How does Canada develop if it possessed the Ohio valley?

So WI the American Revolutionary War ended with Britain doing a little better and thus only only ceding land east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio River, instead of otl south of the Great lakes and Saint Lawrence. In this alternate 1783 peace of Paris Britain comes of the war owning otl Canada, lands between the Ohio river and the Mississippi and parts of Pennsylvania and New York bordering the great lakes.

Without getting into the specifics of how the Brits get and keep the land in question.

How does Canada develop in this world?

And what kind of impact would this Canada have in the world compared to otl?
 
IMG_1271.jpg

Found his excellent map of my idea looking around the site to help yall visualise. I just edited out the western part.
 
American Northerners are now stuck in the northeast without the ability to move to the Midwest (unless the British allow them to), so expect the south to be more powerful and slavery to be abolished later. Heck, instead of the south seceding to keep slavery the north might secede in order to not be in a country that allows slavery.
On Canada, the American Loyalists might settle somewhere like Ohio instead of Ontario, so more of Canada might be French speaking.
 
American settlers would have settled there anyway. It didn't really matter to them whether the territories belonged to the US or not (Texas, California, Oregon). The US would have invaded the region by 1812 at the latest, and not like the tiny expedition into Canada like our timeline. It was simply too valuable to ignore.
 
American settlers would have settled there anyway. It didn't really matter to them whether the territories belonged to the US or not (Texas, California, Oregon). The US would have invaded the region by 1812 at the latest, and not like the tiny expedition into Canada like our timeline. It was simply too valuable to ignore.
Really? Britain is no Mexico and second wasn't the war of 1812 a british victory stalemate as the Americans were repulsed and the Royal navy dominated the North Atlantic. Also if it is too valuable to be ignored would the British also beef up the defence.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Why would a stronger Canada and smaller US equal an American win. Canada decided who it let into settle iOTL so why would not do the same. also a larger Canada could attract more settlers.

The same issues would exist including lack of federal army and state militia that was under equipped and poorly led. While better leadership could happen the other factors would exist.
 
I'm rusty on my canadian history, especially on immigration patterns, but Britain does need to populate the area. One of the causes of the AR was an attempt to limit white population. Long term, that is not viable. There's various leftover French settlement (Illinois, Indiana, Detroit) which is going to grow. Folks will move in, especially from USA, and the question becomes whether Britain/Canada turns a blind eye (long term untenable for native relations/policy) or actively enforces the ban. It's really too inviting a region for white settlement for it to remain a native reserve.

Growth/development of the region depends on whether Britain decides to grow Canada or simply let it slowly develop itself and grow mainly through natural population growth.

Militarily, the region is going to be a target during any future conflict with USA. After the AR, 1812 is not foreseen, nor is it guaranteed to happen, but Britain has to recognize that conflict is a potential, and that Ohio/Indiana/Illinois would be an easy target with some sort of military enforcement. Then again, this ATL USA is coming out of the AR a little worse for the wear, so war may be butterflied completely out of the picture.
Ohio is a target for early development. It's sparsely populated by natives and is good farmland. Eastern parts have mineral resources, and it would act as a buffer against US encroachment.

The southern St Laurence river valley is likewise a target for early settlement.

Where Britain gets the people to settle is a good question. Natural population growth is strong, but the starting numbers are so low that it's going to take a while to get going. Britain is still going to provide a steady flow, but USA, land of the free, is going to be a big competitor for attraction of immigrants. Or ATL USA, being more beat up, may implode/balkanize/otherwise end up a mess.

Access to this region is going to be the St Laurence/Great lakes. Need to develop the canal system for water travel/shipping. Access also up the Mississippi, which means Steamships. that age is still 2 or 3 decades away from end of AR. This also impacts relations with Spain/New Orleans. Britain will want to have access on the Mississippi, and has the military might to enforce it. Spain will bow to British pressure. They did OTL when Britain backed USA, and they will here.

Louisiana Purchase. An interesting dilemma. Diminished USA may not have the enthusiasm, might, or money to want it, to demand New Orleans, or afford it. Britain is going to be an active party with interest in what is going on with the port and the river, no matter how active they are in developing the Ohio region. The notion of the sale may be butterflied away. During the phase of war between Britain/Spain, and then during the French ownership of it, Britain may decide to take it by force, and now you have a new territory added to the Ohio region. Britain/Canada may not want it, but they also have to recognize that control of the Mississippi Valley is important for Ohio/Canada, and depending on relations with the US, may not want the US to have it.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Also with the extra land the government could of directed the 70-100K loyalists to that area. Stringer advertising of land could of increased both settlements from British isles and even northern Germany.

Either way we would see a different settlement pattern both in Canada and in the US.

How a more southern US would develop and progress would be interesting for slavery states could by 1820 out number non slavery states. Would we see war? Would there be a greater Oregon migration?

Probably be more important to buy French North America to box in Canada and allow America access to west coast.
 
They did settle in Canada iotl and over time they became Canadian like rest of their neighbors. No reason it not happen like that.

This is true in 1810 three-fifths of the white population of Upper Canada was non-loyalist American-born settlers. Most arrived from New York in search of free land. There was a fear that they would side with the United States in 1812, but these fears were unfounded.
 
The United States would invade and annex it before long, probably on the pretext of pacifying the Indians that might be raiding into US territory. There's also no reason why the Louisiana Purchase wouldn't happen in this scenario. The French don't want it; indeed, I imagine in the 1790s the new French Republic would be ecstatic over the prospect of a war in North America to hamper the British. So no Quasi War, better Franco-American relations and worse Anglo-American ones.

If the British decide they have more pressing concerns on the Continent than the matter of Ohio they probably sign a treaty giving it up to be rid of the distraction.
 
Whatever happens the US isn't getting all of Louisiana the way it did. Heck it's possible the US sides with Napoleon to gain land up to the Lakes. Alternatively they side with the UK for a slice of Ohio and to divide Louisiana. The latter would be a good way to normalise relations and protect those rather porous borders.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The United States would invade and annex it before long, probably on the pretext of pacifying the Indians that might be raiding into US territory. There's also no reason why the Louisiana Purchase wouldn't happen in this scenario. The French don't want it; indeed, I imagine in the 1790s the new French Republic would be ecstatic over the prospect of a war in North America to hamper the British. So no Quasi War, better Franco-American relations and worse Anglo-American ones.

If the British decide they have more pressing concerns on the Continent than the matter of Ohio they probably sign a treaty giving it up to be rid of the distraction.
But what makes people believe the US can just invade and annex. Canada was part of the British Empire and sorry but no British government is going to let the US walk in and annex Canada. What the British navy and army would do to easter US would be the same as happen to Washington. The US is not powerful enough it does not have a national army and the civil
War was fought almost exclusively with militias.

So please stop saying that US going to invade and annex.
 

The Avenger

Banned
American Northerners are now stuck in the northeast without the ability to move to the Midwest (unless the British allow them to), so expect the south to be more powerful and slavery to be abolished later. Heck, instead of the south seceding to keep slavery the north might secede in order to not be in a country that allows slavery.
On Canada, the American Loyalists might settle somewhere like Ohio instead of Ontario, so more of Canada might be French speaking.
I wonder if a lot of American Northerners could have simply moved South in this TL and thus helped create a push to abolish slavery there. Of course, having them challenge the Southern planters would be a tough task, but in the long(er)-run, who knows? Maybe they could eventually accomplish something if enough of them will move to the South and become sufficiently influential there!
 
The United States would invade and annex it before long, probably on the pretext of pacifying the Indians that might be raiding into US territory. There's also no reason why the Louisiana Purchase wouldn't happen in this scenario. The French don't want it; indeed, I imagine in the 1790s the new French Republic would be ecstatic over the prospect of a war in North America to hamper the British. So no Quasi War, better Franco-American relations and worse Anglo-American ones.

If the British decide they have more pressing concerns on the Continent than the matter of Ohio they probably sign a treaty giving it up to be rid of the distraction.
Invading during distractions in Europe is a good idea. I suggest invading in 1812, Britain will be busy with Napoleon.
 
Top