DBAHC: More successful Canada, less successful Mexico

Canada and Mexico are, in many ways, a study in contrasts. The former is infamous for seemingly being a "perpetual developing country", whereas the latter is known as an overall quite successful country despite a rough start (it does have some lingering issues, but no country is perfect).

Your challenge is to have this be the other way around.
 
If Quebec remained within British control, would this hurt or help Canada? With the Maritimes cut off, they lost a lot of easy access to the Atlantic.

On the Mexican end, maybe you nix the Gold Rush? If the Californias were a little less populated, we could see the Americans making a play for them?
 
I think the common misconception that Canada is a single country is probably a contributory factor here. What we have is a loose confederation of four nations, Albionoria, Quebec, the Kingdom of the Maritimes and the Republic of Franklin.

When you've got four different system of government ranging from the constitutional monarchy under King Richard, to a French style Republic, you're bound to have some sort of issues in bringing together disparate points of view.

Franklin, a mainly farming orientated nation, is hardly going to have a lot in common with the fishing communities within the Kingdom of the Maritimes.

Maybe if Canada was truly a single united nation, it could have prospered.
 
Mexico could lose (Alta) California while "Canada" could keep/gain the Pacific coast (Oregon Country etc).
 
I think the common misconception that Canada is a single country is probably a contributory factor here. What we have is a loose confederation of four nations, Albionoria, Quebec, the Kingdom of the Maritimes and the Republic of Franklin.

When you've got four different system of government ranging from the constitutional monarchy under King Richard, to a French style Republic, you're bound to have some sort of issues in bringing together disparate points of view.

Franklin, a mainly farming orientated nation, is hardly going to have a lot in common with the fishing communities within the Kingdom of the Maritimes.

Maybe if Canada was truly a single united nation, it could have prospered.
Compelling arguments! How do we get there, then? Preventing the fracturing of Canada is key here. Maybe a big outside enemy? Mexico is too far away, but what about the Americans? I know it's a cliche on this board, but what if the Confederation stuck together after the Revolution?
 
Obviously the turning point is the proposal to federalise, we'd need the four factions to have compelling reasons to not stand apart, three of the factions were part of the initial fedsralisation proposal, it was hoped that Albionoria would have come later. Let's look at Quebec as am example, you'd probably have to look much further back than actual federalisation, perhaps a century before and when the Bourbons were dangerously close go having to cede New France to the British. Let's say they did, then you avoid Quebec becoming the sanctuary of the deposed Bourbon monarchy when Bonaparte rises, but obviously the Bourbons made a hash of the matter and got jettisoned pretty sharply.

I mean, when Bonaparte fell, it's not like they didn't get back to France to reclaim the crown anyways. Quebec under British control wouldn't have experienced it's own monarchy, nor the Quebec Rebellion of 1830, and would have got largely used to being it's own entity and would never have wanted to cede more control than was absolutely required at a minimum away from the Presidente Quebecois in Montreal.

I mean, it's a long and convoluted process, but you get my drift.
 
When the former United States fractured in the aftermath of the First American Civil War, it gave Mexico the 'in' it needed to take back those lands it lost however briefly during the Mexican-American War, the Mexi-Confederate War ten years later resulted in New Orleans becoming Mexican as it is now. With the Second American Civil War we saw Cascadia and Deseret break off, Maine join Canada, and the Missouri River being the southern limit of the United States. By the time of the Third American Civil War and the Treaty of Indianapolis, the Atlantic Federation emerged as Vermont, New Hampshire, and northernmost New York joined Canada as the Mississippi River became an international border as did the now-infamous 'Westohiovania' zone between the rump Confederacy, Federation, and the People's Republic of Great Lakes formerly known as the Great Lakes Alliance. The latter along with the Cisrockian Republic became a Canadian sink for capital under humanitarian reasons even as Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho became multinational battlegrounds.

Keep the US together after the First Civil War, maybe by preventing Rosecrans from losing at Hoover's Gap and later surrendering to General Claiburn at Chattanooga after punching through at Tullahoma. I mean by the time of the Treaty of Chevy Chase the Confederacy still held much of the Mississippi and now had a major army surrender with Confederates approaching Frankfurt KY and even Cairo IL again.
 
"If Quebec remained within British control"

Quebec was in British control for all of one day before they were expelled. That is an odd way to put it.

But maybe go with that POD. Canada can only be better off as British, if only to get free of the French Bourbons. All of British North America benefits, and maybe the Mexican border is not on the Mississippi as in IOTL. You could probably make Canada the most prosperous part of the North American commonwealth. Probably butterfly away the communist takeover.
 
Top