How does Canada develop if it possessed the Ohio valley?

Lusitania

Donor
The UK won't be able to hold the Ohio valley. Which is why they signed it away to begin with.

It depends on the settlement of it. This is to study a different US and also different Canada. So it can very well.

State militias can invade Canada and then Britain can burn the US east coast forcing US to withdraw.
 
A much weaker US, a stronger Canada (or BNA), no Erie Canal and a smaller New York, and with the St. Lawrence serving as an artery for trade between the Midwest and the Atlantic, a bigger Montreal.

Britain will be able to hold onto this region in any case, thanks again to the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes.

American settlers would have settled there anyway.

They settled OTL Canada as well in staggering numbers, and were still unrepentantly loyal to Britain. I imagine this BNA would be even more culturally close to the US, but that does not automatically mean pulling a Texas. I’ll link to this.
 
Okay setting aside the debate on britains ability to hold the territory.

What would immigration to the area be like? And how would the natives fair under British control?
 
People forget that only about a third of Americans during the American revolution were actually "Patriots". In the late 18th and first half of the 19th, most settlers and their families would have been mostly apolitical and would have no issues pledging allegiance to the crown if it meant good land for them to settle with little interference. Which is exactly what Canada provided IOTL boundaries.

This wouldn't be slave-holding southerners settling these lands so it wouldn't have been an issue like in Mexico.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Okay setting aside the debate on britains ability to hold the territory.

What would immigration to the area be like? And how would the natives fair under British control?

Well the land first settlers be the patriots who left American colonies. It just makes sense for Britain to promote setting there to people of Britain plus since they also held lands in northern Germany there also.

As for Americans they would be allowed but spread them out. I could see 50% of settlers from America.

With Ohio area as reason for war fo not see war of 1812 since Ohio one of the major reasons for war.
 

Lusitania

Donor
We have to first establish how/why the Ohio Valley remains British.

Because they will be settled by British loyalist right after the ARW and this will be followed by other British citizens from Britain in later years.

The Americans will at this time move over the Appalachian mountains. Some will move into the Ohio but will be dispersed along with loyalists. The British will have complete control over the Great Lakes and there will be no restrictions on number of British ships.

With Britain established control over the Ohio area it will encourage settlement of it by loyalists.

So yes Americans can come there but they will first prioritize settling of all land south of British North America till the Mississippi River. Then we see about butting heads.
 
Because they will be settled by British loyalist right after the ARW and this will be followed by other British citizens from Britain in later years.

The Americans will at this time move over the Appalachian mountains. Some will move into the Ohio but will be dispersed along with loyalists. The British will have complete control over the Great Lakes and there will be no restrictions on number of British ships.

With Britain established control over the Ohio area it will encourage settlement of it by loyalists.

So yes Americans can come there but they will first prioritize settling of all land south of British North America till the Mississippi River. Then we see about butting heads.
So your scenario is a POD after the 1783 Treaty of Paris?
 
Because they will be settled by British loyalist right after the ARW and this will be followed by other British citizens from Britain in later years.

Think is - why are they moving to the Ohio country, and not, say, Nova Scotia? The number of Loyalists moving to Ontario was a tiny fraction of the total that left the US for still-British colonies.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Think is - why are they moving to the Ohio country, and not, say, Nova Scotia? The number of Loyalists moving to Ontario was a tiny fraction of the total that left the US for still-British colonies.

Because while they may at first move to Nova Scotia many people will over the next decade or two move to the Ohio, Ontario where large tracks of land will be available.
 
Because while they may at first move to Nova Scotia many people will over the next decade or two move to the Ohio, Ontario where large tracks of land will be available.

Fair enough.

Might we see various settlement companies established in the Ohio river valley, much as they did in Upper and Lower Canada?
 
Because while they may at first move to Nova Scotia many people will over the next decade or two move to the Ohio, Ontario where large tracks of land will be available.
If they possess it. I don't see Britain regaining the Ohio Country, or is it never ceded in the Treaty of Pars ITTL?
 

Lusitania

Donor
If they possess it. I don't see Britain regaining the Ohio Country, or is it never ceded in the Treaty of Pars ITTL?
So if the treaty of Paris 1783 which establish American independence and recognition by Britain. It also established the boundaries of USA and British North America. Just like iOTL. IOTL it establishes all lands north of Great Lakes as British but left the Ohio valley to future negotiations. Here as part of the treaty it is part of British North America.
There is no ambiguity
 

Lusitania

Donor
They will do the same as they did with Mohawk and other tribes in Ontario and Quebec live alongside them. Yes they did that not kill them all.
 
The UK could probably hold onto a good chink of the Northwest territories, but Ohio proper is unlikely.

A Wabash River-Maumee River boundary could work perhaps.
 
Top