If the USA got Canada, how populous would Canada be?

[Viriato]

Traditionally, there weren't many obstacles keeping Canadians from moving to the U.S. or vice-versa, and Canada had been exempt from immigration quotas. This meant that nearly 1 milion French Canadians moved to New England and the Upper Midwest between 1840 and 1930. Slightly more English-Canadians moved to the U.S. during the same period, though this group was largely "invisible".

From the U.S. hundreds of thousands of Americans settled in Canada as well. During the late 19th and early 20th century, most headed to the Prairies and British Columbia. With some 330,000 Americans settling in Sasktachewan between 1905-1923. In Alberta, two-thirds of the population was American born, or of American parentage by World War I. American immigration was only exceeded by that from Britain. In 1913 alone 139,000 Americans settled in Canada.

What might change is that cities like Toronto might not be as preeminent. Additionally, many of the branch plants might not emerge in Southern Ontario. On the other hand "Canadian" manufacturers would have greater access to the much larger American market before the 1960s.

 

[martymcfly]

The Canadian Pacific Railway probably wouldn't have been built if Canada was controlled by the US. So I would say the population would be lower since the Prairies and British Columbia wouldn't be as populated as IOTL.

 

[Arkenfolm]

isn't there a stark contrast on the US-Canadian border with the American side being sparse whilst the Canadian side is bustling because, as it's the most southern part of Canada, it's the most hospitable part?

if Canada isn't its own entity then the otl border region will probably be as sparse as the American side because that area is no longer the best they can get, they can move further south beyond the otl border.

Yeah, compare the border areas between Maine and Quebec/New Brunswick. Far more populated on the Canadian side.

 

[funnyhat]

You may see different demographics, dont forget things like Toronto having a stock market won't exist and being the financial capital of Canada, NY will be a restraint on a lot of things, and Toronto could then be a restraint on Detroit and Chicago and Rochester could be an exurb, there used to be a commuter ferry OTL and without international borders it would be more likely to be economical and convenient. With New York in the same nation, you may see Toronto smaller, or you may see Vancouver chosen as the home of movie studios instead of LA, same with military and industrial capacity during WWII which in OTL went to the LA area may go to Vancouver instead making it the second largest *US city instead of LA. There's a reason the top five cities OTL are NY (northeast), LA (southwest almost as far as you can get from NY), Chicago (middle of North but closer to #1 than #2), Houston (middle of southern half, about as far from Chicago as possible while being halfway between the nation), Philadelphia (back to east coast near #1). We could see NY, Vancouver, Toronto, Houston, Chicago as top 5 with LA as 6 and Philadelphia as 7.

I don't think Toronto would be that big. For much of Canadian history it was smaller than Montreal. It only really emerged as Canada's financial capital from the 1970s onward, when the fear of Québécois independence drove many anglophone-run corporations out of Montreal. If it's part of the United States, it won't be the major destination for immigrants that it is OTL, either. Detroit (which is older, and was historically larger) would be a restraint on Toronto, and not the other way around.

I think it's doubtful that Vancouver would be as large as it is OTL, where it is Canada's only real Pacific port. ITTL it would likely be dwarfed by Seattle. I don't find it plausible that it would beat out Los Angeles for the American movie industry. If Seattle couldn't do that OTL, I don't see why Vancouver would. (A big part of the attraction to Vancouver OTL is that it's the closest Canadian city to Hollywood, so companies can benefit from fiscal advantages of shooting on Canadian soil without traveling too far.)

Montreal is the only OTL Canadian city that I would think could make the top 10 TTL, and even then I would tend to doubt it. It's old enough and has a prominent enough geographic location (along the St. Lawrence Seaway) for this to be plausible. But I think it would have been passed up by Sun Belt cities by now, and would have dropped to the 10-15 range.

 

[thekingsguard]

I think it would be bigger, but fill out in different ways.

For example, take British Columbia. With the USA in form control of everything between Kodiak island and Seattle, I imagine the Pacific Northwest would see a lot more settlement than OTL, if only because trade and transit up and down the coast would be radically different. We could well see a mega Seattle form, ala what we saw with New York and Brooklyn. Certainly a couple more states carved off North of the 49th.

You might see Ontario boom much earlier - as others have pointed out, it would fit nicely in with the then booming Industrial Midwest, another Michigan or Ohio, whose decline into the Rust Belt would be only a few decades in. Toronto may be on par with Cleveland and Detroit - and chained to past glories today, as they are.

The Plains provinces may be as settled, maybe more, but would be carved up differently - one of these days I need to do a map of Canada drawn up along the same lines as US states, but you would not see the big two or three Prairie provinces, more likely five or six Dakota sized states instead.

The big losers may be the Maritimes and Quebec - the Maritimes may settle nicely into being a nice, quite and consolidated (no way we don't merge them into a larger state) Northern New England state, a bigger, Gaelic speaking version of Maine.

Quebec though? Sure it has the Saint-Lawrence, but once America begins building canals and railroads, the trade would liekly start to dry up. While I think Quebec may settle more into statehood than it did as a province - we certainly never got much protest from Francophone Louisiana - but it would be a backwater.

 

[Napoleonrules]

I don't think Toronto would be that big. For much of Canadian history it was smaller than Montreal. It only really emerged as Canada's financial capital from the 1970s onward, when the fear of Québécois independence drove many anglophone-run corporations out of Montreal. If it's part of the United States, it won't be the major destination for immigrants that it is OTL, either. Detroit (which is older, and was historically larger) would be a restraint on Toronto, and not the other way around.

I think it's doubtful that Vancouver would be as large as it is OTL, where it is Canada's only real Pacific port. ITTL it would likely be dwarfed by Seattle. I don't find it plausible that it would beat out Los Angeles for the American movie industry. If Seattle couldn't do that OTL, I don't see why Vancouver would. (A big part of the attraction to Vancouver OTL is that it's the closest Canadian city to Hollywood, so companies can benefit from fiscal advantages of shooting on Canadian soil without traveling too far.)

Montreal is the only OTL Canadian city that I would think could make the top 10 TTL, and even then I would tend to doubt it. It's old enough and has a prominent enough geographic location (along the St. Lawrence Seaway) for this to be plausible. But I think it would have been passed up by Sun Belt cities by now, and would have dropped to the 10-15 range.

LA only became the home of the film industry because Edison, in NJ, controlled the patents necessary; to avoid being sued they moved "as far possible". In an ATL in which Vancouver is part of the US the film industry is more likely to pick Vancouver over LA. You're assuming LA is as it is today. It won't get that way with a POD in the 1800s. Montreal is bigger because it's older? Albany, NY is alot older than Boston, but isn't bigger.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I suspect that, overall, the population of what is now Canada would be lower. There are good structural reasons for Canada to be less rich than the United States--a harsher climate, for one--and the absence of an international border would make migration to the south easier. Many cities might be considerably smaller, like a Vancouver that was developed OTL as Canada's chief Pacific port but in this ATL would be just one town with a good location in the Pacific Northwest.

Thinking particularly of areas I know and am familiar with, an Ontario that shared more fully in the trends of the Midwest might also have the relatively flat and occasionally negative demographic trends of Ohio and Michigan, while the Maritimes might well have continued to be a major source of migrants to New England etc throughout the 20th century.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Los Angeles was picked for the film industry in part because of weather - warm with reliable light. it also had cheap land, and plentiful labor, as well as a variety of scenic locations nearby.

What advantages does Vancouver have that would have made it such an obvious preference over LA? Per Wiki the first films made there were made by Edison Manufacturing Company, so apparently, even they were trying to get away from themselves!

 

[James Ricker]

The Canadian Pacific Railway probably wouldn't have been built if Canada was controlled by the US. So I would say the population would be lower since the Prairies and British Columbia wouldn't be as populated as IOTL.

The railroads made money by expanding the lure new markets would have increased railroad expansion into Canada.

 

[wtw]

isn't there a stark contrast on the US-Canadian border with the American side being sparse whilst the Canadian side is bustling because, as it's the most southern part of Canada, it's the most hospitable part?

if Canada isn't its own entity then the otl border region will probably be as sparse as the American side because that area is no longer the best they can get, they can move further south beyond the otl border.

that only occurs past the Great lakes region, hence why I suggested the Dakotas or Montana would be a better comparison

 

[CaliGuy]

America in the 1890s had a lot of potential, but their armed forces were still pretty small. Taking on the British Empire would require a lot of build-up, which the British would certainly notice and take steps against.

Take steps such as building defenses on the U.S.-Canada border?

Also, Yes, the U.S. would certainly be at an initial disadvantage in such a war; however, as both WWI and WWII showed in our TL, the U.S. can build up an extremely powerful military extremely quickly.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Toronto is probably smaller not being the hub of Canadian commerce, but Montreal is probably much bigger because the Americans will construct the St. Lawrence canal decades earlier. Ottawa is probably stillborn and remains a sleepy logging town. The prairies is probably more thinly settled than OTL and looks more like the Dakotas without the huge campaign the Canadian government and the CPR put into settling it. Vancouver is the better port and probably swallows up Seattle, the whole of Puget Sound probably sees more developments not being broken in half like OTL.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Take steps such as building defenses on the U.S.-Canada border?

Inter alia. Other things could include building up their own military more, and looking for allies against the US (Mexico maybe?).

Also, Yes, the U.S. would certainly be at an initial disadvantage in such a war; however, as both WWI and WWII showed in our TL, the U.S. can build up an extremely powerful military extremely quickly.

In general, you want to build up your tiny army into a big one before you declare war; if you wait till after the shooting starts, you've generally left it too long.

WW1 and WW2 were kind of best-case scenarios for military build-up during wartime, because in both cases the US was separated from its enemies by an entire ocean. Even then, it took a year or so for the new American formations to enter serious action. Fighting against Britain, a country with the capacity to land large forces in North America, would be far more difficult, and post-DOW military expansion correspondingly more difficult.

 

[funnyhat]

Inter alia. Other things could include building up their own military more, and looking for allies against the US (Mexico maybe?).

In general, you want to build up your tiny army into a big one before you declare war; if you wait till after the shooting starts, you've generally left it too long.

WW1 and WW2 were kind of best-case scenarios for military build-up during wartime, because in both cases the US was separated from its enemies by an entire ocean. Even then, it took a year or so for the new American formations to enter serious action. Fighting against Britain, a country with the capacity to land large forces in North America, would be far more difficult, and post-DOW military expansion correspondingly more difficult.

There are a lot of variables here. We can't be certain of how quickly the British could mobilize, either. We know that in the First World War, the British Expeditionary Force was relatively small at the outset and only gradually increased in size - and that was in a conflict in a neighboring country.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

There are a lot of variables here. We can't be certain of how quickly the British could mobilize, either. We know that in the First World War, the British Expeditionary Force was relatively small at the outset and only gradually increased in size - and that was in a conflict in a neighboring country.

Well, during the Boer War, the British had 180,000 troops in South Africa by January 1900, less than three months after the outbreak of war.

 

[JJohnson]

I think it would be bigger, but fill out in different ways.

For example, take British Columbia. With the USA in form control of everything between Kodiak island and Seattle, I imagine the Pacific Northwest would see a lot more settlement than OTL, if only because trade and transit up and down the coast would be radically different. We could well see a mega Seattle form, ala what we saw with New York and Brooklyn. Certainly a couple more states carved off North of the 49th.

You might see Ontario boom much earlier - as others have pointed out, it would fit nicely in with the then booming Industrial Midwest, another Michigan or Ohio, whose decline into the Rust Belt would be only a few decades in. Toronto may be on par with Cleveland and Detroit - and chained to past glories today, as they are.

The Plains provinces may be as settled, maybe more, but would be carved up differently - one of these days I need to do a map of Canada drawn up along the same lines as US states, but you would not see the big two or three Prairie provinces, more likely five or six Dakota sized states instead.

The big losers may be the Maritimes and Quebec - the Maritimes may settle nicely into being a nice, quite and consolidated (no way we don't merge them into a larger state) Northern New England state, a bigger, Gaelic speaking version of Maine.

Quebec though? Sure it has the Saint-Lawrence, but once America begins building canals and railroads, the trade would liekly start to dry up. While I think Quebec may settle more into statehood than it did as a province - we certainly never got much protest from Francophone Louisiana - but it would be a backwater.

I was reading the "How the States got their Shapes" book and it seems Congress in general divided states along parallels and tried to make them as even as possible. The trend is 3°-4° in height, and about 7° in width for western states. In the east, they tried to divide things as evenly as they could in the territory they had.

I'd agree with you, Nova Scotia would be one state made of NB, NS, and PEI. Maybe PEI would separate out if there's a 'Civil War' analog to help the north keep its senatorial advantage over the slave states.

The Northwest Territory might look something like this:

I'd think we'd get the OTL five states, and an Ottawa state out of the Ontario peninsula. North of it is the Indian Territory, which still gets settled by whites later.

For the north northwest, I'd say this is a possibility:

Ignore the southern bits. I made this assuming that the US got the old Province of Quebec in the ARW; Rupert's Land came later. Ottawa was carved out of the province after the ARW in the 1790s and became a state in the early 1800s. Newfoundland came after the first or second WW analog in exchange for the UK not having to repay its war loans.

This map I assume the following:

1783: Province of Quebec is US territory; Quebec is a state, Nova Scotia is a state; Newfoundland is for United Empire Loyalists, but most go to other British territories.
1790s: English-speaking settlers from New England rush in after the war, and Quebec cedes its western land to preserve its language; this becomes Ottawa Territory as you saw in the top map in green.
1815: After the War of 1812, the US settles with the UK on the 49°N border. That gives Quebec its modern border, and the unorganized territory north of Ottawa state. The US gave Rupert's land ports on the Great Lakes, cedes a little territory there, but settles the boundaries.
1819: A number of English-speakers on Cuba after the War of Jenkin's Ear mean that it's tough to hold the land; Americans have been going there as well to settle. Spain sells Cuba and Florida for $11 million to the USA.
1830s: eastern Quebec (gray) becomes a new state in one of several compromises with the slave-holding south as East Quebec.
1840s: The Oregon semi-war results in a number of skirmishes in the Pacific Northwest, and the treaty line is 52° N (orange territory), leading to three US states: Oregon, Washington, and Columbia.
1845: Cuba and Florida become states
1848: US defeats Mexico, and its negotiator gains Alta California, New Mexico, Texas, Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Rio Grande; if you want, Durango and Sinaloa; these get divided up into territories in the coming decades
1850s: primitive air conditioning allows southern settlers to settle Florida down to Miami; there is no north/south divide in this Florida
1860s-1870s: The UK, in a rapprochement with the US after the War of 1812, sells Rupert's land to the US since it's not a big draw for settlers. It becomes the Northern Territory.
1870s: Arizona and New Mexico have their southern borders moved to 31° N to allow Arizona a port in the California Gulf. Sonora and Sierra Madre (Chihuahua) are territories and are sparsely populated, so they can't object. Durango Territory becomes a state.
1880s: Northern territory does gain settlers, but not fast due to the climate. Congress draws a line at 52° N to the Hudson Bay as the West Hudson Territory; the eastern half becomes the East Hudson Territory
1880s-1910s: states are formed roughly 7° in width: (L-R: Athabasca (green); Saskatchewan (yellow); Assiniboine (orange; could also be Manitoba); territories are also formed: West Hudson (green, east of Assiniboine); East Hudson (orange, north of Quebec); Yukon (green, next to Alaska); Nunatsik or Athabaska (purple/pink arctic territory; from Wikipedia: "In Inuktitut, the Northwest Territories are referred to as ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᖅ (Nunatsiaq), "beautiful land.""); North Hudson (purple along Hudson Bay)
1898: Puerto Rico becomes territory; Americans flood in looking for profits and industry. English becomes about 40% spoken by 1940, and 60% by the 1960s, and it becomes a state in the 60s/70s
1910s: US gains the British and Danish Virgin Islands after WW1 analog; they are merged into 1 territory and eventually become the state "Virgin Islands"
1910s to 1940s: Newfoundland is sold to the USA to pay off the UK's war debts; this also forestalls the decline of the British Empire a decade or so, letting decolonization proceed more peacefully and more organized, like in Canada, India, Australia, and New Zealand, allowing natives to become administrators and gain experience in responsible government, leaving Africa more stable and less corrupt

This north gives the US at least 12 new states; I also assume PR, Cuba, VI, Bermuda, Bahamas, Rio Grande, South California, Sonora, Sierra Madre, Durango, for 72 states. Territories in this US would include Polynesia, the Mariana Islands (Guam + Northern Mariana Islands), America Samoa

 

[HunterX]

Why would Congress use the 49th parallel as a internal border like that?

 

[DanMcCollum]

The Canadian Pacific Railway probably wouldn't have been built if Canada was controlled by the US. So I would say the population would be lower since the Prairies and British Columbia wouldn't be as populated as IOTL.

Oh, think it would; although it might have followed a slightly different route. Even in OTL, there wasn't just one Transcontinental Railroad line in the United States, but several. There is still going to be a desire to get goods back and forth and move settlers out to the region (remember that, often, railroads on either side of the tracks of their line, which they would then sell off to settlers. Many towns in the West were actually planned and built by the railroad companies. In the ATL, this same process would likely still be used.) Just from a military point of view, the United States is going to want these rail lines to help control their northern interior.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Ontario would probably fill up as quickly, but I doubt that Toronto would be anywhere near as big, since the first Welland Canal (around Niagra Falls) was built in 1824, so you'd probably see something like Buffalo or Cleveland dominating the Lakes region, if not just Detroit (since being on the south of the lakes would make it easier for rail links).

I wonder if the Maritimes would maintain their particular "origin" identities (e.g. Newfoundland and the Irish) or if they would get subsumed into a general Yankeedom.

One thing, though: I bet that Quebec will not be staying very French in this scenario.

Well the OP specifies 1866 as the period in question when Canada would join the US, so you already have significant infrastructure and industry connecting the two regions already. So while Ontario and Quebec would be built up with associated infrastructure and thus a growing population, you would have the Prairies in a much different situation.

Oh, think it would; although it might have followed a slightly different route. Even in OTL, there wasn't just one Transcontinental Railroad line in the United States, but several. There is still going to be a desire to get goods back and forth and move settlers out to the region (remember that, often, railroads on either side of the tracks of their line, which they would then sell off to settlers. Many towns in the West were actually planned and built by the railroad companies. In the ATL, this same process would likely still be used.) Just from a military point of view, the United States is going to want these rail lines to help control their northern interior.

The original feeder lines would probably run north to South, beginning in Manitoba probably (where the poor Metis would most likely be handled far less gently than they were in OTLs 1870) at Red River, then as settlers spread West (or up north from Montana, Idaho and the Dakotas as the case may be) then the lines would begin to connect the settlements as the new economic realities would set in. So while I imagine new lines going east to west like the Canadian Pacific of OTL would not exist, I think that lines connecting the cities of TTL's prairies would, but the most important lines would be the north/south lines.

 

[JJohnson]

Why would Congress use the 49th parallel as a internal border like that?

In my post, the 49th there is the agreed-upon border for the US and British North America / Rupert's Land for the most part. So states are made, and later, the US gains more land in the north, and rarely are states enlarged, aside from Nevada at the expense of Utah and Arizona, and Michigan was a territory when they got the upper peninsula. My rationale was it was an existing state border and besides, why would the state of Quebec want to expand north into frozen, useless land just to be bigger? What does that get them?