How does Canada develop if it possessed the Ohio valley?

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.
Sort of like this?
meximo.png
 
This seems unrealistic.

Then Canada was unrealistic. How many Indian Wars were there in Ontario versus the American midwest? They're the exact same region but one had almost no violence and one had scads of it. The Canadian system just let demographic pressure do all the work for them instead of overzealous settlers moving in and starting to war with locals every few years.
 
Then Canada was unrealistic. How many Indian Wars were there in Ontario versus the American midwest? They're the exact same region but one had almost no violence and one had scads of it. The Canadian system just let demographic pressure do all the work for them instead of overzealous settlers moving in and starting to war with locals every few years.
Demographic pressures are part of the reason why there were Indian wars, and the tribes of the Great Lakes in particular have enough knowledge of European warmaking-and enough people-to offer stronger resistance to encroachment, possibly with American backing.
 
Then Canada was unrealistic. How many Indian Wars were there in Ontario versus the American midwest? They're the exact same region but one had almost no violence and one had scads of it. The Canadian system just let demographic pressure do all the work for them instead of overzealous settlers moving in and starting to war with locals every few years.

The real difference between (Southern) Ontario and the American Midwest is not actually a difference of how much violence occurred but really of HOW the violence occurred. The inhabitants of Southern Ontario at the time of contact were the Wendat (Huron) and Atirhagenrat (Neutral) Confederacies. There was a quite intense violent period called the 'Beaver Wars' in which these Confederacies were pushed out by the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois). The Haudenosaunee were in turn displaced by the French fur traders who were in turn displaced by the British. By the time of the American War of Independence Ontario's equivalent of the Indian Wars had already happened.

Not that there wasn't a signifcant difference in policy between Britain/Canada and the US, just that the differnece wasn't necessarily violence vs no violence. The difference was that the US largely used their own troops to drive out Natives while the British just got their Native allies to do most of the violence for them.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The real difference between (Southern) Ontario and the American Midwest is not actually a difference of how much violence occurred but really of HOW the violence occurred. The inhabitants of Southern Ontario at the time of contact were the Wendat (Huron) and Atirhagenrat (Neutral) Confederacies. There was a quite intense violent period called the 'Beaver Wars' in which these Confederacies were pushed out by the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois). The Haudenosaunee were in turn displaced by the French fur traders who were in turn displaced by the British. By the time of the American War of Independence Ontario's equivalent of the Indian Wars had already happened.

Not that there wasn't a signifcant difference in policy between Britain/Canada and the US, just that the differnece wasn't necessarily violence vs no violence. The difference was that the US largely used their own troops to drive out Natives while the British just got their Native allies to do most of the violence for them.

We are not saying British and Canadian are saints but please show me how many tribes exist east of Mississippi in US and compare to tribes east of Manitoba.

Also trail of tears is a real shinning example of American treatment.

While certain people find it abnormal and unnatural for A Canada with these borders. I think it totally realistic. Canada could of supported these borders and built a country including them. They would not of prevented the US from existing and I am certain there would of been lots of migration either way that would not of meant those lands suddenly belong to US. Heck if that the case the amount of British citizens and Canadians who migrated to US should of meant they become British colonies or part of Canada.
 
We are not saying British and Canadian are saints but please show me how many tribes exist east of Mississippi in US and compare to tribes east of Manitoba.

Also trail of tears is a real shinning example of American treatment.

While certain people find it abnormal and unnatural for A Canada with these borders. I think it totally realistic. Canada could of supported these borders and built a country including them. They would not of prevented the US from existing and I am certain there would of been lots of migration either way that would not of meant those lands suddenly belong to US. Heck if that the case the amount of British citizens and Canadians who migrated to US should of meant they become British colonies or part of Canada.

Good point. I wasn't making the East of thw Mississippi/West of the Mississippi distinction in my head.

I wasn't trying to disagree with the possibilty of Canada controlling all that land. I just wanted to refute the idea that, in such a scenario Canadian/Native relations would be just peachy. Likely the relations would be good with some Native nations (the ones who the Brits allied with e.g. Tecumseh's Confederacy) and bad with others.
 
Good point. I wasn't making the East of thw Mississippi/West of the Mississippi distinction in my head.

I wasn't trying to disagree with the possibilty of Canada controlling all that land. I just wanted to refute the idea that, in such a scenario Canadian/Native relations would be just peachy. Likely the relations would be good with some Native nations (the ones who the Brits allied with e.g. Tecumseh's Confederacy) and bad with others.
And those alliances would shift over time.
 
Top