Stronger Canada, Strong United States

Morale of uniting the forces really depended on what service you were, the navy was far and away the most opposed to it (but there's a whole slough of arguements to be made on that topic alone). But a lot of it had to do with Cold War politics (mostly being that Canada really doen't need a military, given that America is right next door).

I agree that alot of the reasoning was cold-war politics but I also belive that Canada has lost alot of international stature due to the lack of support we can provide. Mind you it's tough to justify armed forces when you're not in a war or constant state of hostilities.

The Turks and Caicos islands would be nice, but Canada has never really had a prescence in the Carribean, and the fact that it would enormously costly to maintain and protect was a huge disincentive. If you want the islands, you have to go back earlier and make Canada more active in the region, which means we need a navy, which we never really had until 1910.

Cost wise I would think it would be cheaper than much of the north is. Both involve large distances but the presence of ports on the east coast should make shipping relatively easy. I agree that we would need a much stronger Navy though which means maybe a WW1 policy change?

The Northwest Passage was never an issue until quite recently, so I fail to see how you're going to get more investment up there until the 70's anyways.

I would base this upon a change in the 1950's/60's when the first modern vessels went through the passage. Instead of the passive response we granted in OTL a much more agressive pressence (including anti-submarine patrols) may change things. I would base this upon the CANOL project being more successfull in WW2 making the north a high priority post war.

And the last one boggles my mind. The provinces will never go for it, and they might even take the federal government to court (and could feasably win it too). Especially if there's more development in the prairies. If the prairies are more populated than OTL, they aren't going to be beaten by Ottawa so often (or ignored, either).

Heck yeah I agree that today it could never occur...but if you can go back far enough (pre-1930) then it is possible. However there is still the potential that federal land revenues could be used.


Good to see another Albertan on the board.
foresterab
 

Raymann

Banned
Heck yeah I agree that today it could never occur...but if you can go back far enough (pre-1930) then it is possible. However there is still the potential that federal land revenues could be used.

I know enough about Canada to know that has about as much chance as Texas banning guns...they would never go for it and couldn't even if they wanted to.

Going back to the early 20th century would be the best bet but there would have been even less reason back then. The problem has been finding people to extract the resources and profits would still have been low. And it was cheaper in Canada for a long time to simply buy from the US then to build the infrastructure necessary to extract its mineral wealth, especially further north.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but it would have also created problems in Western Canada being resentful that its resources were being leached off by the East. I remember reading about the National Energy Program and the fiasco that turned out to be...this would be much worse.
 
The possibility of having the federal government control resources is realisitc just unlikely given the way Confederation was conducted and who did it. Most drafts (and even the eventual compromise) on Confederation were highly skeptical of the American decentralization of power to the states, or that's what our fathers of confederation saw. In its early days Canada essentially existed as a unitary state masked by a weak federal structure, but unfortunately for its creators in the long-run this would back-fire since the federal gov't gave provinces many powers that at the time were small and unimportant but which grew immensely as regions became more settled (i.e resources, indirect taxation, healthcare, education).

Had Confederation been worded differently or some of these powers were vested in the Federal gov't, and judges were willing to uphold them for long enough it's possible for resources to be extracted and taxed or something like that. But yeah, you'd definitely get a whole ton of resistance in the future over any sort of law that does that and it would cause a lot of unrest in the west.
 
Biggest things to do is probably increase the population via:

foresterab

I agree that the main task will be to increase the population and that at least some of the points you mention are useful. However think that your overlooking the overwhelming problem. Canada's greatest problem for increasing its population is a friendly US. The latter has a better climate and much higher population meaning a much larger and richer economy with more opportunities. Therefore it will inevitably tend to drain off people from Canada as it still does today. I remember reading a quote a while back that of every 10 people who emigrated to Canada 9 ended up moving south to the US.

As such while the border changes in the TL are useful they will probably not be very effective in themselves. Not in making Canada a major power.

If you have a nastier 1812 conflict, possibly forming the basis of the easternmost of the border changes. More to the point it leads to prolonged mistrust between Britain/Canada and the US. This could have several advantages. Most noticeably if it means that Canadians and British are unwelcome as settlers south of the border. Furthermore this probably means that less money goes to the US delaying its development and hence reducing the attractiveness of it for immigrants. Also if Britain has to spend more money on a larger garrison that would help. [Troops providing a larger and persistent market, possibly some settlers and also investment on transport and communication helping general development]. Also with the US being hostile it might be seen as advisable to build local industries for some products rather than rely on the US. Possibly if the tension or some other changes means that Britain doesn't move to free trade, which would allow Canada to maintain tariffs against US good prior to 1867 and give a better chance to build up its own production.

This doesn't need to go on more than a generation or two, nor be that strong after the 1st decade or so. However it gives time for Canada to build up a core of population and basic industry and also possibly an established tradition that they don't move south. Given this Canada can attract and retain a larger proportion of the latter mass immigration from Europe.

Think this would meet the requirement for the scenario and wouldn't drastically impact on the development of the US, barring them going excessively nativist or something. However would enable a substantially larger and more developed Canada by say 1900.

Steve
 

Xen

Banned
I havent read the whole thread, but what if during the Cold War, the Soviets were more willing to allow citizens in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe immigrate to the west. During the McCarthy era in the US, most Eastern Europeans and Russians are treated with suspicion in the states, so most go north to Canada.

Then perhaps we can have the United States forced to fight a two front war in the 1960's in Vietnam and Korea (it nearly exploded into full out war in the 1960s and 1970s on several occasions) and more draft dodgers flee north, and are not forgiven by the US government and have to remain behind.

Thirdly we can also have the US government less willing to provide equal rights to its black citizens causing many of them to go to Canada, or on the other hand, many of the racist rednecks from the deep south decide to go to Canada instead of living in harmony with the blacks.

All of these should increase Canada's population by a good bit, maybe even by several million iver the next couple of generations.
 

Xen

Banned
And fourthly (Not sure thats a real word) since I just realized I was somehow in the pre-1900 section, I could have sworn I clicked the post-1900.

What about in 1864, Lincoln runs with a Vice President that is a radical Republican and like OTL wins. When he is assassinated, his Veep decides to expel all southern whites, or have a harsher reconstruction that forces many ex-Confederates to leave, most of whom decide to go to Canada.
 
When he is assassinated, his Veep decides to expel all southern whites, or have a harsher reconstruction that forces many ex-Confederates to leave, most of whom decide to go to Canada.

A radical reconstruction, sure. An Acadian-style expulsion of the southron population? Smells like ASBs.
 
Top