The development of an American Canada

The reason that IMO it develops the same way is because they were formed by American settlers who wanted to be a part of the US from the start. Texas would want American protection from Mexico. The California Republic, despite having an amazing flag, was very small. IIRC it controlled one city before America came and absorbed them. Besides, California and Texas had MUCH smaller populations then.
It would also be easier to accept Texas into the Union because Canada would likely be divided into free states.

Also this is the 400th reply
 

Lusitania

Donor
The reason that IMO it develops the same way is because they were formed by American settlers who wanted to be a part of the US from the start. Texas would want American protection from Mexico. The California Republic, despite having an amazing flag, was very small. IIRC it controlled one city before America came and absorbed them. Besides, California and Texas had MUCH smaller populations then.
Yes I understand the iotl historical context but with a larger US, no native or weaker native resistance in Ohio Valley that area will fill up much faster and there are only so many settlers. So the question for Texas is the same people going to settle there? 70 years later will the same people be in charge of Mexico’s. Will Britain take Texas from Spain during napoleônico wars for its own settlers. This plus Pantagonia are two areas they could expand to.

As for Califórnia what if dissatisfied french Americans make a Mormon trek but to California. Do they want to. E part of the US?

What I am getting to is that 2-4 generations later and whole different world.
 
Ok let’s begin with the possibility of union. That was in 1800 not 1784. Plus the comparison of Ireland to India is misdemeanor becUse we talking about a union across Atlantic. If the difference is loosing them to the US or union I think there will be a movement to keep them British.
I said nothing about not remaining British. In fact, if you bothered to read, you'd see I offered reasonable suggestions of British actions to keep them British. Political union across the Atlantic before about 1830 (when Royal William makes her transit; I don't count Savannah, which spent most of the transit under sail, not steam) is about as credible as the U.S. today suggesting a political union with the Moon.:rolleyes:
That was the reason for the union of Canada.
It's a rather different thing to build a railway to unite land territories than to project power across an ocean.
is the US the only one that progresses?
I never claimed it. The British response must be reasonable. There's a very well-researched (& -written :)) thread here about an Anglo-American war that very clearly spells out the difficulties. I suggest you seach for it. (I'm embarrassed to admit, I can no longer recall even the thread creator.:oops::oops::oops::oops: )
I am saying that 75-100 is a huge amount of time and we not sure how BC will progress.
Fair point.
Will it more more British?
I would tend to doubt it.
Will the people in BC have any desire or need to join US? The reasons they joined Canada was for the railway. Here we just get short railway connecting Seattle to Vancouver. Is that worth joining US? Be controlled by another country while you can be your own country?
Seriously? In 75-100yr, & with a Gold Rush in play, you think there would be no U.S. "immigration"? And you think BC is going to stay its own country in the face of overwhelming numbers of Americans chasing gold? (Before that, would the U.S. bother with annexation? Maybe not; I'd give it about even money. Your notion of Britain flooding BC with East Indian settlers is up there with Canada invading New York.:rolleyes: )
As for Califórnia snd Texas. Would the Americans who settle there desire to be part of US or be independent countries. They were both independent prior to joining. Would they join or would they decide they wAnted to live in different country?
They did desire separate countries. Neither could make it work. Desire alone doesn't get it. The U.S. population was such it could overwhelm the opposition. (Just ask the Apache, Sioux, Cheyenne...)
The reason that IMO it develops the same way is because they were formed by American settlers who wanted to be a part of the US from the start. Texas would want American protection from Mexico. The California Republic, despite having an amazing flag, was very small. IIRC it controlled one city before America came and absorbed them. Besides, California and Texas had MUCH smaller populations then.
Correct. In fact, IIRC, they both amounted to locals producing excuses to be annexed, not to remain independent. (Thx for reminding me.)
Please don’t say everything going to be same because it won’t.
I'm not. I am saying it must follow reasonable pathways, unless the express goal is to examine a longshot or a particular situation. Even then, reasonable extrapolation after that is wanted. (Again, unless the writer is expressly saying handwavium remains in play.)
 
Less so - we can get to the Moon in a few days if we want to, and we can get a message there in less than two seconds.
Hmm.... Maybe. The cost & trouble of getting there is pretty high, even compared to the cost of sending ships & men in the 18th & 19th Centuries (pre-steam), & doing it on a regular basis, as steam packets allowed, is virtually impossible.

That said, if somebody developed a "space DC-3" (& it's possible), that could change...but that puts us in the steam (post-sail) era by comparison.:)
 
Six things annoy me about U.S annexations of Canada TLs:-

1) They are usually an Ameri-wank where the Georgian and Victorian British Empires appear to be populated by bots which are unable to vary their programming in order to respond to changing economic and political circumstances or rising levels of military threat;
2) Properly chastened the British make generous concessions at the negotiating table after having been soundly chastised by General Washington and his brave men. Now America won her Revolutionary War, all credit to her for that but she didn't win by the kind of margin that enabled her to push it too far. Britain was distracted by France (and didn't realise the extent to which France had over extended itself financially supporting the Americans), had her worst Secretary for War ever, half her political class opposed the war and thought it a dreadful mistake and three quarters of her political class were opposed to tax rises of any sort. Had Britain genuinely felt national anger and humiliation at the loss of continental America to the extent that it had gone into "Empire Strikes Back" mode with an "all the talents" Ministry put in place to pursue the war, with no clever generals and admirals with Whig connections being excluded from American commands and Parliament had funded 75,000 additional troops and 15 additional warships, the Founding Fathers could have ended their days hanging from gibbets. Remember that at this point in time the US (including Canada) has less than 60% of the population of the mother country;
3) They aren't going to get Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island - Britain has significant naval superiority and will want to maintain supply bases and access to the Grand Banks fisheries;
4) The new country morphs into the good ol US of A with no significant changes to its political culture and virtually the same Presidents, way of life. Sorry -not realistic. Canada OTL has a very different political culture to the USA, leaving that they are a Monarchy aside, there isn't a two party dichotomy, their Senate is much less powerful than the US, they aren't monoglot and they are more left-wing on health and welfare provision. Not all of that will carry through in the new TL but there will be huge changes - with more states and more contenders for judicial office, Congressional votes and Supreme Court appointments will be different. And at least two states will be Francophone. Imagine how different the US would be if, for instance, the Northern States voted down the Gadsden purchase or the Mexican War as it might threaten the Northern Route to the Pacific; the Wilmot proviso kicked in twenty years earlier; the Dred Scott case went the other way; Roe v Wade went the other way. And virtually every Presidential election would be different. By 1900 America would be politically unrecognisable to anyone from OTL. What if Secession wasn't as clear cut? If, as well as the slave States the Francophone free states seceded as well? Would the massacres of the Plains Indians be even worse with no Canadian border for them to dodge across? Would the Mormons have got the same treatment where Deseret is right in the middle of the American interior? Would Prohibition have been a thing? And, if it had, would it have been more successful with no Canadian border?
5) Canadian immigration patterns stay much the same. Patriotic subjects of Queen Victoria will not decide to relocate to Australia, New Zealand or South Africa in search of opportunities instead of the USA.
6) Foreign policy will not change. The British Empire will be just as friendly and cautious in dealing with the US TTL lacking a huge indefensible border. Russia will be equally happy to sell Alaska to the USA rather than Britain or France now that you rather than the British are their pre-eminent rival as an Artic power. The British Empire lacking 10 or 15 million Canadian subjects and major lumber and mineral reserves will be just as happy to go to war with Germany in 1914 and 1939 as OTL.

I could go on.....
 

Lusitania

Donor
Six things annoy me about U.S annexations of Canada TLs:-

1) They are usually an Ameri-wank where the Georgian and Victorian British Empires appear to be populated by bots which are unable to vary their programming in order to respond to changing economic and political circumstances or rising levels of military threat;
2) Properly chastened the British make generous concessions at the negotiating table after having been soundly chastised by General Washington and his brave men. Now America won her Revolutionary War, all credit to her for that but she didn't win by the kind of margin that enabled her to push it too far. Britain was distracted by France (and didn't realise the extent to which France had over extended itself financially supporting the Americans), had her worst Secretary for War ever, half her political class opposed the war and thought it a dreadful mistake and three quarters of her political class were opposed to tax rises of any sort. Had Britain genuinely felt national anger and humiliation at the loss of continental America to the extent that it had gone into "Empire Strikes Back" mode with an "all the talents" Ministry put in place to pursue the war, with no clever generals and admirals with Whig connections being excluded from American commands and Parliament had funded 75,000 additional troops and 15 additional warships, the Founding Fathers could have ended their days hanging from gibbets. Remember that at this point in time the US (including Canada) has less than 60% of the population of the mother country;
3) They aren't going to get Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island - Britain has significant naval superiority and will want to maintain supply bases and access to the Grand Banks fisheries;
4) The new country morphs into the good ol US of A with no significant changes to its political culture and virtually the same Presidents, way of life. Sorry -not realistic. Canada OTL has a very different political culture to the USA, leaving that they are a Monarchy aside, there isn't a two party dichotomy, their Senate is much less powerful than the US, they aren't monoglot and they are more left-wing on health and welfare provision. Not all of that will carry through in the new TL but there will be huge changes - with more states and more contenders for judicial office, Congressional votes and Supreme Court appointments will be different. And at least two states will be Francophone. Imagine how different the US would be if, for instance, the Northern States voted down the Gadsden purchase or the Mexican War as it might threaten the Northern Route to the Pacific; the Wilmot proviso kicked in twenty years earlier; the Dred Scott case went the other way; Roe v Wade went the other way. And virtually every Presidential election would be different. By 1900 America would be politically unrecognisable to anyone from OTL. What if Secession wasn't as clear cut? If, as well as the slave States the Francophone free states seceded as well? Would the massacres of the Plains Indians be even worse with no Canadian border for them to dodge across? Would the Mormons have got the same treatment where Deseret is right in the middle of the American interior? Would Prohibition have been a thing? And, if it had, would it have been more successful with no Canadian border?
5) Canadian immigration patterns stay much the same. Patriotic subjects of Queen Victoria will not decide to relocate to Australia, New Zealand or South Africa in search of opportunities instead of the USA.
6) Foreign policy will not change. The British Empire will be just as friendly and cautious in dealing with the US TTL lacking a huge indefensible border. Russia will be equally happy to sell Alaska to the USA rather than Britain or France now that you rather than the British are their pre-eminent rival as an Artic power. The British Empire lacking 10 or 15 million Canadian subjects and major lumber and mineral reserves will be just as happy to go to war with Germany in 1914 and 1939 as OTL.

I could go on.....


I have been trying to bring these very points over all these previous posts but it seems that most other readers are going on how the USA is just going to be different. Will not even fanthom that Texas and California will just be part of the USA. How BC cannot decide its own future and will be inundated by Americans and then gladly embrace being part of US. Also There is a almost adamant belief that America will gobble up Nova Scotia. There is no acknowledgement that Halifax would be held by Britain and that Nova Scotia and Britain would be more adamant on maintaining their colonies.

I also found it hard to convince the readers Quebec would stay French and catholic, that there was anti-Catholic views and attitudes by majority of the population and those in power. That French Quebec would want to maximize French states. I hope they finally accepted.

So was this thread to explore how the incorporation of Quebec (only Quebec) during the ARW would change the US or was this a America wank.
 
Six things annoy me about U.S annexations of Canada TLs:

I mostly agree with every point. Except I don't think that losing 14 colonies instead of 13 is a huge humiliation greater than the historical ARW. It's a big area, but a big area of fur trappers and Frenchmen. It's not like the UK was evicted from the continent all together.

I also think that without the HBC or NWC colonizing it, Oregon Country will be 90% American all the way up to Alaska. The British barely give a shit about some fur colony that is incredibly indefensible and has no strategic resources OTL and gave half of it away for free. In this TL, there might not even be a British presence at all, considering the Montreal-based Northwest Company were the initial colonizers and the HBC will most likely also be subsumed by the USA. A big part of this depends on what happens to Rupert's Land and the HBC. And I don't think the HBC could be supported without being able to operate in Canada.
 
Six things annoy me about U.S annexations of Canada TLs:-

1) They are usually an Ameri-wank where the Georgian and Victorian British Empires appear to be populated by bots which are unable to vary their programming in order to respond to changing economic and political circumstances or rising levels of military threat;
2) Properly chastened the British make generous concessions at the negotiating table after having been soundly chastised by General Washington and his brave men. Now America won her Revolutionary War, all credit to her for that but she didn't win by the kind of margin that enabled her to push it too far. Britain was distracted by France (and didn't realise the extent to which France had over extended itself financially supporting the Americans), had her worst Secretary for War ever, half her political class opposed the war and thought it a dreadful mistake and three quarters of her political class were opposed to tax rises of any sort. Had Britain genuinely felt national anger and humiliation at the loss of continental America to the extent that it had gone into "Empire Strikes Back" mode with an "all the talents" Ministry put in place to pursue the war, with no clever generals and admirals with Whig connections being excluded from American commands and Parliament had funded 75,000 additional troops and 15 additional warships, the Founding Fathers could have ended their days hanging from gibbets. Remember that at this point in time the US (including Canada) has less than 60% of the population of the mother country;
3) They aren't going to get Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island - Britain has significant naval superiority and will want to maintain supply bases and access to the Grand Banks fisheries;
4) The new country morphs into the good ol US of A with no significant changes to its political culture and virtually the same Presidents, way of life. Sorry -not realistic. Canada OTL has a very different political culture to the USA, leaving that they are a Monarchy aside, there isn't a two party dichotomy, their Senate is much less powerful than the US, they aren't monoglot and they are more left-wing on health and welfare provision. Not all of that will carry through in the new TL but there will be huge changes - with more states and more contenders for judicial office, Congressional votes and Supreme Court appointments will be different. And at least two states will be Francophone. Imagine how different the US would be if, for instance, the Northern States voted down the Gadsden purchase or the Mexican War as it might threaten the Northern Route to the Pacific; the Wilmot proviso kicked in twenty years earlier; the Dred Scott case went the other way; Roe v Wade went the other way. And virtually every Presidential election would be different. By 1900 America would be politically unrecognisable to anyone from OTL. What if Secession wasn't as clear cut? If, as well as the slave States the Francophone free states seceded as well? Would the massacres of the Plains Indians be even worse with no Canadian border for them to dodge across? Would the Mormons have got the same treatment where Deseret is right in the middle of the American interior? Would Prohibition have been a thing? And, if it had, would it have been more successful with no Canadian border?
5) Canadian immigration patterns stay much the same. Patriotic subjects of Queen Victoria will not decide to relocate to Australia, New Zealand or South Africa in search of opportunities instead of the USA.
6) Foreign policy will not change. The British Empire will be just as friendly and cautious in dealing with the US TTL lacking a huge indefensible border. Russia will be equally happy to sell Alaska to the USA rather than Britain or France now that you rather than the British are their pre-eminent rival as an Artic power. The British Empire lacking 10 or 15 million Canadian subjects and major lumber and mineral reserves will be just as happy to go to war with Germany in 1914 and 1939 as OTL.

I could go on.....
yeah I could defiantly see the the francophone block would defiantly be a a powerful power broker because they wouldn't be powerful enough on their own to get their man a president but they get concession from the party they help, maybe there would be 3 or 4 parties in the US besides just or maybe they could form a bipartisan Francophone Caucus.
 
I also think that without the HBC or NWC colonizing it, Oregon Country will be 90% American all the way up to Alaska. The British barely give a shit about some fur colony that is incredibly indefensible and has no strategic resources OTL and gave half of it away for free. In this TL, there might not even be a British presence at all, considering the Montreal-based Northwest Company were the initial colonizers and the HBC will most likely also be subsumed by the USA. A big part of this depends on what happens to Rupert's Land and the HBC. And I don't think the HBC could be supported without being able to operate in Canada.

I'd beg to disagree (and to a large part agree with @Lusitania on this point), but I'll do that when I get to my own pointers. (Which I will get to, I promise! Just had a few bumps in the road.)
 
Except I don't think that losing 14 colonies instead of 13 is a huge humiliation greater than the historical ARW. It's a big area, but a big area of fur trappers and Frenchmen. It's not like the UK was evicted from the continent all together.
No you misunderstand me. I don't think Canada would have made a big difference either except that somewhere would have to be found to put the loyalist refugees. What I meant was that if Britain had felt that hanging on to continental America was important (if they had reacted like Spaniards or Frenchmen instead of Englishmen or had a "Right" said Fred moment) and raised taxes, troops and ships they could have crushed Washington and his army. Because his great achievement wasn't the defeats that he imposed on the British as much as his ability to hold the Continental Army together as a significant force through reverses and to be a serious opponent rather than an uprising. He was defying gravity doing this and, if the British had opted for five or ten more years of war?
 
No you misunderstand me. I don't think Canada would have made a big difference either except that somewhere would have to be found to put the loyalist refugees.

Just remember that it was only a small percentage of Loyalists overall who left - the majority stayed behind and learned to adjust - and became Federalists, Whigs, etc. The Tory legacy may have been ripped out in the transition from colonies to independence, but some of the people (often poor) remained. To me, at least, that still does not invalidate any of your points.
 

Kaze

Banned
Why is it that the US controlling Canada? Where in - we never see a timeline where Canada controls the United States - say an overwhelming victory in 1812.
 
Why is it that the US controlling Canada? Where in - we never see a timeline where Canada controls the United States - say an overwhelming victory in 1812.

Because then Canada as we know it would not exist - it would basically be a British reconquista. While Britain is already preoccupied with other issues.
 
Top