PC/WI/AHC USA buys/annexes the Hudson Bay Company?

Lusitania

Donor
Unless you remove the 1840 Act of Union Canada will form. Confederation was seen as the only alternative to the non-functional Province of Canada and the British were really receptive to the idea in spite of opposition in Maritimes.

And then of course London will favour an in-house transaction over selling territory (even to a friendly US) by default.
Yes the internal political issues were aplenty. The colonial powers tried to sell the idea inthe 1850s to london but they were cool to idea.

It took the American civil war. Plus the Americans cancelled free trade with the US and were much colder to the British overall due to perceived BRitish intervention in the Trent affair.

It was the external pressures from US that I believe were the final push that got London on side.
 
The colonial powers tried to sell the idea inthe 1850s to london but they were cool to idea.
I wouldn't make too much of the rejection of the 1858 proposal. Said proposal was made on behalf of very shake and weak coalition which did even last a full election cycle (not helped by the fact that one of the people sent to make the proposal was in favour of US annexation, and that the same year the coalition had dissolved for four days). The Great Coalition was a much harder matter to dismiss out of hand.

It took the American civil war. Plus the Americans cancelled free trade with the US and were much colder to the British overall due to perceived BRitish intervention in the Trent affair.
I'm not sure better relations would save the Reciprocity Treaty, the US simply wasn't benefitting from it at all.

The external pressure of the US certainly greatly helped, but I'd be hesitant dismiss the impact of Canadian politicians finally getting their act together and the growing movement in London to cut administrative and defence costs (of which the Little Englanders were only the most extreme).
 

Lusitania

Donor
I wouldn't make too much of the rejection of the 1858 proposal. Said proposal was made on behalf of very shake and weak coalition which did even last a full election cycle (not helped by the fact that one of the people sent to make the proposal was in favour of US annexation, and that the same year the coalition had dissolved for four days). The Great Coalition was a much harder matter to dismiss out of hand.


I'm not sure better relations would save the Reciprocity Treaty, the US simply wasn't benefitting from it at all.

The external pressure of the US certainly greatly helped, but I'd be hesitant dismiss the impact of Canadian politicians finally getting their act together and the growing movement in London to cut administrative and defence costs (of which the Little Englanders were only the most extreme).
I am thinking of the saying “easier to get with honey than vinagre”. Do you need some people or groups in US and Canada that decided to continue the free trade in hopes of making British colonies more amiable to the US plus group in Canada doing everything to destroy confederation.

Now the only reason I brought that up was that would in my opinion be the only way they get HBC lands and as well several colonies.
 
"You can either go here, and we'll even let you administer yourselves, or you get assimilated under the governments of the state on who's land you reside. The time of being treated as domestic dependent nations is over, so make your choice."
You do undertand how much of OTL Canada HBC controlled, don't you? Y'know, most of Manitoba, much of northern Ontario, most of Saskatchewan...

I confess, IDK if there's anything there whites might want. There is gold in north-central Ontario, but that's not really a huge deal until much later. It does depend on whether this also includes, frex, Kinderley potash--& on whether the Natives get to mine it.

OTOH, it'd be a pretty interesting way of handling things. I'm not so sure it'd prevent raiding out of the "Giant Res", which could be a problem. Letting bison roam free in northern Saskatchewan & Manitoba... :cool::cool:

OTGH, the territory's pretty barren; would it carry the population numbers you intend to move? And can you actually enforce it?

In ref the timing, I don't see 1865-70 being an issue. HBC was trying to get HMG to take Rupert's Land off its hands as far back as 1800, so had the U.S. made them a reasonable offer... (And that need not be so sweet as we today might think.)
America's thinning of the Bison heards
Which, IIRC, didn't happen until the 1880s, so not an issue.
US isn't going to tolerate a "lawless" territory which can potentially harbour rebellious natives
They're only rebellious or "lawless" because they're constantly being harassed by encroaching whites. Put them in territory that has nothing whites want... Besides, the U.S. was, for a time anyhow, willing to tolerate a pretty lawless territory: what became Oklahoma was as near a gangster's paradise as you could ask for, because the U.S. couldn't control it.
the UK isn't going to sell Rupert's Land
You're right, but not for the reason you think: HMG didn't control it, HBC did, & HBC wasn't an HMG agency, it was a private stock company.
 
Last edited:
It almost has to be through conquest. If it's prior to 1854 then Britain will just fight America over it, and post 1854 the Canadians were interested and would just match America's offer.
 
It almost has to be through conquest. If it's prior to 1854 then Britain will just fight America over it, and post 1854 the Canadians were interested and would just match America's offer.
I'm not at all sure the Brits would fight; they were prepared to unload BC, which wasn't mostly wasteland. The Canadians couldn't afford to match the U.S. dollar for dollar, & I'm far from sure the Brits would.

I have a strong sense HMG considered Rupert's Land much the same way as the Russians did Alaska: nice to have, but not vital.
 
How could the US government annex or buy the HBC and its territory? How would this new territory develope? Maybe the US shows less interest in the northernmost land, causing by accident a better first nations policy compared to the canadian one (total neglect vs agressive assimilation)? How would rump Canada develope?

Legislation was introduced by Minnesota's Congressional delegation in 1867 to trade the Alabama Claims, along with $3 Million, for HBC's territories in addition to everything west of the 90th Meridian. Grant seems to have been interested in general, but Fish proved too cautious on the matter and there was a more hesitant stance taken by Congress in general. Specifically in regards to the Metis, they had several connections with Pro-American individuals and groups so I'd imagine they'd get along fine with the Americans.
 
they were prepared to unload BC,
[citation needed]

Which, IIRC, didn't happen until the 1880s, so not an issue.
Unless you're proposing that America acquiring Rupert's Land would completely change America's relations with the Natives it's still going to be an issue.

Put them in territory that has nothing whites want...
And it has nothing the southern natives would want either. Also you just mentioned the whole problem, "put them" as in militarily crush them and ethnically cleanse them from their traditional lands. No no no no, this whole proposal of dumping the plains nations into Canadian North (where the vast majority would starve or freeze) is going to entail a whole lot more harassment by the encroaching whites than OTL's reservation system.
 
[citation needed]
It's in Company of Adventurers, I think. Might be Caesars of the Wilderness.
Unless you're proposing that America acquiring Rupert's Land would completely change America's relations with the Natives it's still going to be an issue.
If this happens, the change will be pretty enormous. It might well lead to a complete change, because it's moved Natives "out of the way", which (AIUI) the bison massacres were designed to do.
ethnically cleanse them from their traditional lands.
So what was the U.S. doing OTL?:rolleyes:
Canadian North (where the vast majority would starve or freeze)
It's not like the area around P.A. is orders of magnitude colder than South Dakota... Yeah, if you've moved Apache & Navajo, there's a problem.

Notice: I'm not advocating this as a solution, just an idea. It might be a bad one.
 
If this happens, the change will be pretty enormous. It might well lead to a complete change, because it's moved Natives "out of the way", which (AIUI) the bison massacres were designed to do.
The bison killing was a means to weaken the natives. Removing them to the north will require them to be weakened. Ergo Bison culling happens on schedule.

So what was the U.S. doing OTL?
Yes, but bigger.

It's not like the area around P.A. is orders of magnitude colder than South Dakota...
P.A?
 
I'm not completely convinced it's necessary. Given a choice between moving & being exterminated...
If they fought to not be put on reserves near where they live they'll fight to not be relocated to the boreal plains.

Apologies, Prince Albert, SK.
Ok, and that actually is in a different climate zone and ecoregion from South Dakota, so it would necessitate substantial changes in life style.
 
You're right, but not for the reason you think: HMG didn't control it, HBC did, & HBC wasn't an HMG agency, it was a private stock company.
and subject to a Charter from HMG. HBC territory was for them to use but not to give away or sell.
 
and subject to a Charter from HMG. HBC territory was for them to use but not to give away or sell.
This.

The US is NOT going to 'buy' the HBC and gain the territory.

What COULD happen is that American colonists flood into what is now the Canadian prairies, and they end up petitioning to join the US. Basically what happened with the southern chunk of Oregon territory.

The Brits/Canadians are not going to hold down by force an area that has a sizable (white) American population.

Only after the US controls the habitable parts (the prairies) would discussion be possible about the HBC and land north of the tree line (i.e. where trees start, not where they end).

Even then, it might well be possible for Britain to keep most of the Canadian Shield, for instance, if they wanted to. Not sure they would, but the US might not want that territory much either.

As for a PoD, the TransCanada Railway was incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive (for a colony the size of Canada - even the expanded Canada after 1867). The project could have failed several times, politically or economically (realistically, a mixture of both).

Without the railway, Canada / Britain has no way to project power / military force onto the prairies in the winter, and its difficult even in the summer. IIRC, during the First Riel Rebellion (the one that ended with Manitoba as a province), the force had to transit THROUGH the US. The Second Riel Rebellion, there was enough of the RR built that troops (sorry 'police') could ride the rails where they existed, march to the next stretch, take rails again, etc. And the whole path was cut clear to allow RR building.

If the RR is never built, the West will fill up with US settlers coming north from Minnesota, down the Red River. And all produce will have go south up the Red River to markets. In a decade or two, this alt West will be so dominated by the US (economically, if no other way) that the only logical end would be the prairies joining the US.
 
IIRC, during the First Riel Rebellion (the one that ended with Manitoba as a province), the force had to transit THROUGH the US.
Through the American Sault Canal, which was denied, forcing the Wolseley Expedition to proceed to Lake Superior on foot where they could reboard their steam ferry. And this lead to Canada making its own canal through the Sault.

As for a PoD, the TransCanada Railway was incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive (for a colony the size of Canada - even the expanded Canada after 1867). The project could have failed several times, politically or economically (realistically, a mixture of both).
I disagree. Canada was building a lot of railroad tracks in the period, it was something they not only had loads of experience in (with all the trained workers, established companies, and preowned equipment that entails), but it was also literally something they had built Confederation upon. Both parties and all the provinces were in favour of extending the railway to the west. The biggest scandal to come out of the affair, the Pacific Scandal, was over bribery and the involvement of American capital, rather than anything which could hurt the railway in the long term. If anything it demonstrates that Canada wanted its own pipeline and wanted it to be made properly. And there isn't really room for scandal killing it afterwards as the National Policy implemented McDonald in 1878 (the centre piece of which being the railway) was broadly adhered to by all governments (from both parties) up to WWII. So political will was essentially bottomless.

Regarding the expenses of building it, 100 million was a hefty price tag, and about four times the original price, but the federal government was not exactly strapped for cash, and was entirely willing to to go over budget (as it frequently did durring the period of construction).
 
Top