Largest Possible Canada

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by InvaderX, May 14, 2019.

  1. InvaderX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    With a POD after 1800, how large could you realistically get Canada to be?

    Alaska seems obvious, and probably isn't difficult - just have the Russians decide to sell it to the British, and the British decide to buy it.

    What about all or part of Michigan? Maine? What about the pacific northwest?
     
  2. Skraea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    You could have Canada purchase Alaska and Greenland. Not only are they next door,but also offer a vast amount of land. Maybe also getting ahold of Washington and Oregon ie Cascadia, keeping Maine and Vermont otherwise known as Acadia'll definitely add landmass. There'll still be a problem with American aggression.
     
  3. Dante Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    The Independent City-State of Chicago
    After 1800? Have the United States completely bungle the War of 1812 and lose the Northwest Territory, with the U.S. limited to the Atlantic seaboard they'd never be able to buy the Louisiana purchase and Britain takes control after the Napoleonic War. In this TL what becomes Canada covers OTL Canada, but, with the inclusion of the Northwest territory (heavily indigenous and Metis) as well as the Louisiana Territory, Alaska and, the Oregon Territory.
     
    Duke of Nova Scotia and iani like this.
  4. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    After 1800, I don't believe all of the Northwest Territory is realistic, but a considerable part of it could be done. Likewise, a strip of land on the American side of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River can be done, thus cutting the USA off from those. And the Northern border of Vermont can just be extended to the east, granting the Northernmost bit of New Hampshire and a lot of Northern Maine to Britain. In the West, the new state of affairs surrounding the Northwest Territory could easily mean that Britain (also putting pressure on Spain) draws a line to the Pacific that is a lot more to the South than the OTL USA-Canada border. Everything North of that line would be British (and later, Canadian). Beyond that... Yeah, just have super-Canada peacefully purchase and absorb Alaska and Greenland later on.

    Post-1800, I think gobbling up the Louisiana Territory would be very difficult. The purchase occurs well before the War of 1812, and attempting to hold it would be a lot of trouble. Too many people from the USA going West. What I have described above is nothing to spit at, though. Editing an old "mega-Canada" map of mine (that showed a slightly different scenario), I think this is a fairly realistic vision of what such a Canada might ultimately look like:

    canada-edit.png

    (I've kept the USA and the Spanish colonies otherwise unaltered, since I'm not aiming to speculate on how those might develop territorially in this scenario.)
     
    Thoresby, TheKutKu, iani and 4 others like this.
  5. Jackson Lennock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    The British whoop the Americans in 1812. They seize Louisiana and put the northwest border on the Maumee and Wabash Rivers.

    The Vermont Republic agrees to become a British protectorate. Down the line it joins the Canadian Confederation.

    In the east, they seize Maine beyond the Penobscot River. They also take the south bank of the St Lawrence in Ne wYork.

    Down the line they establish a protectorate over California, which Pio Pico was angling for OTL.
     
  6. chornedsnorkack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Would West Indies and Bermuda be realistic? They were British anyway.
     
  7. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    So say Britain and Canada fare better in war of 1812. As part of peace Wisconsin and upper Michigan become part of British North America. In return British withdraw from New York, Orleans snd Baltimore. Canada keeps northern Maine.

    (US) / Canada border moves down to Ohio-Minnesota border westward with Both Oregon and Washington state part of Canada.

    (US) places ban on emigration from British isles from 1815-1860s. Plus British investments banned also. Canada popluation snd industry boom with Britain investing more $ in British North America and offering cheap land along with subsidized travel.

    In 1860 British North America unite into Canada and railway built to west coast by 1870 opening west to settlers.

    After Crimea war Britain receives Alaska from Russia.

    With greater pacific coast Canada builds up stronger navy. In 1880 take over Hawai as protectorate. To help British imperial costs In 1900 British carribean is turned over to Canada yo administer. In 1910 Britain/Canada start Nicaragua canal. In middle of WW1 canal open.

    In 1920-1930 British/Canadian colonies in carribean one after another become Canadian provinces.

    Canada population reaches 100 million by WWII.
     
    BigDestiny likes this.
  8. Braden Anderson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2017
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Have the Trent Affair lead to British involvement in the civil war. CSA and Canada ally against USA.
     
  9. Christory Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Iceland yet
     
  10. fluttersky ~ᴍeʀmᴀiᴅ iɴ a seᴀ oғ aɴoᴍiᴇ~

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    Location:
    Earth
    I wonder if, in the event of a British/French victory in the siege of Petropavlovsk, the entire Kamchatka peninsula (nearly uninhabited at the time) could become part of the UK (and then Canada).
     
    BigDestiny likes this.
  11. RyuDrago Italian? Yes, but also Roman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Location:
    Italy
    I won't say it would be irrealistic if London would allow Canada to protect those territories. But the US may go nuts on this.
     
  12. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    I'd think that Orleans is a key city to keep US from expanding. Britain isn't really interested in a settler colony at this point, but they may be interested in denying the continent to US.

    OTL, I believe they wanted the old NW (Michigan on steroids). They're going to insist on that, at a minimum.

    The basic idea is that Britain comes out of the war with enough of a favorable hand to wrangle whatever they want out of US, within reason. Keeping NYC and Baltimore is pretty much out of the question. Keeping NO is easy and it puts them in command of the Mississippi River.

    Under that scenario, they'll either keep the Louisiana purchase lands, or give them back to Spain. Even if they keep them, though, that doesn't automatically tie LA to Canada (not what you said, but others have).
     
  13. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    The issue was that the British were desperate to reestablish normal trade relation with the US. For at the time most countries received most of the taxes in excise taxes on export and imports and the trad with the US as independent country had become very lucrative for the British and they were trying their best to end the war ASAP. The attacks on Baltimore/Washington, New York and even New Orleans were not meant to conquer any territory but to force the Americans to negotiation table on British favorable terms. By the time the war of 1812-1815 had occurred there had already been 10-15 years of American settlement in the Louisiana Purchase so the possibility of it becoming independent or returned to Spain and force all the Americans out was not possible. The best the British could of hoped was to take some peripheral territories such as anything west of Lake Michigan Wisconsin and keep their claim to Maine. The result of settler colony was only as result of Anti-British attitude in US due to war and peace treaty. THis coupled with threat by the Americans against the British north America pushes the British to settle Ontario, Wisconsin and even Minnesota along with eastern Dakotas to support British control of the areas.

    Note: I was not trying to hog tie the USA and make things difficult but to make Canada realistically as large as possible.
     
  14. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    There is also the question of "when does this alt-Canada stop being something we might recognise as a version of Canada?" -- And absorbing basically the whole USA west of the Mississippi might be a step across the line, in that regard...
     
    Thoresby and Dan1988 like this.
  15. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Any change to the size and makeup of Canada to incorporate more territory such as greater part of Midwest and even Caribbean would change the makeup of the country. We cannot make the country 2x-3x its size in population and think it be the same. There would be a north south divide and conflict along with east to west and stronger Midwest would add an element to it. So no matter what we do it changes what Canada looks like and acts like.
     
  16. chornedsnorkack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Precisely what pretexts would USA have to object to internal administrative arrangements of "British North American" colonies if London chooses to interpret "North America" as including Central America? Or even Guyana in South America simply because it´s conveniently nearby. "Yes, you can keep Bahama, but only if Governor of Bahama reports straight to London. You may not appoint a Governor General of British America to govern Falkland Islands and Ellesmere Land from Halifax!". Sounds a very silly thing to tell an independent state.
     
  17. RyuDrago Italian? Yes, but also Roman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Location:
    Italy
    True, but would be still perceived as an encirclement. A point is if those islands are controlled by a power on the other side of the Atlantic. Another is if controlled by their only northern neighbor.
     
  18. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    both agree and disagree. overall, you're on the right track, but...
    OTL, Britain didn't really think much of the US as any sort of power. they were surprised that the US, despite its early bumbles, rebounded to be halfway decent. TTL, Britain mostly has its way, or does better enough to allow for Britain to get its way at the peace table. Presumably, the war winds down in a similar timeframe, or quicker (Britain, as shown OTL isn't going to extend it to get better terms, and the POD states that Britain comes out ahead). While you are correct that Britain wanted that trade restored, it'll happen either as OTL, or in TTL. Trade has a tendency to follow the money trail, and that will remain with Britain. And, US, having lost 3 cities and the (greater than OTL) economic destruction associated with losing a war, will be far more desperate to restore trade. So, you'll have a victorious Britain deciding what it wants and doesn't want. US can whine, but if, per you, it wants NYC, Baltimore, and New Orleans (three major and vital cities) back, along with trade restoration, US will gladly give up far more than periphery territory. a decade of settlement in Louisiana territory still leaves it as mostly periphery. Control of NO is control of Louisiana.

    The hogtie of US was meant as a reason for Britain to take more of the continent. OTL, the main reason British/Canadian footprint isn't bigger is because Britain correctly saw that US trade was worth more than a flag on the ground/color of a map. If we're going to make the footprint bigger, we need a reason. I put that reason as recognition of US potentially having ambition, and hence looking to limit their expansion at a propitious moment.
     
  19. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Ok. The issue with forcing US to give up the Louisiana purchase and to both evict and American settlers from entered the territory is like trying to plug a break in the dam with your fingers. At some point you run out of fingers. Unless both Spain and or Britain send troops to stop all settlers at all cost including shooting of civilians there was no practical chance of any country keeping that territory (unless you fill it with your own citizens). Even then as demonstrated in Texas, New Mexico and California the Americans could overwhelm a larger population unless they willing to resort to strong arm tactics and military action.

    As you indicated the British realized the value of trade was worth more than taking half of US. Therefore to satisfy this thread you would need some sort American action say American militia massacre hundreds of British citizens in BNA that makes some within Britain demand US pay for its transgressions. Then strong British response result in British victory. A compromise inside the British government between Warhawks and pragmatists to punish US while trying to re-establish relations and trade.

    A the Northern west Territory is chosen for its ability to be linked to existing British north American territory and limited number of American settlers.

    That being said to continue growing Canada to largest possible size you would need anti-British sentiment and policy to happen in US to both limit emigration and investment. With BNA being one of most likely destinations for both.
     
    unprincipled peter likes this.
  20. InvaderX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    I don't think you could really include any significant portion of the Louisiana Purchase (certainly not all the way down to New Orleans) in Canada without having it become, well, not Canada at all. I think you'd either end up with two nations, one occupying what is modern Canada, maybe with a few additional territories, and whatever the former Louisiana Purchase becomes; or you'd end up with one big country most likely centered on the Louisiana Purchase.