Different Northern US Border

Ah yes forgot about the exit point :eek:

On Province names, I'm thinking (West to East):

British Columbia
Mackenzie? (*Alberta)
Athabasca / Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan / Churchill
Manitoba / Winnipeg
Superior
Ontario
and others as OTL inc NWT

Alberta is the tricky one to name and probably would be after after a royal. Augusta?

Alberta would be tricky. I got Assiniboine from the river, and Keewantin was a territory in that area before it got folded into Ontario.
 
Actually, if Canada owned Seattle IT might be the terminus for the CPR.

Won't it still be going through the Thompson valley in this TL? Hence Vancouver is closer and upstream - while Seattle could certainly be a port and on the railroad, Vancouver will also be where the railroad turns inland...

BTW - did you check your PM box?

Yes, I'm carefully considering my detailed response ;)

It is customary in a debate to explain why you think I am wrong. Ideally you should provide evidence for your position but a simple explanation would do. Simply telling me I am wrong is pointless. I'll hold off making any comment until I know why you think I am wrong.
Many other parts of Canada were valuable ; Ontario transport links and minerals, the northern prairies once winter wheat strains had developed, vast timber resources, the northern gold, and once you get into the 20th huge mineral wealth.

We it really depends on the POD the initial poster for this thread only swiped your border and map from the earlier thread so far as I could see, not the scenario itself.
Indeed, so your more aggressive US is also contingent on the timeline.

It is your supposition that blocking of transport routes is significant not mine. It is largly irrelevant to what I am saying.
What I'm saying with this is that unlike many Canada++ timelines this doesn't give borders that hurt the USes transport network.
Manifest Destiny perhaps? Better Northern ports on the Pacific? To protect the US flank? Living room? Fenianism? Resources?
All of which Canada had in the OTL, and this one will probably see a stronger Canada that will make the US less keen on such things, especially since the Great Lakes industrial belt will now be dependent on Canadian Iron, and the wealthy will be lobbying for Free Trade, not wars that will leave their factories idle.

You really are being a bit offensive in the way you are replying to me. Your model of settlement is far too simplistic and really does not account for Louisiana, California, Texas or Florida. The American advance into the widerness was both Governmental and individual. For every Smith there was a Lewis and Clark
Bwuh? 'cart before the horse' is a very neutral idiom in my lexicon, no need to get in a huff. Yes in those examples you give, Americans which moved into local states caused trouble, however the most pertinent example for this situation would be Americans who went to Canada, who caused no trouble.

This was not the observation of the Tejanos or Californios. Their experience is that Americans remain American and for the most part those moving beyond the frontier were second generation immigrants, most first generation immigrants could not afford to get to the frontier or suitably equip themselves/
You're missing my point, those two occurred in the pre-1850s and were done by Americans, the settlement of Western Canada will occur in the 1860s and afterwards when the steamboat migrations and railroad settlements start - Canada will be able to dilute any American influence in a flood of people straight from Europe.

This is not true Douglas had to work his butt off to keep British Columbia British, ditto the Yukon during the gold rush.
I think you're over estimating Douglas' struggle but even so - in the OTL he succeeded, this shouldn't be that much harder, especially as by definition Canada has more money and British interest thanks to its greater mineral wealth and area (which is why the Americans would be after it).

By your own map these harbours are what? 300 miles? south of Seattle and the best of them would be on the Columbia but the Empire holds the North shore of that river on your map. In 1867 Seattle was a busy harbour and a military post even if it was small.
Well you have Coos Bay definitely, and whats wrong with the Columbia harbours and Astoria? Seattle is just across from Vancouver Island and yet it became a major base. If anything the British presence would promote military development on the Columbia. the US could easily still play for Alaska.

So in conclusion I can't see that anything you have written changes my observations in any significant way.
Well woo...
 

Woah, take a chill pill!

I should point out that the main reason for me restarting discussions about a different US-Canada border was that it interested me and I wanted to avoid the Canada-wank vs USA-wank scenarios that tend to crop up.

I understand your concerns but agree with Nugax that following a similar settlement pattern would result in those areas being Canadianised rather than Americanised.
 
Excellent idea. One particular ramification this would have would be an earlier and possibly more bloody Metis crisis in the prairies, on account of the increase in westward bound settlers would necessitate earlier governmental involvement in the apportioning of land. I'd be willing to tackle this as a timeline once school is completed, I've been meaning to do a North American one.
 
Well you have Coos Bay definitely, and whats wrong with the Columbia harbours and Astoria? Seattle is just across from Vancouver Island and yet it became a major base. If anything the British presence would promote military development on the Columbia. the US could easily still play for Alaska.

Well woo...

I'm going to have to nix the hell out of Coos Bay. It's not close to anything economically important, and it would be a huge bitch to build a railroad out there when you could just sail up the perfectly navigable Columbia to Portland.
 
I'm going to have to nix the hell out of Coos Bay. It's not close to anything economically important, and it would be a huge bitch to build a railroad out there when you could just sail up the perfectly navigable Columbia to Portland.

I agree on its economic importance, but I think it would be a useful military naval asset given the vulnerablity of ports on the Columbia to assualt and artillary fire later on.
 
I agree on its economic importance, but I think it would be a useful military naval asset given the vulnerablity of ports on the Columbia to assualt and artillary fire later on.

I think building fortifications better than those of the Canadians (or, presumably, none at all as long as the two countries are friendly) on the Columbia is probably less expensive and more useful from a military standpoint than building up Coos Bay, which isn't particularly more useful than operating out of San Francisco. Half-decent artillery from 1900 on could easily be used to command the entire Columbia and a good distance further inland from the south bank.

From a naval standpoint, you're never going to get a huge naval base on the order of Bremerton or Seattle or San Francisco at Coos Bay...looking at a map, it just doesn't have room.
 
Last edited:
Excellent idea. One particular ramification this would have would be an earlier and possibly more bloody Metis crisis in the prairies, on account of the increase in westward bound settlers would necessitate earlier governmental involvement in the apportioning of land. I'd be willing to tackle this as a timeline once school is completed, I've been meaning to do a North American one.

I'd be intersted in seeing that. I'm also pondering some other changes from OTL, Canada rather than the US having a greater proportion of Lakotas, Ojibwes, and most of the tribes in OTL's Washington State. Everything from Custer pursuing a different enemy to Sherman Alexie possibly being an author from Canada.
 
I imagine Oregon would become quite heavily populated, with settlers moving there instead of Washington. You might see a place like Coo's Bay or Medford have a much higher population than in OTL.
 
I imagine Oregon would become quite heavily populated, with settlers moving there instead of Washington. You might see a place like Coo's Bay or Medford have a much higher population than in OTL.

What is with this obsession? Few people here have ever been to Coos Bay, I suspect. It's similar to mentioning what an important military base and seaport Ocean Pines, MD would have become if the CSA became independent with Maryland. Ocean Pines even has a similarly sized bay as Coos Bay does, if not quite as deep or protected.
 
What is with this obsession? Few people here have ever been to Coos Bay, I suspect. It's similar to mentioning what an important military base and seaport Ocean Pines, MD would have become if the CSA became independent with Maryland. Ocean Pines even has a similarly sized bay as Coos Bay does, if not quite as deep or protected.

You're right. Marshfield will be better.

;)
 
What is with this obsession? Few people here have ever been to Coos Bay, I suspect. It's similar to mentioning what an important military base and seaport Ocean Pines, MD would have become if the CSA became independent with Maryland. Ocean Pines even has a similarly sized bay as Coos Bay does, if not quite as deep or protected.

Don't get your panties all in a bunch! :D

I didn't realize it was the same thread, funny. At any rate, I've never been there either, I've just thought of a similar TL before in the past (half a year ago in fact) and when I was doing some research it came up as a deep-water port and better protected than Astoria. It would make sense for the U.S. to settle an area like this if that kind of border was a given, since it's far more defensible.

Or I just like frustrating you and this thread, I dunno- can't decide :cool:.
 
What is with this obsession? Few people here have ever been to Coos Bay, I suspect. It's similar to mentioning what an important military base and seaport Ocean Pines, MD would have become if the CSA became independent with Maryland. Ocean Pines even has a similarly sized bay as Coos Bay does, if not quite as deep or protected.

Would Humboldt be better? I hear there's plenty of raw material for rope there, which is important in the age of sail.
 
Won't it still be going through the Thompson valley in this TL? Hence Vancouver is closer and upstream - while Seattle could certainly be a port and on the railroad, Vancouver will also be where the railroad turns inland...
I was thinking it could follow much of the Great Northern's route through OTL Washington, which had, IIRC, better passes.

OTOH, looking more closely at a map of the Great Northern's route, that might be trickier than I thought.
 
Top