ft Dearborn and are attacked by Indians, mostly massacred. As OTL.


At this point, American control has shrunk back to southern Illinois and Indiana and the line of the Maumee in Ohio.


Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren arrives in Halifax to take command of the new North American Station (merged from previous Halifax, Jamaica and Leewards ones) on 3 August. After examining the situation, he decides to build 3 warships on the lakes, provide a captain and some more junior officers for that command. He also recommends Prevost receive 5000 soldiers to retake the Indian lands (Indiana and Illinois) to serve as a protectorate and buffer against the Americans. And proposes a major operation in the US south, to take New Orleans, and thus cut the major line of commerce for much of the American west. Note that the extra resources needed for 'Indiana' and New Orleans aren't available until war with Europe is over. All is as OTL.
Here, however, instead of waiting until the spring to send the captain commanding, he sends him in the winter to oversee the building of the ships and planning for the spring offensive.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

sorry about the delays. I WAS going to wait until I had the beginning all taken care of before posting, and then a couple of threads made me decide to post what I had. I didn't take notes when reading about 1812 and 1813, so I'm having to go through that all again! I've actually got a better idea what happens in 1814 and '15 and between the wars.

Sigh. And then I need to figure out what happens how and when with northern Mexico.

 

[MacCaulay]

I've got to admit that I wouldn't have even tried making a Canada-wank until about 1942, and concentrated on making a Canadian Army Group in Northwest Europe.

But I'll see how this goes.

Dathi, you have my attention.



One thing: the sacking of York (later to be Toronto) and the torching of it's customs house by General Zebulon Pike (he was killed at that seige/battle) was very much attributed to a main factor behind the burning of Washington by the British. Would this have happened?

Also...what are the effects on the outlying Francophone communities out west? The Metis and others? As early as the 1830s, there were armed...well, I wouldn't call them battles, but they were definitely brandishing weapons and killing people with the intent of killing more out around the Red River and Northern Ontario.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I've got to admit that I wouldn't have even tried making a Canada-wank until about 1942, and concentrated on making a Canadian Army Group in Northwest Europe.

To get a Canada that is actually a major world power, one has to either start a lot earlier (or sit and wait Canada will probably be bigger than the UK in a century or so).

But I'll see how this goes.

Dathi, you have my attention.

Thanks

One thing: the sacking of York (later to be Toronto) and the torching of it's customs house by General Zebulon Pike (he was killed at that seige/battle) was very much attributed to a main factor behind the burning of Washington by the British. Would this have happened?

The only way to get the Brits to hold out for maximum territory is to annoy them enough. I'm going to have York sacked - and then retaken. DC will probably get burned.

Also...what are the effects on the outlying Francophone communities out west? The Metis and others? As early as the 1830s, there were armed...well, I wouldn't call them battles, but they were definitely brandishing weapons and killing people with the intent of killing more out around the Red River and Northern Ontario.

You note I've got some 45k+ francophones already added to Upper Canada, so 'Ontario' will be at least as bilingual as New Brunswick is today. This will lead to large pockets of francophones in territories west, but most of the immigration will be Anglo or Allo(phone). French will definitely be a more respected language. I'm not sure just how all this will play out. You're certainly not going to get the Orange Lodge coup that happened in Manitoba (OK, so it was demographics, not armed revolt, but...) The Orange Lodge will NOT be a significant power structure in this *Canada.

You're also going to see rather patchy settlement. This chunk of territory is 'Indian', the next chunk is 'French', the next chunk 'Irish' the next 'English', that chunk over there 'German'. Of course, to some extent, that's what happened OTL in the settlement of the west. (Both of Canada and the US). My guess is that 'melting pot' isn't going to work quite as well here, but I haven't got that far. I certainly expect that the local dialects will be ... Strange.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

1812 Indiana, first major change in TL

In the Northwest theater, William Henry Harrison and Brigadier General James Winchester were both appointed to the theater, and argued over who was in command. Winchester had been appointed to the command, but Harrison had been brevetted Major General and thought he should have it. Finally word came from Washington that Harrison was in command. War Department is trying to raise 10,000 militia for the Northwest front, somewhat chaotically (successfully from Kentucky, less so from Pennsylvania and Virginia). All as OTL.

Michigan is now under British rule. Colonel Henry Procter (in charge of that wing) had left administration of Detroit in the hands of the American officials operating under American laws. This kept the American population there more acquiescent of British rule. OTL​

​

IMeanwhile, while the US is pulling its forces together, it is Tecumseh and his Indians who take the initiative. Indian attacks in early September on Pigeon Roost (southern Indiana) killing 20 whites and burning their houses. Failed attack on Ft. Madison near St.Louis fails. Failed attack on Ft. Harrison (50 miles up the Wabash from Vincennes), commanded valiantly by Zachary Taylor who is promoted major as a result. All OTL. However the attack on Ft.Wayne goes differently. Tecumseh led 600 warriors against a garrison of only 70 men under Captain James Rhea, who was so scared that he got drunk regularly, and he invited an Indian delegation in to discuss surrender. OTL, the two lieutenants in the fort essentially ousted him and continued the fight until relieved by Wm H. Harrison. However, iTTL they surrender. Either they are more timid because they know there are more British forces available or a different lieutenant isn't quite so prepared to relieve his superior.​

​

This is a major victory for Tecumseh, and the first really visible change in the new Timeline. Tecumseh manages to hold the fort until Major AC Muir arrives with 600 English (OTL) and 600 French (not OTL, from the new French settlements on the Thames, a result of the original POD). Muir moves a bit faster and his first detachments get to the fort before Harrison's 2000 relief force gets there. The fort holds off Harrison until all Muir's force makes it into the fort, at which point, assaulting a fortified position with only a slight numerical superiority, Harrison is unable to take the fort back.​

​

[For an interesting look at the OTL battle for Ft. Wayne, look at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/7029/fortwayne.html]​

​

Indian raiders pick off sentries and raid Harrison's supply lines, making his position untenable without yet more reinforcements, so after a while he retreats.​

​

Prevost is very peeved at Muir, since the official British position is to basically maintain a defensive status until the war in Europe is over, and more troops can be allocated. However, Muir replies that 1) his primary purpose was to make sure the Indians didn't get out of hand and massacre the Americans (actually as OTL), 2) that, since the Indians actually TOOK the fort, it would be foolish not to keep it, and 3) that this is essentially a 'forward defense' – it provides a much better shield for the new British possessions in Michigan, and therefore, really counts as a strategic defense, even if it was a tactical offense.​

​

Brock backs up Muir, and presented with success, there's little that Prevost can do except fume. He does send scathing letters to London, but Brock sends supportive ones, and the end result is that Prevost's position is slightly undermined. And Tecumseh's position is greatly raised.


PS Muir's concern for Indian 'atrocities' happened to be misplaced. Tecumseh himself was at the battle, and he was as much against atrocities as anyone. OTL, once when he arrived after a battle was over he berated the British officer in charge for not restraining (Tecumseh's) Indians! Of course, Tecumseh in person may have been the only one who COULD prevent that. I should perhaps note that 'atrocity' is a very loaded word, although it is how the Europeans viewed such native conduct on the battlefield. Due to differing expectations of what battlefield behaviour and aftermath should be like, there was HUGE grounds for misunderstanding between the two sides. Tecumseh was stuck inbetween, often, and had to try to maintain a rather precarious position.

PPS. While Tecumseh has now taken Ft. Wayne, the British forces (even with the larger population iTTL) are stretched very thin. It is made very clear to Tecumseh that, while this was a wonderful victory, and a great advanced defensive position, that the British side can't really afford any more victories like that! If he wants to raid, that's great, but if Ft. Harrison down the Wabash HAD been taken, the British would have had to give it back. They'd love to be able to have been able to hold it, but just didn't have the forces, not only to put in the forts, but to run and defend the long supply routes.

PPPS. About this time, it occurs to someone that some of those retired Vendée vets, while too old to march and fight in the wilderness, should be able to sit in a fort and hold a gun. So a special company of older vets is raised to garrison some of the forts.
​

 

[The Gunslinger]

The War of 1812 is the best POD, and like in Dathi THorfinnsson's posts, the old Northwest is the key. If "Canada" can get the old Northwest early on, perhaps they can get a more northerly route to the Oregon territory which means that it might not be split, and from there, British domination of California might be possible.

Louisiana and Texas are a bit of a stretch though, if Canada is too big they simply won't unite, the Francophones won't go for it, and there isn't some strong foreign impetus for them to do so. Confederation barely happened in OTL (depending on who you read), and without a threating United States, it will not happen for sure.

 

[foresterab]

Also...what are the effects on the outlying Francophone communities out west? The Metis and others? As early as the 1830s, there were armed...well, I wouldn't call them battles, but they were definitely brandishing weapons and killing people with the intent of killing more out around the Red River and Northern Ontario.

Here in Northern Alberta by 1820's more metis and iroqouis fur trade employees lived in my area than Natives (which has also resulted in major tribal shifts). This was due to the competing interests of the Northwest Company and the Hudson's Bay Company each maintaining forts, usually accross the river from each other, and the long logistic train back to the shipping ports.

As I understand it by 1796 Arrowsmith has produced his first major map of the world including much of the information published by fur traders. However Hudson Bay Company staff were not permitted to publish independent of the company and many of the major surveys and voyages of discovery in the interior North America were kept hidden until decades after the event (as I recall...need to dig into this more). Given the failures of the East India Corp. and increased crown oversight into India it is plausable that a greater British Government oversight into HBC doings may result and lead to the spread of a) accurate maps of the interior b) reduced control on areas on the edges of the Hudson Bay drainage (i.e. much of the prairies) and c) stratigic settlement of major basins d) strict orders prohibiting sale or trasfer of "british" settlements to other entieites. This last part was one of the key reasons why much of the Northwest became American as some key posts were sold to American buisnesses prior to war breaking out.

Even keeping some of the lands along the south shore of Lake superior would have been a major break in allowing for greater expansion of Canada as the expanse of Canadian Shield/swamp/lack of grazing severly limited both settlement and railway develpment to OTL Manitoba.

Will read with interest.

 

[Julius Vogel]

How about some sort of minor POD where Canada (how I do not know) somehow gets possession of a North (or other) Pacific island or two in WW1 or beforehand, in addition to their current possessions, somewhere in the middle of potential action. This could draw them into the wider Pacific war in WW2.

Not much of a wank, but at least they get an odd Pacific Island or two like Australia and New Zealand.

 

[foresterab]

Was thinking of this more and settlement in the Prairies (okay...I'm biased since I live out there).

Most of the early lands were settled by English/Irish/Scots emmigrants due to a government preference for settlers from the homecountry. However this trickle of applicants was divided by Australia, the US, India, South Africa etc.. and it wasn't until the late 1890's that more eastern European settlers were actively recruited for homesteading.

What happens if England/Canada begins an earlier version of Vetern's Homesteading Grants (title to one quartersection/160 acres for honorable discharge) to folks such as the King's German Legion soldiers who fought for Britian during the Pennisular War. There is still the transportation barriers but a combination of the Erie Cannal, railway/good road south of the lakehead via Grand Portage, frieght boats down from Churchill, and trails along the Fraser River all of a sudden opens up a huge amount of area to systematic settlement.

This would however most likely lead to a much different patchwork of Canadian Prairie provinces with places such as Selkirk, Assinaboine, Athabasca, Saskatchewan, etc being more likely. More veterns on the prairies reduces the potential for the Metis Rebellion (at least as it happened in our time) but I can see an uprising against the HBC over frieght charges...something that has happened many times in the form of protests in the West.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Was thinking of this more and settlement in the Prairies (okay...I'm biased since I live out there).

Most of the early lands were settled by English/Irish/Scots emmigrants due to a government preference for settlers from the homecountry. However this trickle of applicants was divided by Australia, the US, India, South Africa etc.. and it wasn't until the late 1890's that more eastern European settlers were actively recruited for homesteading.

What happens if England/Canada begins an earlier version of Vetern's Homesteading Grants (title to one quartersection/160 acres for honorable discharge) to folks such as the King's German Legion soldiers who fought for Britian during the Pennisular War. There is still the transportation barriers but a combination of the Erie Cannal, railway/good road south of the lakehead via Grand Portage, frieght boats down from Churchill, and trails along the Fraser River all of a sudden opens up a huge amount of area to systematic settlement.

This would however most likely lead to a much different patchwork of Canadian Prairie provinces with places such as Selkirk, Assinaboine, Athabasca, Saskatchewan, etc being more likely. More veterns on the prairies reduces the potential for the Metis Rebellion (at least as it happened in our time) but I can see an uprising against the HBC over frieght charges...something that has happened many times in the form of protests in the West.

The Times of London (at the time) made a comment about how Britain was going to have to demob some 500,000 troops at the end of the Napoleonic wars. I don't know what they did iOTL, probably just show them out the door and say 'good luck', but iTTL, they need to fill their new territories. So, whether it's 40 acres and a mule or 160 acre homesteads, there will be a lot of vets settled in the New World.

I'm currently a bit stuck on the fall/winter of 1812, as the book I'm using is annoyingly inconsistent and vague sometimes (and this is one). I'm having to look up atlases, cross-reference other 1812 works and try to figure out just what a) really happened and b) would happen in my timeline. I'm starting to get a handle on it, but it will probably be tonight or tomorrow before I get the next chunk up.

However, I really doubt the OTL Canadian prairies will have significant settlement any time really soon now. Getting your produce to market really requires a good transportation system - water or rail. Moreover, there's all this wonderful, fertile land that actually gets RAINFALL in OTL's Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota (and that's just the land the Brits will be claiming for themselves).

I'm a Saskatchewanian born and bred myself, even if I got abducted by an American and forced to live south of the border <grin>


As for transport inland, the Great Lakes (once we have canals, which will happen soon) are a much better route than the Erie Canal (which isn't built yet, either). Do you realize that OTL canals were built to allow ocean going ships (OK, SMALL ocean going ships) to get at least to Lake Erie by about 1830?

 

[The Gunslinger]

The Times of London (at the time) made a comment about how Britain was going to have to demob some 500,000 troops at the end of the Napoleonic wars. I don't know what they did iOTL, probably just show them out the door and say 'good luck', but iTTL, they need to fill their new territories. So, whether it's 40 acres and a mule or 160 acre homesteads, there will be a lot of vets settled in the New World.

I'm currently a bit stuck on the fall/winter of 1812, as the book I'm using is annoyingly inconsistent and vague sometimes (and this is one). I'm having to look up atlases, cross-reference other 1812 works and try to figure out just what a) really happened and b) would happen in my timeline. I'm starting to get a handle on it, but it will probably be tonight or tomorrow before I get the next chunk up.

However, I really doubt the OTL Canadian prairies will have significant settlement any time really soon now. Getting your produce to market really requires a good transportation system - water or rail. Moreover, there's all this wonderful, fertile land that actually gets RAINFALL in OTL's Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota (and that's just the land the Brits will be claiming for themselves).

I'm a Saskatchewanian born and bred myself, even if I got abducted by an American and forced to live south of the border <grin>


As for transport inland, the Great Lakes (once we have canals, which will happen soon) are a much better route than the Erie Canal (which isn't built yet, either). Do you realize that OTL canals were built to allow ocean going ships (OK, SMALL ocean going ships) to get at least to Lake Erie by about 1830?

The Canadian prairies can't be settles much earlier than in OTL, a simple lack of transportation and the fact there wasn't a proper wheat that could grown there (I can't find a source for this right now).

If there is earlier settlement though, check out the Dominion Land Survey for a truly monumental achievement (some might say even more than the trans-continental railroad).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Land_Survey

 

[foresterab]

The Canadian prairies can't be settles much earlier than in OTL, a simple lack of transportation and the fact there wasn't a proper wheat that could grown there (I can't find a source for this right now).

Try http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1181307781375 for a history of wheat development...the Red Fife variety came into being around 1842 so we're getting closer

If there is earlier settlement though, check out the Dominion Land Survey for a truly monumental achievement (some might say even more than the trans-continental railroad).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Land_Survey

I'd disagree with the DLS being bigger than the trans-contential railway just because of how long it took. I've been doing some historical research for work and much of Northern Alberta wasn't even touched till 40-50 years after the project commenced. It also incorperated any existing surveys into the DLS system (we have some old french style lots around here) but only tended to concentrate on farmland. Even today most of the Crown land has not been formally surveyed under the DLS system.

That being said the photographing of the Canadian north post-WW2 was a huge, huge task that I'd consider comparable to the railway for opening up development as it filled in the great "uncharted" holes of the north.

 

[foresterab]

However, I really doubt the OTL Canadian prairies will have significant settlement any time really soon now. Getting your produce to market really requires a good transportation system - water or rail. Moreover, there's all this wonderful, fertile land that actually gets RAINFALL in OTL's Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota (and that's just the land the Brits will be claiming for themselves).

The problem with much of the Canadian Prairies is a) moisture but it's no worse than parts of the US farmland and b) length of season. Althougth the durianal length of time is there to grow crops the colder temperatures and shorter calender timeline available limit what can be done. Hence why the wheat development was so crucial.

As for transport inland, the Great Lakes (once we have canals, which will happen soon) are a much better route than the Erie Canal (which isn't built yet, either). Do you realize that OTL canals were built to allow ocean going ships (OK, SMALL ocean going ships) to get at least to Lake Erie by about 1830?

My Grandparents live not far away from the Erie Canal so that's the one that comes to mind when I think canals as they're pretty rare out west here. That being said the major rivers out here have been major transportation corridors for a long time until superceeded by railways..

Let me know if I can help out at all...although the west and north of Canada is my strong points both my folks came from S.Ont (Toronto and Windsor areas) so might be able to help some.

Keep it up,
foresterab

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The problem with much of the Canadian Prairies is a) moisture but it's no worse than parts of the US farmland and b) length of season. Althougth the durianal length of time is there to grow crops the colder temperatures and shorter calender timeline available limit what can be done. Hence why the wheat development was so crucial.

'parts of' US farmland. Sure, but the Dakotas and Kansas, say for instance, won't be settled immediately either. Iowa, southern Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana all get a LOT more rain than the 12-14" that much of Saskatchewan gets.

As for wheat, I imagine some of the first settlers iTTL will be growing hardier grains, like rye, oats and barley. "Oats: a grain which in England is fed mainly to horses and in Scotland mainly to men" "That's why England has such fine horse and Scotland such fine men" (Johnson's dictionary; Boswell's reply). If Scotland and Norway can live off oats, barley and rye then initial settlers up and down the Saskatchewan could too. (Hmmm.... note to self, what DID the Metis grow?)

Let me know if I can help out at all...although the west and north of Canada is my strong points both my folks came from S.Ont (Toronto and Windsor areas) so might be able to help some.

Keep it up,
foresterab

Thanks. I doubt it at the moment, but I'll certainly keep the offer in mind. If I make any howling blunders, call me on it (OK, them) please.