If the USA got Canada, how populous would Canada be?
- Thread starter MichiganNationalist1837
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canada demographics poll population usa
I don't think the language of the federal government would be any different. Québec isn't populous enough to effect that kind of change. Whether Québec itself can remain francophone-majority is harder to say. With an 1866 POD, it's possible, though I'd imagine the share of anglophones would be greater than in OTL (where they are only about 10% of the population).
JJohnson
Banned
True. The language of operation of the federal government would be English, no doubt. But would New York have a larger French-speaking population? Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Nova Scotia, Pennsylvania? Would the (Ottawa, Ontario, et al) peninsula have a large French-speaking population? What kinds of concessions would those states have to make for their French-speakers?
Napoleon wasn't short for his time. Surely a history forum can do better than to perpetuate silly myths?
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
I'm a bit confused about your scenario here. How is Puerto Rico and Cuba getting so many white settlers? Why did the Maritimes get merged into one state because of lack of populations, but the Virgin Islands can stay? I mean, PEI wouldn't stay around, but if you merged it into New Brunswick, it wouldn't have too much less than Vermont or New Hampshire (and of course, far more than some Western states). If we hold to the "60,000 people = state" rule the US tended to follow, then only PEI would fail. However, Bermuda certainly would fail that rule. I don't know why they'd detach PEI in the Civil War threat instead of resplitting the Maritimes.
And would settlement north of the Great Lakes even be as heavy? Wasn't the region mainly settled because of the Trans-Continental Railroad needing to go through the Canadian Shield? I can't foresee such a convenient access route in there otherwise--the railroads would be to take things out of there, not to cross it. So the three northern Ontario states would probably be merged, possibly with the southern part of the orange state (if not, then merge the orange and the grey states, since both are very light in population).
Well, it is a solid number. I'd assume it would either be that or the 50th. Look at the parallels used for the borders of the Great Plains states.
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
One of these days, I or someone else should do a map of Canada divided similarly to how "How the States got thier Shapes" describes.
I'm not sure if it would be that different from OTL, when the New England states and New York also had significant francophone populations due to French-Canadian immigration. This is a time period where there was a strong push towards the assimilation of non-anglophone people, and there was massive immigration at this time from Europe, so I would tend to doubt that special treatment would be granted for Québécois people who had moved outside of Québec.
The presence of Québec in the Union might possibly help the cause of the francophones in Louisiana, though, by providing them an example for resisting linguistic assimilation. IOTL the Louisiana state government in the early 20th century decided to become strictly anglophone. Perhaps here the Cajuns/Creoles could be encouraged to resist this more strongly.
Hold on now, if we're talking an 1866 POD, America already has an army nearly one million troops in size. They don't need to be garrisoned in the former Confederacy, because all that is needed to guarantee the loyalty of those states is the promise of a lenient Reconstruction and quick re-admission into the Union. The Union Army would greatly outnumber any of the forces that the British could possibly deploy to Canada.
My original post on Monday specified the 1890s, when America's army was rather less than half a million in size.
Whereas I was referring to a post by CaliGuy, who said that the US would be more successful in the 1890s than in the 1860s.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Here is the quote from "the wiki"-
By 1912, major motion-picture companies had set up production near or in Los Angeles.[17] In the early 1900s, most motion picture patents were held by Thomas Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company in New Jersey, and filmmakers were often sued to stop their productions. To escape this, filmmakers began moving out west, where Edison's patents could not be enforced.[18]
So do you want to retract your statement and apologize?
How feasible is the St. Lawrence River for mass settlement? Does it have the possible potential to be a highly populated area?
Saphroneth
Banned
Not all at once. The US Army had a million men on the rolls at the start of 1865, but of that army over a third were absent with or without leave; in 1866 the US Army had largely demilitarized:
http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1167&context=etd
Thus by November 1865 the Union army is down to below 200,000 men present, possibly well below. In 1866 we can thus say that the American army is substantially below one million troops in size.
The river itself, not so much
But the lowland were already pretty populated for the time, I dont think that mass settlement would be possible
That doesn't explain why, out of all the West Coast cities, Los Angeles was chosen. Its climate and scenery were likely the reasons.
The river itself, not so much
But the lowland were already pretty populated for the time, I dont think that mass settlement would be possible
Sometimes I feel like in an alternate timeline that river would be as populated as the US's East Coast. Though it will also depend on if there's strong incentives to.
The problem is that the st-lawrence freeze during the winter, meaning that during almost a fourth of the year you cant even pass quebec city.
Until powered icebreaker, even big city like montreal would be at disadvantage
Oh I understand now. Aren't parts of it like really wide though?