but the OR country would give them prime farmland and great ports, and AK would give them oil and gold....
The Tale of Two Superpowers - USA vs. Canada
- Thread starter TheMann
- Start date
but the OR country would give them prime farmland and great ports, and AK would give them oil and gold....
Well, for Canada to be able to use those resources, it would already have to have a steady population. It seems that North America has plentiful resources in general, so as long as there's decent immigration to both the US and Canada, we could balance the two powers out without too much changing of borders or other intervention.
Prime farmland still isn't running out in the rest of N. America, so that's not as great a draw as it may seem.
Did any of the gold rushes in history really effect national balances of power? They made a few very rich for a time, and many more miserable and destitute, but what lasting impression did they make?
And there's not nearly as much oil in Alaska to make that much difference, either way. OTL Canada has a lot of it's own reserves off the East Coast in the Alberta tar sands (more difficult to extract, but not that tough).
In fact, Canada is currently the US's largest source of oil/gas/energy (an often over-looked fact), so adding more wouldn't shift the balance of power.
I'm just saying I don't think just the OR terr. to Canada would be enough to put the two countries on equal footing.
Well, if the Mounties were able to regulate the Klondike prospectors from the moment they landed at Skagway, we could have a much more stable population both on the Alaskan coast and in Dawson City. Instead of the 30,000 survivors OTL, upwards of 50% of the prospectors might be saved.
The thing with Canada's natural resources is, though, that a lot of it is exported south, reducing manufacturing and industrial potential in Canada herself.
With Canada controlling Alaska and Oregon, major traders with Canada's west coast, money and resources would be circulating within Canada, aiding development in Canada and perhaps inhibiting the growth of California.
Not as ASB as you might think; even towards the 1930s, malaria and other diseases were widespread in the South, which could have been described as a thrid-world country inside of a first-world country (much like India today). Foreign diplomats considered Washington D.C. a hazard post for quite a while, and that's about as far north as the south gets.
However, considering how little immigration went into the South during OTL (both because of climate and the southerner's dislike of new immigrants), not much would change population wise. Heck, more diseases in the South might weaken it to the point where the Civil War is bypassed, or ends much sooner.
True, especially on the first part, but remember two things. One, cheap farmland was most attractive to farmers in Europe who couldn't compete easily, so that's one thing. Second, farmland/frontier served as a "pressure valve" for the US in that when social/labor tensions were running especially high, the disaffected and oppressed could go west "to get away from it all", thus avoiding conflicts. I've read a couple essays where the writers suggested that the US avoided communism and socialism temptations because the dissaffected workers went away, rather than stay and fight a class war.
First, not all the mines are tapped out, or not being used. What really ended the Gold Rushes were the entrance of organized buisnesses into the mines, who could do more for less than individual prospectors. Those buisnesses are still active in some places, though they mine whatever is most valuable, which isn't always gold.
But more on your question, the Gold Rush had a massive demographic effect on the nation. Before the Rush the western territories were only slowly being settled, and statehood seemed decades in the future, if ever. The US's grip on the west and Great American Desert (Great Plains) was loose, and could potentially lessen or even lose territory if something went horribly wrong.
With gold, though, americans and immigrants rushed to the west coast by the thousands. Some went by ship, which was easier. Others went by wagon over land; these people prompted the formation of forts on the plains, which solidified the US's presence over the heart of North America. All these people quickly filled California (and Washington) to statehood at a record pace, and with states on the Pacific border the US's hold on both sides of the continent was strengthened. And since the US now had states on the west and east coasts, everything in between de facto fell to the US forever more, to be filled up at leisure.
Plus, the massive gold buildup spurred the formation of the transcontinental railroad, which was the final step to tying together the east and west coasts. The gold in CA was wonderful in peace, but vulnerable in war to raids far from the American defenses. Moving them east by ship was asking for pirates or losses at sea like the spanish galleons; wagons were far too slow and vulnerable. Trains were the ideal solution, and as the tracks from both coasts approached each other, the US's hold on all the internal territory was closer to completion.
Cheap extraction is the crux of the matter; the Middle East is so important because it has the most oil for the easiest effort. And should Alaska fall into the Canadian camp, that only delays development of te oil sands. The companies will go to Alaska where the oil is cheapest, and lobby to hinder the oil sands from being developed so as to increase their own profits.
It depends on what kind of balance of power we're looking at. Are Canada and the US allied Grand Powers (since two Superpowers on the same continent seems rather absurd) that work together, or are they opposed/different interests to each other?
If they're allied, then it probably won't matter so much, except to those who want energy independence from everyone.
If they're opposed, than the threat to US energy supplies (which would exist even with Alaska in danger of Canada) will prompt the US to make energy independence a matter of national security, at which point Canada will lose influence over the US.
All true, but how does owning Oregon & Alaska and their resources do enough to bring the balance between Canada and the US into equity? I think that's the point, not whether or not the reources would spur development/settlement.
If the US owns San Francisco south (to pick an arbitrary but significant marker) and Canada everything North, you'll have the same influences on settlement as OTL, with forts on the prairies, gold rush demographic movement, trans-con railroads and the like. But even if the US donated Washington, Oregon and Alaska to Canada today, that wouldn't put them on equal footing - so it would take more than that as POD to get there, which is all I was trying to say.
I think that was the original intent of the thread - Canada vs. USA....
It doesn't, quite. It only gives Canada a similar encouragement to westward expansion, a rivaling power if it has the manpower to exploit its resources. The crux of the problem is immigration; the warmer neutral US is a bit more alluring than colder Canada.
Simplest way to start correcting for this is for part of the North (perhaps Maine to the Great Lakes) to stay British. This has a twofold benefit of allowing Canada more good port space to attract immigration, and strenghtens the somewhat xenophobic South politically. The south could push for more/earlier immigration restrictions, and end up pushing immigrants into Canada. Imperfect, but a start.
Point taken. As I said above, population and immigration are the biggest stumbling parts. More southern territory would help, though, in both attracting and utilizing more people.
Actually, the topic creater only required that Canada "rival" the US. That would be much easier if it were a non-violent rivalry, rather than a confrontational one. By their nature, grand powers rarely border eachother easily. As soon as Germany and Russia had a border, the Russian-Chinese border, and so on...
Glen
Moderator
Hmmm, Southern Dominance in the US would certainly help. Have them strengthen immigration restrictions and keep tariffs low. This may be the start of pushing more immigration to Canada (or more importantly, keeping immigrants to Canada from then entering the US) and more importantly, more nascent industries. Have Canada push for more, earlier industrialization, and that would help growth and power. Maybe add to this a change in the order of gold discoveries, with the Frazier and Yukon gold rushes coming before the California Gold Rush, and you may see more immigration, more and earlier consolidation of the nation as well. Big push probably for those railways now, which will be important for Canadian growth. Have the schemes for Caribbean colonies to join the Dominion of Canada be more successful, and London 'assigning' the need to protect this and the rest of Canada to the Canadians themselves will boost development of a Canadian Navy.
Given increased growth in this Canada, you might have a greater sense of Canadian nationalism develop, driving earlier devolution of power to Canada.
Have the US keep a bit stronger of an anti-immigration bias, coupled with Independent Canada pushing for more immigration, and we might see some very clever people fleeing the troubles of Europe for free Canada. And that may lead to more inventions and innovations being developed not in the US, but in Canada. Maybe even some very clever physicists who are concerned about the implications of chain reactions in uranium....
The US and Canada in this scenario remain on relatively good terms, but perhaps with enough tension between them with their overlapping territories to keep down cooperation on defense and more independent militaries.
Given increased growth in this Canada, you might have a greater sense of Canadian nationalism develop, driving earlier devolution of power to Canada.
Have the US keep a bit stronger of an anti-immigration bias, coupled with Independent Canada pushing for more immigration, and we might see some very clever people fleeing the troubles of Europe for free Canada. And that may lead to more inventions and innovations being developed not in the US, but in Canada. Maybe even some very clever physicists who are concerned about the implications of chain reactions in uranium....
The US and Canada in this scenario remain on relatively good terms, but perhaps with enough tension between them with their overlapping territories to keep down cooperation on defense and more independent militaries.
Only problem is that this sounds as if it would make Canada and the US, at best, two "Grand Powers" rather than globe-dominating superpowers. Which is the goal.
Perhaps the South ends up liberalizing.industrializing after a humiliating defeat in a US-Canadian war? Perhaps a dispute as to the Oregon territory, where Canada comes to completely own Oregon/Northern CA?
And of course, the US would expand southward much more in this sort of TL, since the South was interested in making the US stretch from pole to pole of the Americas.
Edit: New thought of untapped immigration source. Asia/China. The US was rather quick to limit Asian immigration before Asian immigration really got started. With British allies/puppets in Asia suffering occasional problems, Canada could fill up western lands quickly with Asian immigrants.
I think we've finally gotten around to arguing the same point... the Oregon Terr. alone wouldn't be enough to give power-parity to the two states...
I like the idea of the northern New England area, that'd be a bonus...
I agree.
Only problem is where to draw the line. New York City seems too low/important to be Canadain, but northern New York seems to far north. But part of that is because I have trouble imagining a non-US New York.
Maybe something like this? From West to East, the border follows the 40th parallel (instead of the 49th) up to the Ohio River. At the head of the Ohio it follows tha Appalachian ridgeline to the Hudson river, and then south to the Atlantic (not my best map, but done in a hurry). There'd probably need to be some US possessions in Mexico, but I didn't get into that.
Canada would have the entire St. Lawrence/Great Lakes route into the continent, the US would have the Mississippi, so they would have that balance. Canada would be larger, but of more marginal land argriculturally and climactically. Both have good Pacific access, and split the population centres in the Atlantic N/E.
That might do the trick.
Very true. I'd say that the US needs some of the resources in the North East, even if Canada gets the lion's share by far. The border looks good, but borders would definately be altered a bit in the North.
Biggest problem by far, however, is the US-Mexican border. Without the North to reign in Southern ambitions, Southern expansionism against a weaker foe is going to go much farther, not be lessened.
here's what i think would happen.
Things go worse in American revolution, British retain rights to the Northwest territory. They also get the lions share of Maine.
Fast forward to 1809. Hamiliton is elected as US president and establishes a pro-Brit stance. When Nappy decides to take Louisiana back from Spain, USA declares war and a joint US and British force conquer it and split it right down the middle.
Fast foward to 1849. British and American are both vying for the new discovered gold in Mexico, but they again ally with eachother against Mexico to make the best gains. They easily defeat the outnumbers mexican force. They extend the Louisiana border to the ocean and the USA gets a whole buncha mexico.
Fast forward to 2007, Canada and the USA enjoy unparalled equal standing as the allied superpower of the world.
Things go worse in American revolution, British retain rights to the Northwest territory. They also get the lions share of Maine.
Fast forward to 1809. Hamiliton is elected as US president and establishes a pro-Brit stance. When Nappy decides to take Louisiana back from Spain, USA declares war and a joint US and British force conquer it and split it right down the middle.
Fast foward to 1849. British and American are both vying for the new discovered gold in Mexico, but they again ally with eachother against Mexico to make the best gains. They easily defeat the outnumbers mexican force. They extend the Louisiana border to the ocean and the USA gets a whole buncha mexico.
Fast forward to 2007, Canada and the USA enjoy unparalled equal standing as the allied superpower of the world.
Better in regards to the north east, but still falling short in the west and south.
By the importance of the rivers, the US isn't going to give up command of most the inner grand rivers. Those ones that go from US into Canada and back into the US, the US is going to push very hard for them to be solely in the US. Otherwise, their usefulness for trade and westward settlement is highly compromised. The main reason that nice smooth lines work in the USA states is because there is no restriction of trafic when you leave one state and enter another; the geopolitical problems do not apply. And in the OTL US-Canada border, it mostly cut through near-worthless prairie to the west coast to insure that Canada got a coast.
But when something as important as a major river is stuck between two powers at multiple points...
Also, the southern line is too arbitrary (and probably too short). There's no geographic reason for the US to stop exactly at a straight line. I know you drew up the map fast, but...
By the importance of the rivers, the US isn't going to give up command of most the inner grand rivers. Those ones that go from US into Canada and back into the US, the US is going to push very hard for them to be solely in the US. Otherwise, their usefulness for trade and westward settlement is highly compromised. The main reason that nice smooth lines work in the USA states is because there is no restriction of trafic when you leave one state and enter another; the geopolitical problems do not apply. And in the OTL US-Canada border, it mostly cut through near-worthless prairie to the west coast to insure that Canada got a coast.
But when something as important as a major river is stuck between two powers at multiple points...
Also, the southern line is too arbitrary (and probably too short). There's no geographic reason for the US to stop exactly at a straight line. I know you drew up the map fast, but...
hunh? none of the rivers in Nick's map cross the border twice... they all start in Canada and flow into the US... where's the problem?
Technically it's not one river per-say, but where that branch of the Mississippi River and the Colorado River get near eachother, that's roughly a single trade route. (Either a railroad or a canal links them in OTL, probably rail.) And other rivers, such as the Rio Grande, aren't entirely inside the US border, which the US would try and insure.
Another pard where the US would try to insure it got is the intercept point of the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio rivers, rather than just sticking to the east in Kentucky.
hmmm.. maybe the lesson we're learning from this scenario is that there aren't enough resources to make two superpowers in NA....
Dean
Can you use the Colorado along much of its length for transport? I though the Grand Canyon and such were pretty much impassable.
Steve