One country controls all northeastern America. Does Montreal become the biggest city?

All things being equal - which, of course, they aren't - the cold still favors New York. The Hudson freezes as far south as Manhattan on occasion (and historically did every year) but the New York harbor never does - while the Gulf of St Lawrence does pretty much every year, and certainly the river freezes as far as Quebec City consistently. Plus, the Hudson freeze is for much less time.

...Though it is worth noting that the Erie Canal itself is normally frozen from about late November/early December through March or April. But still, it's hard for me to see the St Lawrence eclipse the Hudspn, especially with Niagara Falls.
 
From what I know, the St. Lawrence Seaway was held down in political red tape (related to military strategy) and was actually doable earlier. But the Erie Canal is pretty logical, even on a local level, that preventing it is impossible. And certainly building the St. Lawrence Seaway or an equivalent in the 19th century is a pretty major undertaking. But though Montreal might become bigger than OTL earlier, butterflying New York seems impossible at that point.

One thing I feel may be overlooked is possible trade from the Mississippi River from La Nouvelle Orléans up to Montreal. That should help some, and is an advantage Montréal has over NYC, an interlink from it to Detroit to St.Louis to NO.

First you need a canal between the Mississippi basin and the Great Lakes. And if there's an Erie Canal, then New York will still get the benefit. Now, granted, both were French pre-1763, but can France or a successor state build these canals (like the one between Chicago and the Mississippi)? I have no doubt a New France might work, but New France with Louisiana might be difficult unless Louisiana, and key points along the way, like St. Louis, get European settlement in large enough numbers. Also the trans-Appalachian South is gonna need French settlement for this, and all this implies a fundamental reorientation of French colonial policy. The longhunters from the Thirteen Colonies (exemplified by the legendary Daniel Boone) were active in French territory before 1763, so French is going to need to plant settlements here to prevent the frontiersmen of North Carolina and Virginia from gaining a hold there. And that, in turn, will require a change in Indian policy in Louisiana, which will spark further conflict with the natives. It's a mess, basically.
 
And certainly building the St. Lawrence Seaway or an equivalent in the 19th century is a pretty major undertaking. But though Montreal might become bigger than OTL earlier, butterflying New York seems impossible at that point.

It isn't a major undertaking though. The British built the Rideau canal in the same era which was a lot more difficult than a canal along the St. Lawrence.
 
I sort of agree that New York would still win out. That is one hell of a harbor. Historically speaking- by modern standards it has it's issues. But if for some reason New York was bypassed, plus somehow western migration remained a major need for a port, Montreal still wouldn't benefit majoratively, would it? It'd be Detroit. Or possibly Chicago. (Duluth still seems unlikely.)
 
Last edited:
I sort of agree that New York would still win out. That is one hell of a harbor. Historically speaking- by modern standards it has it's issues. But if for some reason New York was bypassed, plus somehow western migration remained a major need for a port, Montreal still wouldn't benefit majoratively, would it? It'd be Detroit. Or possibly Chicago. (Duluth still seems unlikely.)
Detroit and Chicago? Not till a deep St. Lawrence Seaway is running. If even then.
Hudson is pretty deep almost (not quite) to Albany. Yet the main seaport and city has been New York.
How would Montreal compete with Quebec and Trois-Rivieres? How was it OTL?
 
Detroit and Chicago? Not till a deep St. Lawrence Seaway is running. If even then.
Hudson is pretty deep almost (not quite) to Albany. Yet the main seaport and city has been New York.
How would Montreal compete with Quebec and Trois-Rivieres? How was it OTL?

Clearly you missed my first sentence. And the first phrase in my fourth. I said that New York wins out. However, if by some miracle it was left out of development for some reason I proposed that Detroit was more likely to benefit than Montreal due to it being a port closer to the goal of westward migration. So I was only comparing Montreal and Detroit, there. And if I'm only comparing Montreal and Detroit obviously this presupposes that the St Lawrence is developed.

However, I had neglected Niagra. That's a bit of an obstacle, but it could be portaged by westbound pioneers, I suppose. Complex question.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I sure admit that this is a rather complex question that demands a lot of speculation. Various exact PODs and scenarios would have different outcomes. But I really want to thank everyone who bothered to reply. I learned a lot from this discussion. :)
 
Montréal will not benefit from westward expansion, St.Louis will be the main city to benefit from that.

Montréal needs immigration, canals connecting it to the Mississippi, make cities like New Orleans, St.Louis, Detroit, Québec city and Chicago, almost its economic vassals. Those things are necessary for it to be even possible to compete with NYC. One thing that is for sure, a Montréal in a greater US, will be better off than otl economically.

This connection also could incentivize the French language to continue to be used in Detroit, St. Louis and empower French in New Orleans. Thus making it the trade language of sorts of the Mississippi as it was before the 1820s.
 
I said that New York wins out. However, if by some miracle it was left out of development for some reason I proposed that Detroit was more likely to benefit than Montreal due to it being a port closer to the goal of westward migration. So I was only comparing Montreal and Detroit, there.
Detroit is not a head of navigation for anything, because Detroit River is naturally navigable. If the migrants for some reason sail Great Lakes, rather than disembark and continue by land/rail, then Chicago and Milwaukee are logical points where they cannot continue - Detroit is no more special than Toledo.
And if I'm only comparing Montreal and Detroit obviously this presupposes that the St Lawrence is developed.
Hudson was navigable, yet New York was bigger than Albany (or Buffalo, for the matter).
However, I had neglected Niagra. That's a bit of an obstacle, but it could be portaged by westbound pioneers, I suppose. Complex question.
Erie Canal, Buffalo to Albany was 580 km. Welland Canal is 43 km.
 
I think you're more likely to see a chain of cities along the Great Lakes develop that grow together and fuel development in one another. Montreal, Kingston, York, Hamilton, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Duluth, all benefit from a series of canals opening up the Great Lakes. Every city that grows, fuels development in the whole area by making additional ports of call and increased shippinng as well as additional markets. Steamer traffic was really lethargic OTL because it wasn't worth investing in because everything always halted at the Montreal rapids and had to be transferred the long way round through the Rideau.

There really only has to be four canals constructed to connect all these cities and make the Great Lakes an even bigger powerhouse than it was historically. The St. Lawrence canal, The Welland, one through Michigan to Lake Huron and another from Huron to Lake Superior/lake Michigan. You could travel from Montreal to the west in a matter of days as opposed to weeks by horse and cart via land travel. And if you do build the Rideau canal, Montreal can gain an additional bomm through the timber trade from Bytown (Ottawa).

But my strong suspicion is that Montreal does better as part of an expanded Canada than an alt United States. New York has such a massive head start that competition is going to be rough and sheer influence and population of New York makes it a very difficult foe to beat. If Britain wins the War of 1812 and hacks off a big enough piece of the old Northwest and the south bank of the ST. Lawrence, that whole region is almost totally beholden to Montreal and that's when the great chain of cities under it's domain can really flourish.
 
Detroit is not a head of navigation for anything, because Detroit River is naturally navigable. If the migrants for some reason sail Great Lakes, rather than disembark and continue by land/rail, then Chicago and Milwaukee are logical points where they cannot continue - Detroit is no more special than Toledo.

Well, neither is Montreal, other than being on the St Lawrence/Great Lakes navigational complex. And Detroit is also on the St Lawrence/Great Lakes navigational complex, obviously. It doesn't have to be a head of navigation. It's a port of debarkation into the Old Northwest.

I had considered Chicago, etc., but then I figured the POD was too early for them- they were too far west for the migration of the time. Just a bit later and, yes, absolutely. And St Louis, too, though I'm unfamiliar with how early that region became a major migration target. So I happily admit I'm really just speculating (like everyone else), and could be wrong.

EDIT- Hmm. I may have indeed been wrong on the timing of migration. I'd have to ask the OP to nail down a POD or something. Here are the dates that some states were carved out of the Northwest Territory and added to the Union:

Ohio 1803
Indiana 1816
Illinois 1818
Michigan 1837
Wisconsin 1848
Minnesota 1858

Obviously, there must have been significant migration before those dates. Perhaps Chicago would be the real winner.
 
Last edited:
Well, neither is Montreal, other than being on the St Lawrence/Great Lakes navigational complex. And Detroit is also on the St Lawrence/Great Lakes navigational complex, obviously. It doesn't have to be a head of navigation. It's a port of debarkation into the Old Northwest.

I had considered Chicago, etc., but then I figured the POD was too early for them- they were too far west for the migration of the time. Just a bit later and, yes, absolutely. And St Louis, too, though I'm unfamiliar with how early that region became a major migration target. So I happily admit I'm really just speculating (like everyone else), and could be wrong.

EDIT- Hmm. I may have indeed been wrong on the timing of migration. I'd have to ask the OP to nail down a POD or something. Here are the dates that some states were carved out of the Northwest Territory and added to the Union:

Ohio 1803
Indiana 1816
Illinois 1818
Michigan 1837
Wisconsin 1848
Minnesota 1858

Obviously, there must have been significant migration before those dates. Perhaps Chicago would be the real winner.

if you look at the population of the states, it starts off very slow and then explodes and then normalizes. The reason there's such a delay in Michigan is that there's cheaper, easier accessible land in Ohio and Indiana. If Canada nabs Michigan in 1812, Detroit is in a very enviable position being in a straight line from the St. Lawrence and probably has a lot earlier growth but doesn't get the explosion that it received at a later date (so in the end it probably ends up being a wash in an OTL and ATL 1850).
 
Well, neither is Montreal, other than being on the St Lawrence/Great Lakes navigational complex. And Detroit is also on the St Lawrence/Great Lakes navigational complex, obviously. It doesn't have to be a head of navigation. It's a port of debarkation into the Old Northwest.

I had considered Chicago, etc., but then I figured the POD was too early for them- they were too far west for the migration of the time. Just a bit later and, yes, absolutely. And St Louis, too, though I'm unfamiliar with how early that region became a major migration target. So I happily admit I'm really just speculating (like everyone else), and could be wrong.

EDIT- Hmm. I may have indeed been wrong on the timing of migration. I'd have to ask the OP to nail down a POD or something. Here are the dates that some states were carved out of the Northwest Territory and added to the Union:

Ohio 1803
Indiana 1816
Illinois 1818
Michigan 1837
Wisconsin 1848
Minnesota 1858

Obviously, there must have been significant migration before those dates. Perhaps Chicago would be the real winner.

St Louis is smaller than it could have been, its major benefit geographically is being at (or actually slightly south of at the time of founding) the confluence of the Missouri River and the Mississippi River, to go west on the Missouri River you went through St Louis to St Charles, to New Florence and the Booneslick Trail to New Franklin where the Sante Fe Trail began, and which then branched into Oregon, Mormon, and California trails. It is an early French settlement, and the reason it never got to be as large as geography would have expected is because of the railroad hub that Chicago became. Chicago and northern Illinois interests pushed for Rock Island to be the Mississippi crossing for railroads moving west, and since most movement west by settlers and goods were coming from NY and New England, Chicago was easiest to reach, and once in Chicago, why go south before crossing the Mississippi? Rock Island made more sense. Though it did little for Rock Island in the long run (other than the fact that the city would be even smaller today if they had not "won"), it did more harm long term to St Louis. St Louis "caught up" fairly well with steamboats, railroads, Route 66, I-70, tourism thanks to the St Louis Arch and Jefferson Gateway Memorial (the courthouse that the Dred Scott case began).
 
St Louis is smaller than it could have been, its major benefit geographically is being at (or actually slightly south of at the time of founding) the confluence of the Missouri River and the Mississippi River, to go west on the Missouri River you went through St Louis to St Charles, to New Florence and the Booneslick Trail to New Franklin where the Sante Fe Trail began, and which then branched into Oregon, Mormon, and California trails. It is an early French settlement, and the reason it never got to be as large as geography would have expected is because of the railroad hub that Chicago became. Chicago and northern Illinois interests pushed for Rock Island to be the Mississippi crossing for railroads moving west, and since most movement west by settlers and goods were coming from NY and New England, Chicago was easiest to reach, and once in Chicago, why go south before crossing the Mississippi? Rock Island made more sense. Though it did little for Rock Island in the long run (other than the fact that the city would be even smaller today if they had not "won"), it did more harm long term to St Louis. St Louis "caught up" fairly well with steamboats, railroads, Route 66, I-70, tourism thanks to the St Louis Arch and Jefferson Gateway Memorial (the courthouse that the Dred Scott case began).

St. Louis was definitely the strongest or close to, on the Mississippi in the 1800s. It by the 1880s had begun to surpass New Orleans and was close to triple Chicago's population. This can be kept in place easily.
 
if you look at the population of the states, it starts off very slow and then explodes and then normalizes. The reason there's such a delay in Michigan is that there's cheaper, easier accessible land in Ohio and Indiana. If Canada nabs Michigan in 1812, Detroit is in a very enviable position being in a straight line from the St. Lawrence and probably has a lot earlier growth but doesn't get the explosion that it received at a later date (so in the end it probably ends up being a wash in an OTL and ATL 1850).
I feel like Windsor might get be the side to grow more, on the safe side of the water.
 
I feel like Windsor might get be the side to grow more, on the safe side of the water.

Detroit is always going to be the commercial hub of Michigan no matter who controls it. Whereas Windsor will always be second fiddle to York/Toronto. But, if someone owns Ontario and Michigan (either Canada/USA) Windsor probably gets a big boost simply by not having the artificial border in place. If the USA owns it, I doubt it gets named Windsor though.
 
Detroit is always going to be the commercial hub of Michigan no matter who controls it. Whereas Windsor will always be second fiddle to York/Toronto. But, if someone owns Ontario and Michigan (either Canada/USA) Windsor probably gets a big boost simply by not having the artificial border in place. If the USA owns it, I doubt it gets named Windsor though.
Why? They're right across the river from one another, it's just a matter of urban planning which side will dominate, and for Canada having a river between you and the Americans is always a plus.
 
Re. canals: It's worth noting that once the Welland Canal opened, it came to eclipse the Erie Canal. There actually was a portage route from the lower part of the Falls to the upper part of the river before and during the War of 1812 - ships used to sail up to before the whirlpool, hire teamsters in Stamford to haul their ship, and continue on from there. In fact the town of Stamford was largely spared during the war because both sides needed the teamsters to move their ships.

A *Welland Canal is always going to be more attractive than the Erie Canal for getting goods to the Great Lakes. For one thing, you have to dig through comparatively less land to cut a canal through Niagara. For another, in doing that, you can spend your cash on a wider and better-equipped canal. You'll also need less locks to navigate down the St. Lawrence Seaway - it's got about 15 today, while the Erie Canal has 36. Past Seaways had more locks, but the Erie Canal was also incredibly slow going even for the amount that it cut down land travel time, and you could take bigger ships down the St. Lawrence and through Welland. Just having to cut through less rock would make the Welland route more attractive.

Re. Windsor vs. Detroit: There's no reason they couldn't be part of a river-spanning municipality if you had one nation owning both MI and ON. You're still liable to have your port facilities laid out on one side or the other north of Fighting Island; I'd be inclined to favour the Windsor side since a lot of ships will be turning to the right anyway if they're coming up from Lake Erie and going north.
 
Top