No Confederation

That is rather vague...Do you mean that:

the word Canada never gets moved over into french, and we end up with something similiar to Canada but not named Canada?

the British never capture Quebec, leading to no American revolution, leading to some other kind of British-American commonwealth owning all that land minus Quebec?

the Quebecois join the Americans in the revolutionary wars and become part of the states?

Canada is captured in the war of 1812, leading to the same results as above?

the 1837 rebellions succede leading to lower and upper Canada gaining independance from Britain?

the British joining in on the American civil war, losing, and Canada again becoming part of the Union?

the Charlottetown and the Quebec conferences fail, leading to no Confederation of Canada as WE know it, but instead a maritimes confederation and a still united provinces of Canada?

the reciprocity treaties never end, making Canada apart of the American economic sphere much earlier, leading to some kind of Canada joining the states?

For the sake of answering your question, I am going to assume you mean the conference at Charlottetown fails and what we know as the confederation of Canada never occurs. What would probably occur is three British dominions on the continent of North America.

The first one being the Maritime Confederation, which the Charlottetown conference was originally supposed to be. It would encompass all that is now Atlantic Canada. New Foundland would be included, since it ALMOST joined the Canadian confederation OTL but it dropped out. Without the fear of Ontario and Quebec, New Foundland joins. The Confederation will probably be pretty loose, with provinces like Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, New Brunswick, New Foundland, and Labrador all forming it

Canada and Quebec stay joined, and their still the ones who are going to get Ruperts land. The main difference here is that this Canada would REALLY centralised. The Canadian ( when I say this, I mean the fathers of confederation from upper and lower Canada) fathers of confederation wanted a really centralised nation, and without the other pesky provinces wishing to decentralise. You'd also probably see a wider spread of French thoughout, especially if you can avoid the Red River rebellion. The concept of provinces might never even develop in Canada and it might work on some kind of county system as well. Without British Columbia, the railroad to the west is less drasticly needed and settlement will probably be slower.

Finally the third one would be British Columbia, which would also include the Yukon (and maybe Alaska if you threw that in but its a little late). Without Charlottetown, Simcoe would probably never be sent, and with the centralist tendencies of this new Canada, you'd probably see British Columbia (actually the united Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbi-its real name before Confederation) go its seperate way. This one is up for grabs in terms of government, but my guess would be a mix with some kind of provinces coming up. Areas like Vancouver island, the lower mainland, the central interior, the kootenays, the Okanagan being the provinces while the northern bits remain territories. Settlement will probably be lighter, but then again it was pretty light until recently.

Now you must understand that any POD after the American revolution that doesn't result in anexation will have a Canada in some form or another
 
I read that one reason for a unified Canada was because of border raids by the American Fenian Movement in the 1860's
 
Last edited:
The most interesting question, is what will spring up in the prarie regions. I don't have much of a good idea, but I would not be surprised if there was some kind of independant territory that springs up there one way or another. There will hardly be any people at first, but I suspeect the railway will be created sometime around 1900-1910, then you will see lots of settlement as happened originally.
 
The most interesting question, is what will spring up in the prarie regions. I don't have much of a good idea, but I would not be surprised if there was some kind of independant territory that springs up there one way or another. There will hardly be any people at first, but I suspeect the railway will be created sometime around 1900-1910, then you will see lots of settlement as happened originally.

As I responded earlier in my upper post, the territories would fall into the Province of Canada's hands. The biggest reason for this is that Canada is the largest and richest British province in North America. It is also rather expansionistic, and with the Hudson's Bay Company willing to sell of their land, the Canadians would be the ones to buy it.

Settlement would be slowed however, since the railroad wouldn't be built so early since British Columbia wouldn't want to join, but expect the railroad to come be finished within twenty years. This grants them a more reasonable time to build it, and they still want the railroad so they can settle the west.

Western settlement, just like in the United States, was a key policy in 19th century Canada.
 
Yeah, but how do you know things will go so conviently? With no railway it took months and a massive effort to move 1000 troops out west. Presuming there is no railway until the early 20th C, Canada could have serious trouble if a rebellion broke out there.

Or what if the smaller Canada doesn't buy Ruperts land so early?, or does but can't settle? Couldn't you see USA settlers moving in, and then claiming it for USA like they did for Oregon? Back then the lines of communication were more direct through that southern route.

And Britian might not do much if they want the USA to support them in any war with Germany. (Recall Alaskan-Border dispute).
 
Yeah, but how do you know things will go so conviently? With no railway it took months and a massive effort to move 1000 troops out west. Presuming there is no railway until the early 20th C, Canada could have serious trouble if a rebellion broke out there.

Or what if the smaller Canada doesn't buy Ruperts land so early?, or does but can't settle? Couldn't you see USA settlers moving in, and then claiming it for USA like they did for Oregon? Back then the lines of communication were more direct through that southern route.

And Britian might not do much if they want the USA to support them in any war with Germany. (Recall Alaskan-Border dispute).

First of all, the North West Rebellion was directly effected by the Red River Rebellion, which had a very low chance of hapening in the first place. All one had to do was stop the few Orangemen that escaped and Louis Riel and his people can have Manitoba in peace. Without the Red River rebellion, there is NO North West Rebellion.

On top of that, the North West Rebellion was influenced by the push to the west. Without Ottawa's push towards BC, there would not have such a rush to make the treaties with the first nations and they wouldn't have felt so abused.

Things would work out so conveniently because Britain wants it to. The Hudson Bay Company was losing money and it didn't want to administer it. So Britain made it sell it to the one British Colony that could afford it. Which in this case is still Canada.

The thought that the Americans could claim Rupert's land is INCREDIBLY implausible. Britain would NEVER sell it to the Americans simply put because it would put Canada and British Columbia at risk. Also, the Americans had ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIM to the region. Britain's control of the North was guaranteed in the 1819 border treaties that established the border at the 49th parallel. The only reason the Americans had a claim to Oregon was because of the Lewis and Clark expidition. Finally, the Native Americans were extremely unfriendly to the Americans, for reasons such as the brutality of the Whisky traders.

Canada WOULD buy Ruperts Land. Like I said earlier, the Fathers of Confederation from upper and lower Canada were dead set on West ward advancement, and Britain was dead set of pawning it off onto Canada. It was a win win situation for both sides.

The Railway would not be built in the early 20th. Again, west ward settlement was the name of the game, and Canada needed one to do it effectively. As stated earlier, the railway would just not be so rushed. It would probably be done by 1885 at the latest. Don't think that British Columbia or the Maritimes brought money to Canada, they didn't. British Columbia was near bankrupt and the Maritimes were too. The pre-requisite for PEI wanting to join was for Canada (ie Ontario and Quebec) to buy up all the land held by speculators and then sell it cheaply. Canada had to assume BC's massive debt. Canada was the money maker of the British North America.
 
Yeah, but how do you know things will go so conviently? With no railway it took months and a massive effort to move 1000 troops out west. Presuming there is no railway until the early 20th C, Canada could have serious trouble if a rebellion broke out there.

Or what if the smaller Canada doesn't buy Ruperts land so early?, or does but can't settle? Couldn't you see USA settlers moving in, and then claiming it for USA like they did for Oregon? Back then the lines of communication were more direct through that southern route.

And Britian might not do much if they want the USA to support them in any war with Germany. (Recall Alaskan-Border dispute).

Canada would have trouble dealing with rebellions in the NW, yes... but this isn't the States. Except for the NWR, triggered by the building of the CPR, Canada doesn't do big native wars like the States.
 
Top