Canada Wank (YACW)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have made a map of the new borders, just waiting on Dathi's approval.

In terms of immigrants I suspect a lot will still go to Canada, especially since it is markedly more welcoming to Catholics and other racial/religious groups than OTL N America. However expect at least some extra people will go to other places including the southern cone region. Possibly also Mexico, if it becomes more stable, and also Spanish Florida.

But Canada also has a reputation for being hellishly cold and severe, and comparatively fewer big urban job centres compared to the OTL US (which was a huge draw, most immigrants went to the cities rather than the rural locations). Its also unquestionably British, and those with a beef with the British might steer away. The heavy black presence in the Canadian southern areas will also reduce the draw for immigrants.

Then you have secondary effects - if this silly League is making the southern cone and Mexico better off, they'll be more attractive to immigrants, and you'll see a virtuous spiral (especially if a particular place gets associated with a particular group). For every 10 Italians that went to the OTL US 8 went to Argentina and 7 went to Brazil, it wouldn't be difficult to make those first ten tag along with the other destinations. Plus lots will likely go to an industrialising new england even as New Englands surplus rural population heads to Canada.

Canada certainly can't step into the US's shoes to provide room for these immigrants - the absence of the lands north of the Ohio and New England is a major step down.
 
I have made a map of the new borders, just waiting on Dathi's approval.

Excellent news. Looking forward to seeing it as a map would make things easier to visualise.:D

But Canada also has a reputation for being hellishly cold and severe, and comparatively fewer big urban job centres compared to the OTL US (which was a huge draw, most immigrants went to the cities rather than the rural locations). Its also unquestionably British, and those with a beef with the British might steer away. The heavy black presence in the Canadian southern areas will also reduce the draw for immigrants.

OTL yes but this Canada has a lot more southern land, which is still largely unsettled, other than by the natives. They will get more protection than OTL but still plenty of room.

Also northern [i.e. OTL] Canada isn't that worse than neighbouring areas of the US. The big problem it had OTL was the existence of a much richer and more economically vigorous US to its south, which drew away many Canadians and potential immigrants. TTL the US is much more of a mess, less attractive to immigrants and probably distinctly hostile to Canadians so even the northern regions of Canada are likely to have a higher population than OTL. Not to mention without people being drawn south you get a virtuous circle as, with Canada's industrial base developing much more rapidly it draws in yet more people.


Then you have secondary effects - if this silly League is making the southern cone and Mexico better off, they'll be more attractive to immigrants, and you'll see a virtuous spiral (especially if a particular place gets associated with a particular group). For every 10 Italians that went to the OTL US 8 went to Argentina and 7 went to Brazil, it wouldn't be difficult to make those first ten tag along with the other destinations. Plus lots will likely go to an industrialising new england even as New Englands surplus rural population heads to Canada.

Yes a lot of people will go to other areas, such as the southern cone and Florida. However at least some will go to Canada, especially since its the most vigorous economy in the America and the most tolerant and welcoming.

New England might follow the same path as OTL but there are a couple of potential problems for it. It will need markedly larger defensive spending than OTL as a small state with a larger and hostile neighbour, even with the close links with Britain/Canada. It will face markedly larger competition from both Britain and Canada - no large tariff walls and a relatively small home market. Also given it is a relatively small state and feeling vulnerable it might be less inclined to welcome large numbers of immigrants, especially from a different background. Always rather ironic that the Puritan heartland of New England absorbed so many Catholic Irish.

Not saying those problems and changes will occur but they are factors that Dathi might have to consider.


Canada certainly can't step into the US's shoes to provide room for these immigrants - the absence of the lands north of the Ohio and New England is a major step down.

It can step into a lot of those shoes. Not sure what will happen to Indiana but likely to be some immigration as business takes off. Also as economy of scale means the Canadian industrial base develops there could be a very large number of urban jobs, which was where most of the late rush to the US went I believe.

Don't think it will take as many as OTL US absorbed in the late 19thC and politics could well play a part here. However there are likely to be a lot of people moving from Europe to Canada.

Steve
 
Ugh!:( This doesn't bode well for the US if a modern, I assume, USan author has those views about foreigners, defining themselves as 'non British' and also their history with their black population. I was hoping a more reformist element would win out and it would realise it needed to attract more settlers and develop its own lands rather than lust after those of others. Sounds like its going to become a dumping ground for the religiously intolerant Protestant northern Europeans.
1) he's reporting on what people a few generations back thought. My intent was that he was partly bemused that different areas had different conceptions of 'foreign' ness.
2) Note the comment about defining themselves as 'non-British' is in a footnote, and is MY comment, not from the iTTL text. (Unless I missed something).
3) I've seen too many churches who 'want to attract new members', but a) don't do anything to make themselves attractive, b) insist that the new people do things 'the way we've always done them', c) are more concerned with getting new members because people want to retire off committees and/or because of shrinking budgets than because they actually want new people, or, god forbid, new ideas. IMO, that's what the *US is like in the 1840s and 50s.
(and don't get me started on churches that 'want young families', but can't stand having kids around!)
Are these attitudes self-contradictory? Duh, of course they are. Does that stop people from having them? Nope, I've seen the like way too many times.

As for 'religiously intolerant Protestant northern Europeans'. Not really. Or only if the speak English (hence the Ulstermen and Scots). Some 'non-conformist' northern Europeans might come, but the places that are happiest with a non-English speaker (especially Philadelphia) are least happy with a hardline protestant. So, yes, some might come, but it wouldn't be a flood.

Edit: Any European Calvinists (especially hardline non-English speakers) are going to be best welcomed in South Africa. Look at the number of Huguenot names in OTL's Afrikaaner population.



The flag is going to continue to be a problem. Both in that it means a considerable number are denying their defeat and in that it means their neighbours still feel they can't trust them.
w.r.t. their neighbours, the US is talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Yes, there will be lingering wariness. But day-to-day relations between neighbours across a river aren't going to be too bad, a few years down the line when things calm down. 'Jonathans are all crooks, except the ones I know, like Billybob' and 'Canucks are overbearing haughty imperialists, but Pierre's OK for a Frenchie'.

The period before the American party revives the central government is going to be a difficult one. Both with all the economic problems and with the stronger position of the states. That will mean less chance for co-ordinated economic development, or even fiscal recovery as the states are more likely to be looking out for their own short term interest than the broader good of establishing stability and a reliable currency.
Note that the US situation isn't nearly as dire as it looks, at least a couple of years after the war when things have calmed down. Yes, there is less economic cooperation. Yes, the flow of capital, for instance, is impeded. But it's certainly not stopped, and state governments and local coalitions of businesses and towns will make sizable improvements in rail, for instance, or certain factories.
Having a dozen different currencies in central Europe in the interwar years may have slightly impeded trade, but it was the least of the economic worries of the time.

Here there are no internal tariffs, it's just a matter of changing among currencies. And, of course, no central investment and direction, which is, admittedly, a problem.

Also lower tariffs and a weak central government will mean more imports as infant US industries will struggle to compete with more developed European rivals. [Since the most powerful and efficient of those is Britain how many Usans will pay a higher price for goods from elsewhere or choke down their distaste and buy from the enemy?;)]. As tariffs formed the vast majority of the US revenue and also strong states will mean opposition to central taxation I can see the US having seriously problems with funding just about anything. Wondering how they will actually pay the reparations? [It could be that the need to do this and met funds for internal needs, even if a desire to rearm, could be a prompter for the revived central power, as that has happened before].
Yes, certainly, the federal government is in trouble until it can get alternate funding streams and recapture funding streams from the individual states. However, even the Democrats realize this. (What's the point of having total control of the Federal government if it can't DO anything:))

As for industry. It is true that tariffs will have gone back down. OTOH, the various US dollars are significantly devalued w.r.t. hard currencies, even within the US. And, e.g. a British iron merchant isn't going to sell rail to a US railroad for anybody's dollar, will the RR will have a heck of a time finding hard currency. So the iron foundries at Bethlehem and Pittsburgh are going to find themselves about as busy 5 years after the war as they were during.

Eventually, that will settle out, but by the time it does, the tariffs may start easing up again.

All in all it sounds like Shevek23's fears are going to be confirmed and there will be at least one more round of conflict before the US accepts Canada's existence.:( Although with the states having gained more power for a while and tension over slavery and other issues probably coming to a head, it might end in a civil conflict to resolve some of those factors.

Given how weak in comparison the US is now I also suspect that another war, unless someone really stupid is in charge of the US, would mean that Britain is distracted by major problems elsewhere so it could be a really big and costly conflict.:(:mad:

Steve
The US is NOT going to take on the British alone ever again. Are they going to try it as part of a Coalition? Up 'til a few days ago I was doubting it, but an early World War does start looking increasingly possible as I read people's comments.
 
Last edited:
In terms of immigrants I suspect a lot will still go to Canada, especially since it is markedly more welcoming to Catholics and other racial/religious groups than OTL N America. However expect at least some extra people will go to other places including the southern cone region. Possibly also Mexico, if it becomes more stable, and also Spanish Florida.

But Canada also has a reputation for being hellishly cold and severe, and comparatively fewer big urban job centres compared to the OTL US (which was a huge draw, most immigrants went to the cities rather than the rural locations). Its also unquestionably British, and those with a beef with the British might steer away. The heavy black presence in the Canadian southern areas will also reduce the draw for immigrants.

Then you have secondary effects - if this silly League is making the southern cone and Mexico better off, they'll be more attractive to immigrants, and you'll see a virtuous spiral (especially if a particular place gets associated with a particular group). For every 10 Italians that went to the OTL US 8 went to Argentina and 7 went to Brazil, it wouldn't be difficult to make those first ten tag along with the other destinations. Plus lots will likely go to an industrialising new england even as New Englands surplus rural population heads to Canada.

Canada certainly can't step into the US's shoes to provide room for these immigrants - the absence of the lands north of the Ohio and New England is a major step down.

OTL yes but this Canada has a lot more southern land, which is still largely unsettled, other than by the natives. They will get more protection than OTL but still plenty of room.

Also northern [i.e. OTL] Canada isn't that worse than neighbouring areas of the US. The big problem it had OTL was the existence of a much richer and more economically vigorous US to its south, which drew away many Canadians and potential immigrants. TTL the US is much more of a mess, less attractive to immigrants and probably distinctly hostile to Canadians so even the northern regions of Canada are likely to have a higher population than OTL. Not to mention without people being drawn south you get a virtuous circle as, with Canada's industrial base developing much more rapidly it draws in yet more people.

...

Yes a lot of people will go to other areas, such as the southern cone and Florida. However at least some will go to Canada, especially since its the most vigorous economy in the America and the most tolerant and welcoming.

Canada can not take as many immigrants as OTL USA did. They will get a lot, and the US will take a few of the 'right sort', but, yes, the southern cone will benefit hugely, as will places like southern Africa and the Australias. Unfortunately, that will still mean fewer people emigrate from Europe than OTL. However, *Canada has lots of reasonable land in, say Missouri, and OTL's Iowa's not much worse than New York State. "Hellish cold" might legitimately describe Saskatchewan or Ottawa in the winter*, but it certainly doesn't describe Toronto or St. Louis, let alone Portland Oregon or San Francisco. There will not be a lot of settlement in OTL's Canadian prairie provinces for a while yet - there are far more attractive places to settle.


*Mind you, give me -30 (either scale) winters, rather than Gulf Coast summers, hot and humid.


The comment about the number of blacks deterring white immigration. That will be a minor problem in Louisiana, I think, but the whites will (I think) stay a majority. It will be a major problem for Florida.
 
I mean hellish cold is the perception back in Europe, not the fact, but it is perception that drives people to up sticks and cross an ocean.

Having fewer people leave Europe would be hard - those cities were getting awfully crowded and food expensive.

The US taking Britain doesn't have to be in battle at first. A diplomatic coalition that includes the US could force the British to compromise (like the Germans and French did at several points in the late 19th century) on something, and the US will start to feel rather better about itself...
 
1) he's reporting on what people a few generations back thought. My intent was that he was partly bemused that different areas had different conceptions of 'foreign' ness.
2) Note the comment about defining themselves as 'non-British' is in a footnote, and is MY comment, not from the iTTL text. (Unless I missed something).
3) I've seen too many churches who 'want to attract new members', but a) don't do anything to make themselves attractive, b) insist that the new people do things 'the way we've always done them', c) are more concerned with getting new members because people want to retire off committees and/or because of shrinking budgets than because they actually want new people, or, god forbid, new ideas. IMO, that's what the *US is like in the 1840s and 50s.
(and don't get me started on churches that 'want young families', but can't stand having kids around!)
Are these attitudes self-contradictory? Duh, of course they are. Does that stop people from having them? Nope, I've seen the like way too many times.

OK, sorry, I was a bit confused over what was his comments, under what circumstances, and what was yours.

As for 'religiously intolerant Protestant northern Europeans'. Not really. Or only if the speak English (hence the Ulstermen and Scots). Some 'non-conformist' northern Europeans might come, but the places that are happiest with a non-English speaker (especially Philadelphia) are least happy with a hardline protestant. So, yes, some might come, but it wouldn't be a flood.

Edit: Any European Calvinists (especially hardline non-English speakers) are going to be best welcomed in South Africa. Look at the number of Huguenot names in OTL's Afrikaaner population.

I didn't mean that as the sole source of influx but, given what you said about the Orange orders and the greater tolerance it sounds like that's a group that will find the US more attractive and be more welcomed there than in many other areas. Also possibly the most hard line may be more welcome in S Africa but a lot who generally mistrust/dislike Catholics are probably going to be happier in the US than SA.


w.r.t. their neighbours, the US is talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Yes, there will be lingering wariness. But day-to-day relations between neighbours across a river aren't going to be too bad, a few years down the line when things calm down. 'Jonathans are all crooks, except the ones I know, like Billybob' and 'Canucks are overbearing haughty imperialists, but Pierre's OK for a Frenchie'.

Very true. Doesn't always win out as events in the Balkans showed:(:mad: but that degree of individual human contact can be a good buffer against bigotry and hatred.


Note that the US situation isn't nearly as dire as it looks, at least a couple of years after the war when things have calmed down. Yes, there is less economic cooperation. Yes, the flow of capital, for instance, is impeded. But it's certainly not stopped, and state governments and local coalitions of businesses and towns will make sizable improvements in rail, for instance, or certain factories.
Having a dozen different currencies in central Europe in the interwar years may have slightly impeded trade, but it was the least of the economic worries of the time.

Here there are no internal tariffs, it's just a matter of changing among currencies. And, of course, no central investment and direction, which is, admittedly, a problem.


Yes, certainly, the federal government is in trouble until it can get alternate funding streams and recapture funding streams from the individual states. However, even the Democrats realize this. (What's the point of having total control of the Federal government if it can't DO anything:))

Yes but you could have problems like different states using different standard and methods which could cause problems when a central government tries to link things together. Also not saying that the problems will bring things to a total halt, let alone drive downwards, but that it will impede what development would otherwise happen.

As for industry. It is true that tariffs will have gone back down. OTOH, the various US dollars are significantly devalued w.r.t. hard currencies, even within the US. And, e.g. a British iron merchant isn't going to sell rail to a US railroad for anybody's dollar, will the RR will have a heck of a time finding hard currency. So the iron foundries at Bethlehem and Pittsburgh are going to find themselves about as busy 5 years after the war as they were during.

Eventually, that will settle out, but by the time it does, the tariffs may start easing up again.

Good point on the relative weakness of the US currencies possibly have a significant up side.;)

The US is NOT going to take on the British alone ever again. Are they going to try it as part of a Coalition? Up 'til a few days ago I was doubting it, but an early World War does start looking increasingly possible as I read people's comments.

Possibly this is getting circular then. I [and possibly others] were feeling downcast about the future because it sounds like you were heading in that direction. Would definitely prefer that things settled down to better times for all.

Steve
 
1) ...
Here there are no internal tariffs, it's just a matter of changing among currencies. And, of course, no central investment and direction, which is, admittedly, a problem.
The OTL "American Way," in a lot of spheres good and bad, is to leave things to private initiative. This is how the USA surged so far ahead in the era of the "Robber Barons" aka "Captains of Industry" in the "Gilded Age" after the Civil War, when the courts seemed to be conspiring to check the power of formal government at every turn. I'm not saying it's the best way; but it can be effective if you don't care who gets hurt. "Central investment and direction" was to a great extent provided by the trusts and people like JP Morgan.

For one thing it's a little early for that kind of thing; the expanding business sectors that people like the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers and Carnigie sought to monopolize haven't had nearly as long to expand, the general technology of rapid communications via telegraph/telephone and railroads is just getting started. For another, the USA here is truncated and depleted by war and starved of immigrants by its own pig-headedness. On the other hand, that same truncation must give rise to a sense of limitedness that might play into the hands of "rationalizers" of business both public and private.

Objectively of course the country still has a lot of scope for expansion, but the raw edge of the frontier has been checked early; people can't have the sense that there are vast new empires to be founded internally, even if in fact there are.

I'd have guessed the times would be ripe for someone like--Henry Clay!:eek::p But if the cycles of politics make explicit, governmentally organized directed development impossible, a Usan approach would be to have it happen de facto by private means, and the public confronts an organized, centralized system of sorts as some kind of natural phenomenon no one is officially responsible for.

It would take generations for that system to develop appreciably but I'd be looking for it to start forming in embryo already.
...
The US is NOT going to take on the British alone ever again.
Oh, good!
Are they going to try it as part of a Coalition? Up 'til a few days ago I was doubting it, but an early World War does start looking increasingly possible as I read people's comments.
If you want to avoid that, one approach might be if the private, unofficial economic hierarchy I see developing forms effective ties with Canada and New England.

Officially, on the Fourth of July and in the halls of Congress and the state legislatures, the USA abhors the British Empire and all it stands for, but in fact the official government that people can vote for might be hobbled at every turn. On a populist level, one can get cheers by denouncing Britain and in serious trouble with possible mobs for appearing to defer to Britain and its allies too much. But quietly, the big business consortiums that form are in fact doing a lot of business across the borders and will check the nominal government from actually doing anything martial about the rhetoric.

I still think this is an ugly USA. It is I fear pretty much fated to be a "banana republic" as we Usans say OTL; one where politics is largely a prestige game of musical chairs between established elites; where money rules and doesn't figure democracy has any place challenging it; where a lot of rhetoric for public consumption (including quite a lot of hate talk) substitutes for policy debate because policy is decided behind private closed doors, and basically amounts to servicing the imperial powers that be--Britain and her friends.

I daresay it would not be nearly as polarized economically as OTL Latin America nor as poor on the average, but I do think it would be stunted relative to OTL even taking into account the reduced territory and population. There has been a lot of discussion of how after all the USA does still retain a lot of land, and good land at that, whereas Canada will be perceived as a frozen north. And probably even if Louisiana and the other southern and western additions to the BNA system--Tejas, Rio Bravo, and British California or however it will be styled (they could revive Drake's claim for instance and call it New Albion, but that would tend to alienate the Latino Californios already there and there won't be a lot of British types there until the gold rush, by which time I trust the British/Canadians will have settled on names and the like) all integrate tightly into the Canadian economic system, Greater Canada also is still not as potentially mighty as OTL USA either. Development will be multipolar rather than as centralized as OTL in North America, and I do think the USA will lag on a per capita basis, so it will be to some extent a dependent hinterland to Canada/Louisiana's metropolis--which in turn will be part of a larger British system that might tend quite naturally, without anyone plotting it and even with some deliberate attempts to mitigate it, to feed into Britain itself being the center of things.

So, Usan political rhetoric that explicitly resents and deplores this state of affairs, but day by day Usans get by economically by taking their secondary but really not too uncomfortable place in the larger system, de facto in the Delian system though they may be officially part of some rival grouping.

Canada can not take as many immigrants as OTL USA did. They will get a lot, and the US will take a few of the 'right sort', but, yes, the southern cone will benefit hugely, as will places like southern Africa and the Australias. Unfortunately, that will still mean fewer people emigrate from Europe than OTL. However, *Canada has lots of reasonable land in, say Missouri, and OTL's Iowa's not much worse than New York State. "Hellish cold" might legitimately describe Saskatchewan or Ottawa in the winter*, but it certainly doesn't describe Toronto or St. Louis, let alone Portland Oregon or San Francisco. There will not be a lot of settlement in OTL's Canadian prairie provinces for a while yet - there are far more attractive places to settle.


*Mind you, give me -30 (either scale) winters, rather than Gulf Coast summers, hot and humid.

Looking at a map in the abstract, just at swathes of area without context, it seems that Canada didn't get all that much in 1814. But then looking at the map that way, Canada ought to be the second most important nation of the world right after Russia!

The thing is, what Canada got, and denied the Yankees, is the OTL "Old Northwest" aka "the Midwest." They didn't get all of it, but OTL a whole lot of the mid-to-late 19th century surge of immigration went precisely to the places that Canada now holds. Of course a lot of that territory is Indian country, and the Indians are part of Canada's system and-well, I hope Canada doesn't evolve to downgrade their status. We've already had some discussion of how even in the Protectorate Euro-type settlers do infiltrate, and Native groups with local recognized territories within the Imperial provinces must to some extent give way. Vice versa of course the Indians are getting drawn into the economic, social and political life of Canada as more or less equal partners, so they will be participants in development while still retaining the dignity of both a special place within the system and good control of at least some of their own territory, both in their dominant role in the Protectorate and their protected-minority status in other territories. I do think that might delay and displace some settlement but it also tends I think to facilitate an earlier dispersal of settlement over longer distances. I gather that via the social daisy chain of Anglos/core Quebecois in old Canada=>Metís ranging over the old voyageur domains=>Native groups the Metís intermarry with, and otherwise know well, the effective presence of Canadian authority is already felt all the way to the Rockies.

So I'm not at all sure Canada, even confining ourselves to the parts of it north of Louisiana (and if Louisiana will ever be called part of Canada, it isn't yet!) can't quite handily absorb all, or at any rate most, of the emigration OTL Europe sent to the USA. They'd either settle in Old Canada (Upper and Lower) cities that will develop much more than OTL, and pretty much suck up the oxygen the OTL USA eastern seaboard claimed, or settle on broad western lands, farther west and more widely dispersed in the early decades and then tending to "build in," widely, early established settlements growing and consolidating in place.

OTL in these mid-century decades, the major action of American Western settlement was in places like Illinois (here Protectorate), Missouri (split between the rival nations but even the USA parts of it are deeply under Canada's shadow) Michigan and Wisconsin (here quite safely Canadian) and so on. Demographically I don't think settlement in Oregon counted for much, it was mainly important at this stage politically--well, that's part of BNA too, as is the parts of California which OTL were important in the 19th century.

I rather suspect there will be more immigrants for Louisiana than a lover of brisk winters might imagine! After all, doesn't the whole of North America (outside of places like Maine and Nova Scotia, or the cooler parts of the Pacific Northwest) swelter hideously compared to anyplace in Europe in summer? European immigrants, especially those from Southern Europe, might find Southern summers bearable enough (though a new experience for them, true!) and the milder winters a fair exchange. But actually I do think Northern Europeans won't find Canadian winter, even in the heart of old Canada (and the rest of the OTL Midwest that Canada now has too) too daunting, not much worse than European winters in places like Germany.

Canada will probably get all the Scandinavians. Also, part of the new BNA system post-war is having Tejas as a Duchy with a German Duke; I believe it has already been indicated that Bavarians do tend to emigrate to there despite its Deep South weather. So there is a German connection to part of BNA and other Germans who really don't want to deal with Southern summers and hurricanes and the like have all of the northlands to consider settling in.

In general, a lot of soldiers from many parts of Europe were called up and showed up to help the British fight off the Yankees and Mexicans. Some of them will simply stay, others will go home but then some of them will plan to come back to settle, and spread the word among their compatriots about the opportunities in the broader reaches of BNA.

Canada will perhaps still fall short of the immigration potential of the USA OTL but not as much as some think, is my guess. And there are extra sources of immigration that were available to the USA OTL but not desired, such as India, that here have already started to establish a foothold and that Canadian authority won't be as interested in denying.

The comment about the number of blacks deterring white immigration. That will be a minor problem in Louisiana, I think, but the whites will (I think) stay a majority. It will be a major problem for Florida.

Huh. I thought Louisiana was already starting to develop synergies of tolerance moving toward acceptance and a composite society. Tejas, oddly enough, might catalyze that; Germans coming to North America won't be acculturated the way USA whites and even I guess Britons were to hold African-Americans at arm's length. The various and distinct forms of racism as we know it in Anglo society OTL were cultivated over centuries as part of our various imperial systems; of course Germans are perfectly capable of buying into this kind of bigotry, and with interest too!:eek: But they are also capable, as people raised in societies without a lot of direct reference to actual Africans, of looking at the situation with a fresh eye. What they'll find in Louisiana, and hence filtering over to Tejas, is rather plucky African-Americans who have freed themselves from slavery, and served with more or less distinction in British units, and are an integral and respectable part of the British-run society of Louisiana. The Britons there may themselves continue to see the Africans through a lens of prejudice that may be kinder than the Yankee version but still a bit blinding, but I suspect many Germans fresh off the boat will find their African-American neighbors and trade partners and so on no more exotic than the rest of the American menagerie. Since BNA Louisiana has eradicated slavery and has come to count on the African population as a yeomanry, I think the stigma of American-style caste may get flushed out pretty completely in Tejas, and the influence may then dilute it to harmless levels in Louisiana and eventually in BNA generally.

Anyway, the effects of residual levels of anti-African prejudice in the system may mean that those whites who do choose to settle Louisiana will be those least inclined to pick those fights, while those of more "delicate" sensibilities may wish to endure more cold and isolation from the settled centers, out on the wide plains.

Where they will have to learn to live with Indians, Metís, eventually people from India, and all manner of other Europeans with religions and languages different from their own anyway. And I daresay there will be venturesome Afro-Louisianans and Rio Bravans and Californios and immigrants from Mexico who take it into their heads to pioneer the northlands too, and on the whole the authority and consensus of Canadian society, with its already wildly polyglot nature and eclecticism, will frown on bigotry.

Florida is not yet, and I rather hope never will be, legally British North America's problem, except insofar as they are concerned it should not be too weak so as to fall helplessly to the Yankees.

Upthread a while back I asked what people thought of my notion that maybe possession of Florida, with a substantial number of African-Americans self-liberated from slavery, might possibly help to revitalize Spain itself and by feedback, strengthen both Spain and Florida. Here I'm wondering, if northern European whites really don't want to settle in Florida, might that not be a good thing for Afro-Americans who can settle it in their place, and a Spain that is not utterly mired in decline could well put their talents and motivation not to be retaken by the USA to good uses indeed.

I don't know if they'd all quickly learn Spanish, or if we'd wind up with an English-speaking Spanish possession.

Anyway I have seen nothing, either telling me why it's a hopelessly romantic notion that can never work, or offering more insight into how it might.

I do think not only Florida but Spain itself might be very different than OTL anyway. Does anyone else?
...
Yes but you could have problems like different states using different standard and methods which could cause problems when a central government tries to link things together. Also not saying that the problems will bring things to a total halt, let alone drive downwards, but that it will impede what development would otherwise happen.
See above my suggestion to Dathi that the "American way" may be for robber barons to coordinate things their way.
...
Possibly this is getting circular then. I [and possibly others] were feeling downcast about the future because it sounds like you were heading in that direction. Would definitely prefer that things settled down to better times for all.

Steve

And I think I am Exhibit A among the downcast. I certainly hope my weeping doesn't cause the next war where the Yanks are on the wrong side yet again!

I even hope for a better USA than the Banana Republic version I deplored above. I rather suspect though, with these cards having been dealt, that it might require some kind Second Revolution to revitalize the place. If that happens with Canadian help, the progressives would be suspect as toadies of Britain, if it happens without, it might be very scary for the BNA to have happening to a neighbor and the upshot might be a third war, this time with Canada on the side of counterrevolution--and perhaps losing!
 
Shevek23

Good post and I agree with what you say. Think I would be exhibit B in the downcast;) but as I said it sounded like we, amongst others, were worried about what Dathi was saying and Dathi was then feeding back on our concerns to make a new conflict more likely.

I think the US can pull out of the dead-spiral and be a fairly vigorous and pretty damned prosperous region. It would need to resolve the conflict still present about some still desiring to be top dog in N America and seeking 'revenge' for earlier defeats. This might in itself be a fairly violent conflict but I think after the current mess and the economic problems generated there would be a lot of people saying 'we don't want to go through that again!' and 'we want to live in peace and enrich our lives.' Hence I think there would be a strong internal section that would oppose any group of hotheads saying 'Let's take ''our'' lands back.'

This is especially since as time goes on the links with the lands the US lost will grow weaker and their development and settling by the assorted Canadian populations makes their re-conquest more and more unrealistic. Since Britain/Canada and their allies have no claims themselves on territory the US holds the militants can't claim with any reality a need for self-defence.

As such I think, while there will be tensions for a long while, more and more Americans will realise their best interest is in not quarrelling with their neighbours. As people gradually develop their lands and trade with Canada increase the incentives to not have another war increase steadily. History shows that people can be very stupid and a few can sometimes carry far larger numbers with them but often basic economic and social factors hold sway.

Rabbiting a bit and possibly being too idealistic but, while there will be some who hold a grudge - a bit like the Argentinians in OTL - I think that provided nothing happens that make the US feel threatened, things should gradually improve.

Steve
 
Irredentism in the USA might still cause conflicts.

Is it possible that the economic center of TTL USA will be the remains of the NorthEast (with its own strength), but several peripheral states (think everything west of the Appalachians) will orbit economically the bordering Canadian areas?

Keep it up, Dathi!:)
 
Last edited:
Dathi Approved Map:

dathicanada1850_trial_by_iainfluff-d4o82s3.png
 

Thande

Donor
Dathi Approved Map:
g]

Very cool, like how you used the same basemap and style as for your LTTW map...the setup in Dathi's TL is certainly constitutionally complex and inconsistent enough to seem plausible as something set up by the British government ;)
 
Map-provoked musings

Looking at the map, aside from the general satisfaction I get from a beautiful map well done (and it better be, it took a long time to download! But it is!:D) one of the first things I notice is, no cities are shown on it. Just as well, best not to tie Dathi's hands. A very important town at this stage might wind up being eclipsed over later generations and someplace not even mentioned yet turn out to be the new center.

First of all I do feel my assumption that Montreal will be the Big Maple of North America is reinforced. It's the obvious terminus of seaborne trade going up the Saint Lawrence itself of course. Now consider New England. It's a member of the Delian League. I figure the League must from time to time facilitate adjustments meant to deliberately throw opportunities the way of members that otherwise might, in a straight and simple competition, lose out, otherwise the loser members might reconsider their membership. So I do expect that a certain amount of trade ultimately originating in or destined for Canada will route through New England, and a certain amount of industrial development that might more naturally happen in Canada itself will be fostered there instead. Not without the New Englanders working hard to make these things happen of course, but assuming they are enterprising and energetic, Canada and NE will have a certain reciprocity. However, looking at the border with the USA, NE trade headed for Canada will funnel north, right toward Montreal, until and unless US relations improve so much that cutting across NY will seem safe and not a matter of feeding the enemy. But I expect channels, which I believe we've already seen described as being laid, northward from the NE coastal areas to Montreal will deepen and widen--canals, railroads, eventually surface highways. Montreal is clearly the queen city of the entire northeast.

The USA on the other hand, if it doesn't make a remarkably quick 180 degree turn and start obsequiously courting Canadian-British-Delian friendship, will be discouraged from investing too much in that dangerous angle. New York state, I suspect, and still more NYC, is in for eclipse. We've already been told Philadelphia revives as the financial center; to me that implies it will be a center of a lot of other stuff too, and on the Yankee side Pennsylvania in general will be the leading industrial state.

Sea traffic bound for the USA is going to be diverted past NY to the Chesapeake, much of it headed right up to the headwaters meaning near Philly, but Washington DC may redeem the hopes of George Washington and others and become a major commercial and industrial center in its own right as well as being the national capital. Meanwhile, I daresay the entire Chesapeake region will commercialize and industrialize beyond OTL levels, unless the general stagnation of the USA keeps that as modest or even less developed than OTL--but if it does, the whole country will be mired very deeply indeed in depression, and I expect the Chesapeake to be second only to Pennsylvania, at however high or low a level that is. So basically Virginia and Maryland will be among the industrial core states along with Penn.

The question of just what would happen to the deep South and the slavery issue is a very wide open one that it's up to Dathi to resolve. Consider though that while the world (especially Britain but also France and other European markets) is hungry for cotton, in addition to alternative sources to Dixie Britain and the rest of Europe had access to OTL, such as Egypt, BNA has for some time included Louisiana, Spanish Florida might be able to supply some of the demand, and so might Tejas and perhaps Rio Bravo. Of all these regions only Louisiana overlaps the traditional "cotton belt" I believe, but I daresay crops can be grown outside of that belt. Britain's anti-slavery stance as of midcentury of OTL can only be made firmer by the various commitments in North America made ITTL--to forbid enslavement of Louisianan Africans and to watch out for the interests of refugee ex-slaves in Florida, thus recruiting the exodus from slavery into de facto (and often, official) militias to defend the borders of the realm. If nevertheless the Delian League countenances the purchase and traffic in slave-grown US cotton, that trade must funnel through either Louisiana or Florida, or be expensively hauled over the mountains to ports on the Chesapeake. (Well, in Georgia and Alabama and the Carolinas, the option does exist to ship it directly from Atlantic ports there too--Alabama's having to be hauled by RR east, the more natural trade route for that state, and of course Mississippi, being down to the Gulf, across the rival borders. Alabama could only consider the eastern route for overriding political reasons and at great cost and I think it would be just out of the question for Mississippi to do it no matter how strong political feelings run.) Either Britain or Spain will thus get a cut in what profits there are to be had in selling Dixie cotton (or other products the South might propose to sell on the world market), the planters will get less, the northeastern (ie OTL Middle Atlantic states) merchant elite will get a shrunken share or be cut out the deal completely. Even if Britain and thus the Delian members generally were oblivious to the moral issues of buying US plantation products (as long as slavery is legal) the basic geopolitics of the marketplaces and routes cuts sharply into the OTL role of "King Cotton" in the USA. Since I don't expect the British to be oblivious, especially not local officials more or less answerable to local settlements of recently escaped slaves and their children and grandchildren, (a diaspora that fought creditably for the Empire in fighting for themselves, twice now in living memory) some land that ecologically speaking is prime land for such exports as cotton will simply languish uncultivated (Mississippian in particular) or crops that are not notoriously grown by slaves will take over because these can be sold over the borders--if the British are diligent, they'll make sure that they aren't in fact slave-grown.

Also, the slavers will feel an even tighter pinch than OTL on the supply side of slavery--while I believe that by mid-century the supply of foreign-born slaves had largely been cut off, here it can only exist as a desperate trickle if at all. They are stuck with their existing stock of American-born slaves, who will have very dangerously uppity notions from the slaveholder's fearful viewpoint in view of the numerous and relatively nearby refuges they can hope to reach if they run.

So the potential profits of slavery are being throttled, the cost of slaveholding is rising...

You know, Douglas Adams once characterized the personalities of various nations, and he compared the USA (of his lifetime, OTL, mind) to a sullen teenager. Here, it's a sullen, very angry teenager still smarting from a few recent beatings. I share in hopes it may snap out of it yet, but in the meantime, I would not dare to predict the trajectory of race relations in the USA of this timeline. Only that the subject is charged up to a very high voltage.

Anyway the stagnation of the slave economy helps perhaps to offset the obvious dominance Dixie has based on a glance at the map or a count of electoral votes. It could be that what immigration the USA gets settles mainly in the North, in Pennsylvania and Virginia and Maryland, or in Ohio.

Or maybe the South extracts itself from the tailspin it is in by backing away from slavery. I think, in view of the very strained relations between the races there, often slaves will be freed and then encouraged to emigrate--not back to Africa, but right over the border to Florida or Louisiana. Perhaps quite a few will stay anyway, perhaps Southern society will transition over through tolerance to acceptance to inclusion of descendants of slaves as core Americans. (That would only be logical after all!) But I suspect that both for reasons of domestic bigotry and to be really convincing to skeptical foreign buyers answerable to Delian purchase guidelines that their products really aren't slave-grown, what agriculture there is in the South will be white-grown to a much greater degree than OTL. So maybe the South will become culturally more like the OTL Western states in certain respects, and politics will be less a matter of elite dominance and more a matter of a Free-Soiler like yeoman myth, leading to future progressive-style reformism not as massively distorted by racial apartheid as OTL--if only perhaps because the South practices "Grand Apartheid" and drives its African children right out. Into waiting and welcoming British or Spanish arms!

If I hope for the best for the USA, especially the South, I hope that the trends do not in fact drive the freedmen out but rather to an early and relatively peaceful emancipation movement that leaves the freed people free to acquire southwestern (this is the Old Southwest we are talking about and now the USA's only Southwest) land and buy in to an agricultural renaissance. So by sheer demography Dixie does wind up dominating the Union, but it is a Dixie of the softest dreams of the Civil Rights movement, black and white together.

That's my hope for the best. I don't count on it. But if it goes nearly as dark as we can imagine, the Africans have refuges where they can survive, rally, even push back from. And if they are driven out, the South will be much poorer in labor, though still pretty rich in good land.

Clearly Dixie is on a cusp, and with it the Union, and I won't predict which way it goes, only that whatever does happen will be precipitous and dramatic.

Turning to the other side of the border I've been talking about though, I'm pretty optimistic about both Louisiana and Florida, as I've already indicated at considerable length above and don't need to repeat here! Again a map-focused observation is, both Louisiana and Florida break up into obvious regions where the African diaspora will tend to concentrate. In Florida it will be West Florida, which OTL and even in this timeline is only weakly garrisoned by Spaniards, but is the obvious stopping place for slaves who have just made it over the border. It's land of a type that slaves local to the Spanish border area would be familiar with, and if the Spanish are even halfway astute and have some confidence of retaining the effective loyalty of these refugees and their children, they will encourage them to settle right there along the US border. Train them into militias, arm them, authorize them to protect themselves and to fall in with orders if things blow up with the USA again. And meanwhile there they are, the people whose physical work created the wealth the Cotton Kings claimed, knowing how to farm, how to build, and hungry and ambitious for the prospects of dignity and respect freedom brings them.

Nope, we just might not get a lot of white settlers in West Florida--and we won't miss them, we have these fine African-Americans to build a country of their own with no overseer looking over their shoulder but the stark necessity of protecting and caring for themselves.

That's West Florida, a region OTL that is amazingly thinly settled in its eastern reaches--look at a night view of Earth from space sometime, at the settlement patterns limned by city lights. The northeast corner of the Gulf of Mexico appears to reach almost to the Atlantic coast! I'm not sure why that is, but I think it underscores the point that South Florida, the peninsula that is, is a different world than West Florida--the OTL Panhandle plus the outlets of Alabama and Mississippi onto the Gulf.

If the Spanish do revive, and either send out more emigrants to colonize themselves or settle Europeans from other sources in their possession, I suspect South Florida will be where they will go. And meanwhile, what about Cuba? OTL slavery continued there very long into the 19th century--here although Spain is not I think a formal Delian League member, that's the direction they are being pulled in. Abolition of slavery in Cuba is going to be on the agenda, or Spain will be on a collision course both with Britain and those valuable ex-slaves garrisoning the US frontier for them.

I suspect the upshot will be, peninsular Florida will be drawn into a similar orbit to emancipated Cuba, and West Florida will be a very distinctive place.

One that will have a lot in common with the southernmost part of Louisiana, the delta country and New Orleans and its immediate hinterland--I suspect New Orleans will become an increasingly African-run as well as African-populated region--non-Africans will of course be prominent there as well, but there will be no question, in southern Louisiana, of African inferiority.

Going north from there on the other hand, the Principality claims a lot of land that is basically sparsely settled by anyone, where native peoples will come to terms and receive some priority and protection, and otherwise will look a lot like Canadian land, open to European settlers. Who had better learn to be at least tolerant of dark-skinned people of various origins to be sure! But as with Spanish Florida, I expect a sharp demographic polarization, with the Africans living mainly on the river itself across from where they escaped from, or gravitating down it south to swell up New Orleans or perhaps migrate to West Florida.

So in general the African diaspora will tend to cut across national boundaries and define an alternative power center, and there will be many regions where without any doubt they will advance to fill all social roles exactly comparable to white people, indeed dominant in their own spheres, and this will pose sharp challenges to any reactionary slaveholding or just racially domineering regimes out there. In places where OTL the African diaspora had technical legal equality but was held down anyway, here they have both examples to look up to and allies to call on, and no nation-state that repressively tries to close their borders to this influence will be favored by the Delian powers--if they don't provoke open intervention by Britain directly, they will be wide open to subversive, revolutionary filibustering.

Turning my eyes westward--well I don't know what to make of Mexico's realistic prospects as opposed to the fizzy fantasies I was indulging in upthread. But looking at the British/Mexican border zones in the Rocky Mountain areas, I think I may have written off Reno (here, Reno, California!) too easily. I would like to see a map of the good railroad routes that are most doable remaining over that northern border, but no matter how they meander, I think they'd come into the Great Basin considerably south of the latitude of the confluence of the Columbia and Williamette rivers where I speculatively sited upthread in place of Portland, a city called Vancouver. The Oregon country will indeed still be the prime first destination--but British California goes so far east, I do believe a branch headed for Donner Pass by way of Washoe and Tahoe as was so highly favored OTL can completely skirt Mexican territory and still hold to an optimal route. In other words, that same railroad I live next to will exist, and soon, and between the Gold Rush and California's generally glittering prospects, will soon equal if not supplant the Oregon branch of the route. San Francisco and the Central Valley and the coastlands down to the Mexican border will be a major focus of settlement, soon, and when the railroad comes through I think it will first favor this OTL favored route rather than attempt the daunting challenges of a coastwise "spur" (ever driven up the US 101 to Humboldt County and beyond? There's this place called "Confusion Hill," and the railroad company has given up repairing the parts that keep getting washed out) or even driving up from Oregon's twisty southern inland valleys past Yreka and Mt Shasta--sure that will be a major route eventually, to complete the circuit, but I believe initially it will radiate out from a point northwest of Salt Lake (in Mexico, but barely) across the basin directly to California on one line and to Oregon on another.

As for Oregon, I suspect the center of gravity of settlement will start out at the Portland/Speculative Vancouver site, but gradually the Puget Sound area will draw off more and more settlement and eventually eclipse, or at any rate balance, the original Oregonian core. Assuming that is that relations with the Indians there are not so good, from the Indian point of view anyway, that settlement is massively impeded.

----I feel I should try to fill in some more speculative development and try to summarize it all, but also that I've gone on more than long enough and there's room and time later. Most of all, I want to see where Dathi really wants to take all this.

If I'm going to be scrappy about anything, it would be the renaissance of the African diaspora, at least in Louisiana and West Florida themselves. To be sure, the more successful these zones are, the more leverage that gives African-Americans to settle and prosper wherever they might feel like going, so it wouldn't be just a Gulf Coast homeland--and with that kind of broad success, plenty of other people would be attracted there too and even these diasporan heartlands might not be majority-African. I suspect people of African descent will be well integrated all across BNA, and if the USA gets its head screwed on right they will be there too, especially in their whilom exilic land of bondage but now their long home, Dixieland.
 
Turning my eyes westward--well I don't know what to make of Mexico's realistic prospects as opposed to the fizzy fantasies I was indulging in upthread. But looking at the British/Mexican border zones in the Rocky Mountain areas, I think I may have written off Reno (here, Reno, California!) too easily. I would like to see a map of the good railroad routes that are most doable remaining over that northern border, but no matter how they meander, I think they'd come into the Great Basin considerably south of the latitude of the confluence of the Columbia and Williamette rivers where I speculatively sited upthread in place of Portland, a city called Vancouver. The Oregon country will indeed still be the prime first destination--but British California goes so far east, I do believe a branch headed for Donner Pass by way of Washoe and Tahoe as was so highly favored OTL can completely skirt Mexican territory and still hold to an optimal route. In other words, that same railroad I live next to will exist, and soon, and between the Gold Rush and California's generally glittering prospects, will soon equal if not supplant the Oregon branch of the route. San Francisco and the Central Valley and the coastlands down to the Mexican border will be a major focus of settlement, soon, and when the railroad comes through I think it will first favor this OTL favored route rather than attempt the daunting challenges of a coastwise "spur" (ever driven up the US 101 to Humboldt County and beyond? There's this place called "Confusion Hill," and the railroad company has given up repairing the parts that keep getting washed out) or even driving up from Oregon's twisty southern inland valleys past Yreka and Mt Shasta--sure that will be a major route eventually, to complete the circuit, but I believe initially it will radiate out from a point northwest of Salt Lake (in Mexico, but barely) across the basin directly to California on one line and to Oregon on another.

Nah.

The Northern basin and and mountains in Southern Idaho and Oregon are both a significant obstacle, arid, and lack in easy passes. A rail was never attempted going south out of Idaho to Nevada for good reason.

More importantly to get into Idaho at the south in the first place you have to get through Wyoming, and the 'easy' southern part of Wyoming is in Mexican territory here, to drive through to Idaho in Canadian territory you have to cross the real mountains - the Wind River and the Absaroka ranges, or skirt into mexican lands in the south.

Its a shorter distance, less elevation changes and mountain blasting (and thus cheaper eand easier), deep in Canadian lands, and better watered to go the route the OTL Northern Pacific railroad took; slipping between the Bitterroot and the Main Rockies then coming down the Columbia river.

Plus there are also the Northern California goldfields that would spur a Oregon-Sacramento connection if they're found before or simultaneously with the Serra Nevada ones. The Canadians within the British empire are not the otl USA - land connections are less important, you just want to get to the pacific the cheapest way, then the mightiest navy and merchant marine in the world can move things down to San Francisco if needed.
 
Last edited:
To clarify my comment above lets look at a map of the 1870 railnet with the new borders superimposed

dathirails.png


-The dotted black line is the Idaho spur of the union pacific, not built until the late 1880s.
-Cyan dotted lines are what Shevek is talking about, skirting the border to the north, however the red patches are very significant mountain ranges and plateaus that no one every tried to drive a rail through in the OTL, and may indeed be impassable at the current technological expertise (especially the Wind River Range and Wyoming Range mountains in Wyoming).
-Blue line is the OTL North Pacific Route completed in 1883.
 
This rail talk, with very good reason, is making me wonder whether Canada is going to purchase the top strip of Mexican territory - the OTL Union/Central Pacific line - at some point. When people start talking about building transcontinental railways and surveying routes, they're certainly going to have motivation to do so. What's more, California is eventually going to really want a more direct route to eastern Canada than would be built through OTL Oregon and Idaho.

There are, of course, two other routes I can see:
* Mexico refuses to sell, but is willing to build an international railroad. Mexico and Canada are drawn closer together.
* California declares independence, or otherwise grows away from Canada as an independent British colony.
 
What's the likelyhood of a *Seattle to San Francisco railway during this period?

At the very least, there can be a regular ferry service along the Pacific coast from *Seattle to San Francisco.
 
This rail talk, with very good reason, is making me wonder whether Canada is going to purchase the top strip of Mexican territory - the OTL Union/Central Pacific line - at some point. When people start talking about building transcontinental railways and surveying routes, they're certainly going to have motivation to do so. What's more, California is eventually going to really want a more direct route to eastern Canada than would be built through OTL Oregon and Idaho.

There are, of course, two other routes I can see:
* Mexico refuses to sell, but is willing to build an international railroad. Mexico and Canada are drawn closer together.
* California declares independence, or otherwise grows away from Canada as an independent British colony.

Building a line down from the Columbia isn't difficult, and its the connection not so much its speed that is important, and the Mexican politician who suggest selling Mexican land is going to be up before a firing squad in about twenty minutes considering how Mexico lost land to Canada in the past.

Also assuming that California booms to the same extent as the OTL version is suspect, they might be more accommodating. If they don't get the rail terminus, it'll be rather less commercial and urban.

Britain will eventually push California under Canada, due to the desire for a unified NA land army.
 
Nugax, Dathi

Damn! Put together a post on the map and when I saved it couldn't find the site!:mad::mad: Try and remember as much as I can.

Rather surprised at the north-south spread of the Mexican border with Canada. Hadn't realised how far north the Mexican territories reached in the centre or how far south the RBR goes. Suspect there will be tension over this with possibly Canada wanting to gain at least access to parts of northern Mexico for reasons of rail access as Nugax suggests and also probably a number of Mexicans being unwilling to accept the loss of the RBR. Hopefully such tensions can be resolved peaceably but that may not be the case.

As well as the problems that Shevek23 mentioned for the southern US being dependent on either New Orleans or Florida there is also the factor that the lower Mississippi and the Ohio being international borders. Its likely to delay development to a degree. However it also gives an incentive for the populations on both sides to favour friendly relations to reduce tension, avoid military spending etc. Also this could be prompted by desires for flood control and mapping of river channels to maximise economic development.

I was surprised, or had forgotten, that Indiana doesn't have access to the great lakes, which will probably delay its development a bit as it will be dependent on access via either Michigan or Wisconsin or the long route down the rivers to New Orleans.

A number of the western political units are both thinly populated and pretty large. OTL as such territories were settled and became states they were often split into smaller units. This might well happen with Iowa and Missouri especially, although I note that the latter is already a province rather than a territory. However with Louisiana and possibly Tejas this may be politically more difficult as they are a principality and a duchy.

Someone mentioned Alaska. I would expect Canada to obtain it. Either by fiscal means as the US OTL, as Canada is the only practical buyer and it will almost certain be a economic burden to Russia. Or possibly by military means if there is a conflict with Russia, either a Crimean equivalent or a wider European conflict. Presuming fairly rapid Canadian development of its Pacific provinces, especially once a railway is in place it is going to be too powerful to prevent it controlling the thinly settled Alaska, so far from Russian centres of power. Not to mention the probability of the RN controlling the vital sea access to the region.

Steve
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top