The Canadian Annexation Thread (T.C.A.T.)

Think of the butterflies . . .
upload_2017-6-22_7-6-58.jpeg
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
Interestingly, I don't see annexation changing much for Canadians (and I say that as a Canadian). I think the effects on the United States is going to be far more profound. Ontario and Quebec are both going to be declaring 'distinct society' and while I think eventually both would settle into being states, they're likely to become as liberal as the current Northeast.

Unless the borders change drastically or population growth differs significantly, Upper Canada/Ontario will be the 4th most populous state in 2016 ahead of Pennsylvania and behind New Your, and Lower Canda/Quebec will be 14th after Virginia. That's a lot of representatives in the House, not to mention electors, which is going to make then swing states who will ally most often with the New England states (c.f. Colin Woodwards' "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures in North America,")

In the 1830s, that population distribution will be even more significant.

From http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4151287-eng.htm:

Upper Canada had a population of 213,000. In 1827, Upper Canada, Lower Canada and Nova Scotia had a combined population of 774,000, so that means tha in 1830 Lower Canada alone was probably about 500,000. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each appear to be around 50,000-75,000 which would qualify them all for statehood rather than as territories. So that's 12 new senators and (if I have gotten the ratio correct) another 10-13 representatives

Another 10-13 members in the House in 1830 from 213 to 223 or 226 isn't huge, but it is enough to give the Northern factions the lead in contentious and close issues. In the Senate, however, 12 new seats is as 25% increase from 48 to 60, so that "Canadian" block is going to be powerful. If they all joined at the end of the War of 1812, that "Canadian" block would a 33% increase from 36 to 48.

As mentioned above, the Canadian states will have more in common with the Northern anti-slavery states so any way you shake it, the ATL version of the Missouri Compromise is going to look VERY different because of how 6 new Canadian states woudl significantly alter the USA's political landscape. That is an issue that few ATLs like this deal with in a plausible manner.
 
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each appear to be around 50,000-75,000 which would qualify them all for statehood rather than as territories.

I dunno. I could see slave states wanting them as a single state, and with abolitionists holding a large advantage anyways thanks to Canada, the North would agree.

Also, depending on the era, I can't see Lower Canada join the US. If this annexation is too late, anti-Catholicism may be so great that the US only annexes the Eastern Townships (what is now known as Estrie) and establishes a puppet state.
 
It's possible, but you need a quite early POD for it. And if war happens over the Oregon dispute, the US will be smashed, and it'll be smashed hard.

Only problem is that this is during the potato famine. The UK will have to get their wheat from elsewhere than the US in the event of a war.

From my understanding, British settlement was forestalled for the longest time as the Hudson Bay company did not want settlers in Columbia so they could take advantage of the fur trade for as long as possible. Delay that some, while perhaps increasing American immigration to Oregon (I always wondered if American Marquesas Islands could spur interest in the Pacific/create an earlier desire for a Pacific port), means that by the time of ATL Oregon Dispute, American settlers would outnumber British by an even larger margin than OTL.

Not to say that they'd take all of Columbia, either. It could be sent to arbitration (offered by the British as a matter of settling it originally) where the matter could be settled in any number of odd manners. Either the split as per OTL, or perhaps some odd percentile being chosen, with the border being apportioned at a latitude that would grant each side an amount of territory equivalent to their settled population, and countanced by their interests.

Or, perhaps, the arbitrator chooses a random line on the map (say the 51 N), leaving adequate territory for a western port for British North America while recognizing that the US has a far larger number settled in the territory. However, Vancouver Island remains a possession of Great Britain, considering their investments in the region. Also, there'd be some yada yada about the US allowing for passage throughout their territory for X number of years until the United Kingdom had established adequate lines of communication and transit. I find such a compromise that makes no one happy far more realistic than 54 40. Though, if the US gets Alaska as well, things get even more awkward than before. The concept of Vancouver Island remaining British in such a case, and likely remaining its own province, would make for an interesting butterfly on its own.

-

On another note, I think the US offered to buy the Hudson Bay Company in the aftermath of the Civil War. Any particular way that such a decision would be made absent the British Empire falling apart in revolution/etc?
 
Only problem is that this is during the potato famine. The UK will have to get their wheat from elsewhere than the US in the event of a war.

They can just do what they did during the Second World War and starve brown people in India by taking their food.

(I always wondered if American Marquesas Islands

American colonies in French Polynesia? What?

*checks*

That's mind-blowing, to be frank. I wonder if that could mean the US discovers Hawaii and colonized it earlier than OTL. Now that would be a nice boost for American Pacific investments.
 
They can just do what they did during the Second World War and starve brown people in India by taking their food.



American colonies in French Polynesia? What?

*checks*

That's mind-blowing, to be frank. I wonder if that could mean the US discovers Hawaii and colonized it earlier than OTL. Now that would be a nice boost for American Pacific investments.

True.

And yeah, that was my reaction. An early outpost that could conceivably exist? Prevent the expulsion... You could be talking about far more than just Hawai'i in the long run. In the short run... potentially a small American protectorate in the region that grows to encompass a large portion of Polynesia. If you prevent the disease (I think it was plague) that wiped out most of their population, the Washington Islands would have a sizable population by modern times. (They lasted until the middle of the 19th century when some Peruvian missionaries accidentally brought it along. It's probably too much to hope for, as the more likely option is the OTL trajectory, but it could be interesting).
 
Unless the borders change drastically or population growth differs significantly, Upper Canada/Ontario will be the 4th most populous state in 2016 ahead of Pennsylvania and behind New Your, and Lower Canda/Quebec will be 14th after Virginia. That's a lot of representatives in the House, not to mention electors, which is going to make then swing states who will ally most often with the New England states (c.f. Colin Woodwards' "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures in North America,")

In the 1830s, that population distribution will be even more significant.

From http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4151287-eng.htm:

Upper Canada had a population of 213,000. In 1827, Upper Canada, Lower Canada and Nova Scotia had a combined population of 774,000, so that means tha in 1830 Lower Canada alone was probably about 500,000. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each appear to be around 50,000-75,000 which would qualify them all for statehood rather than as territories. So that's 12 new senators and (if I have gotten the ratio correct) another 10-13 representatives

Another 10-13 members in the House in 1830 from 213 to 223 or 226 isn't huge, but it is enough to give the Northern factions the lead in contentious and close issues. In the Senate, however, 12 new seats is as 25% increase from 48 to 60, so that "Canadian" block is going to be powerful. If they all joined at the end of the War of 1812, that "Canadian" block would a 33% increase from 36 to 48.

As mentioned above, the Canadian states will have more in common with the Northern anti-slavery states so any way you shake it, the ATL version of the Missouri Compromise is going to look VERY different because of how 6 new Canadian states woudl significantly alter the USA's political landscape. That is an issue that few ATLs like this deal with in a plausible manner.

If Ontario and Quebec join the United States and a St. Lawrence canal is constructed in the 1820s with canal fever striking the nation then they'll see massive, unprecedented growth totally unseen in OTL. The demographics change will make those province's almost unrecognizable in the 19th century.
 
One of the most plausible POD's is a more successful Sullivan Campaign in the ARW in 1779. Have a different leadership team, a more gambling Washington and a more focused campaign to capture Ft. Niagara and Ft. Detroit.

With both Fort Niagara and Fort Detroit in the 1779 and able to hold them, the USA would have a claim and could have obtained what would be Upper Canada, OTL Ontario at the Peace of Parris.

1812With this, the Northwest Indians are screwed and the British will not try to create a buffer Indian nation. The War of 1812 could be butterflied away.

Other butterflies may be for the USA to purchase the Red River area and possibly all the rest of OTL Canada as well. Quebec and the Maritimes remain British and the rest would be USA.

Hopefully Canadian football survives as it is fun to watch.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Only problem is that this is during the potato famine. The UK will have to get their wheat from elsewhere than the US in the event of a war.
Russia (i.e. the Baltic trade) would do fine.

King Grain needs to die in a fire (and become popcorn). It's based on a couple of anomalous years in the 1860s when the US dumped cheap grain on the world market.

They can just do what they did during the Second World War and starve brown people in India by taking their food.
That's not what was happening. The Bengal Famine was caused by a lack of transport in the Bay of Bengal, not by food being shipped away.
 
1.If there is no War of 1812 (and no American invasion), do you think that any of the British North American colonies could/would have eventually joined the Union?

Probably not. They would be more open to American immigration (but there's little evidence this would lead to much clamor for annexation) which would probably increase the population, but the Maritimes all felt a deep cultural/economic tie to Britain, what became Ontario had a proud Loyalist tradition which influenced it for over a century, and Quebec is pretty much a non starter.

2.Could Quebec ever successfully be a U.S. state?

Contrary to popular opinion I would argue no. The Louisiana argument has been floated, but can be challenged by the Canadien apathy to republican institutions and intense fear of being absorbed by a larger English population. Quebec has been politically restive ever since 1867, and that would be just as bad in this scenario, even with token protections Quebec would be hard core in the states rights camp and ultimately be a near eternal headache and would fiercely resist integration. Basically from 1775 on the chances of Quebec willingly being absorbed into the United States are nil.

Could the U.S. have ended up with British Columbia, and if so, what would happen to the East?

Possibly. Effectively until 1871 and the agreement to construct a railroad there was not much BC had in common with Canada save being a British colony. There wasn't much annexation sentiment OTL, but if you had more American settlers coming in the 1850s and 1860s, and getting integrated with the social elite then I see it as a distinct possibility a more active annexation movement could take hold. Heck, even delaying the Alaska purchase a while might remove the feeling of being surrounded and let them be more amiable to the idea.

Under what conditions (if any) would Newfoundland have seriously considered U.S. statehood?

As was pointed out earlier, its basically only if the Maritimes are already American. Newfoundland was dragged kicking and screaming into Canada as it was, and they only joined because the entire Dominion went broke and Britain basically said "Ok, time to join another country now..."

When do you believe is the latest that an American invasion of Canada (and/or war against the U.K.) is a remotely plausible scenario?

1862 is the last time I see it being remotely possible. Others have mentioned a crisis over the Alabama Claims, but I'm skeptical a nation emerging from four years of civil war with a South to reabsorb and millions of freed slaves to deal with would be positively eager to go a round with Great Britain. Circumstances might push towards it, but I really can't see Andrew Johnson or US Grant being really eager to find a military solution.

I say 1862 because the much discussed Trent scenario is the closest either side came to at least severing diplomatic relations or open hostilities, and Britain was actively gearing up for war. After that she had good reasons to not desire to take on a fully mobilized America, and there was more to be earned via negotiation rather than gunboat diplomacy. Even the 1895 Venezuela Crisis was really only so much posturing.

What level of civil resistance are we going to see if the U.K. "abandons" Canada to U.S. annexation/occupation?

Depends on how its "abandoned" really.

What sort of regional identity would an American Canada have? (Dixie 2: The Great White Boogaloo?)

Well as previously mentioned Quebec is probably just as troublesome as it ever was, and scoffs openly at most of its neighbors, alt-Ontario probably adopts a very New England attitude, which means it largely shifts with the times and liberal mores of the age. The Great Plains probably add up to the rural conservative wild west culture that developed OTL in the American West, and BC is Oregon writ small (or large geographically speaking).

In interesting terms, if the whole slavery debate goes on track you might see slavery further north as the compromises become more difficult, and if you get secession some time in the 1850s-60s, you can bet your britches Quebec probably hops on that train in an effort to kick off the objectionable parts of the US system.

What would a rump/puppet Canada look like if the U.S. decided not to outright annex it?

Probably (depending on what was lost) and independent Republic of Quebec, and a Maritime Union which is tied closely to Britain. If Ontario still exists, its a very fragile province which looks West to the plains with envy.
 
2) Absolutely, perhaps much more successfully than it has been as a Canadian province. The US Federal system work would just fine at allowing Quebec to maintain several of its peculiarities - we even have a similar road map with Louisiana. I do however, think that Quebec would be broken into smaller states though - which given it gives Quebec a bigger voice in the Senate, might actually play out well with the Quebeci people.

I would argue this is a non starter. The Canadiens post 1775 largely backed the Crown to the hilt, the volatile reaction to the Quebec Act colored sentiments (and the invasion certainly didn't help) and by and large they knew that the "Yankees" thought of them little better than the British. Combine that with a Church and landed elite hostile to republicanism and a strong desire to remain a collective unit, the suggestion of breaking Quebec up into more than one state would meet a very hostile reaction.

It's harder to find a better deal than the one Britain gave them, and even then it is harder to find a people who resisted cultural integration harder than the Canadiens did from basically La Conquête in 1760 until today.

On another note, I think the US offered to buy the Hudson Bay Company in the aftermath of the Civil War. Any particular way that such a decision would be made absent the British Empire falling apart in revolution/etc?

There were some Americans who would have liked to get bits of Canada as compensation for the Alabama claims, but the Canadians would have simply said no, and Britain would have backed them. The HBC was pretty much not going to see itself to the US, and the British weren't going to give up an inch of the Empire without good benefits. They dragged their feet regarding the Alabama claims, and in the end paid a tidy sum no one would quibble with.
 
There were some Americans who would have liked to get bits of Canada as compensation for the Alabama claims, but the Canadians would have simply said no, and Britain would have backed them. The HBC was pretty much not going to see itself to the US, and the British weren't going to give up an inch of the Empire without good benefits. They dragged their feet regarding the Alabama claims, and in the end paid a tidy sum no one would quibble with.

I figured it was something like that. And at this late in the juncture, it couldn't have happened without the dismemberment conundrum.
 
Could the U.S. have ended up with British Columbia, and if so, what would happen to the East?

Should the United States receive the maximum extent of its claims in what is now British Columbia, I could see this as having interesting effects on the prairies east of the Continental Divide. One of the big impetuses of the Canadian Pacific Railroad was to build a land connection from central Canada to the Pacific. Assuming the United States gets 54' 40" perhaps the fluttering of butterflies would dampen enthusiasm for building a railroad (a very costly venture) and that leave what is present day Alberta and Saskatchewan vacant longer save for the slow trickle of American settlers from Montana and the Dakotas. Assuming there is a delay in purchasing Rupert's Land and without a railroad to bring settlers from central Canada, perhaps the U.S. could make an offer to buy the land south of the Saskatchewan River and its tributaries?
 
Should the United States receive the maximum extent of its claims in what is now British Columbia, I could see this as having interesting effects on the prairies east of the Continental Divide. One of the big impetuses of the Canadian Pacific Railroad was to build a land connection from central Canada to the Pacific. Assuming the United States gets 54' 40" perhaps the fluttering of butterflies would dampen enthusiasm for building a railroad (a very costly venture) and that leave what is present day Alberta and Saskatchewan vacant longer save for the slow trickle of American settlers from Montana and the Dakotas. Assuming there is a delay in purchasing Rupert's Land and without a railroad to bring settlers from central Canada, perhaps the U.S. could make an offer to buy the land south of the Saskatchewan River and its tributaries?

There'd be a railroad built eventually there, though it'd be much later and much less populated. It's not impossible, but it would take a relatively weak UK combined with an aggressively expansionist US (more than usual), as the 49 Parallel was a rather good border.

What seems more likely is, if the US goes with Alaska and purchases it (Russia would still likely sell to troll Great Britain), then there would likely be a discussion of purchasing some of what remains of the Pacific Northwest from Britain; they can't access it easily. So the border might be on the continental divide in the west.

As for anything else.. again, if there is a series of separated dominions, then one or the others can lean closer to the US. ...Now I'm imagining some Plains Provinces dominion that becomes a state while encompassing most of the OTL Provinces along with parts of Ruperts land. That would be an incredibly huge state at least. XD It's not realistic, but it'd be an interesting oddity.
 
Top