USA owns Canada - What do the states look like?

[Super_Cool]

Suppose, for whatever reason, the USA owns the area known in OTL as Canada and it got the area relatively early in the country's life.

Obviously, the USA would not arrange the land as "Alberta," "British Columbia," etc. What would the state lines look like in that particular area? Would the Arctic areas still be territories or would they have statehood by 2016?

 

[jahenders]

It depends a lot on how and when that comes about.

However, assuming it simply does, states along the lines of the provinces aren't unreasonable in many of the cases. We've got a state bigger than some of them and several more populous than most of them.

Keep in mind that some of the biggest (land wise) provinces make Alaska or Wyoming look like urban sprawl. For instance, Nunavut is almost 3 times the size of Alaska (or 6 times the size of TX) but only has about 40K people.

I think you'd wind up with 3-4 states out of Ontario, 2-3 out of Quebec, and 2 out of British Columbia.

So you might wind up with 19 states like this:
Alberta
British Columbia
Vancouver (From BC)
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia
Nunavut
Ontario - Toronto
Ontario - Ottawa
Ontario - South
Ontario - North
Prince Edward Island
Quebec-North
Quebecois
Quebec-Montreal
Saskatchewan
Yukon

Suppose, for whatever reason, the USA owns the area known in OTL as Canada and it got the area relatively early in the country's life.

Obviously, the USA would not arrange the land as "Alberta," "British Columbia," etc. What would the state lines look like in that particular area? Would the Arctic areas still be territories or would they have statehood by 2016?

 

[Westphalian]

"The Annexation Bill of 1866 was a bill introduced on July 2, 1866, but never passed in the United States House of Representatives. It called for the annexation of British North America and the admission of its provinces as states and territories in the Union."


Arrticle IV declared that the "Territorial divisions are established as follows:
(1) New Brunswick, with its present limits;

(2) Nova Scotia, with the addition of Prince Edward Island;

(3) Canada East, with the addition of Newfoundland and all territory east of longitude eighty degrees and south of Hudson's strait;

(4) Canada West, with the addition of territory south of Hudson's bay and between longitude eighty degrees longitude ninety degrees;

(5) Selkirk Territory, bounded east by longitude ninety degrees, south by the late boundary of the United States, west by longitude one hundred and five degrees, and north by the Arctic circle;

(6) Saskatchewan Territory, bounded east by longitude one hundred and five degrees, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, west by the Rocky mountains, and north by latitude seventy degrees;

(7) Columbia Territory, including Vancouver's Island, and Queen Charlotte's island, and bounded east and north by the Rocky mountains, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, and west by the Pacific ocean and Russian America."

 

[jahenders]

Interesting, though (of course) the bill would not only have to be passed by the house, passed by the senate, not vetoed by Johnson, and THEN the US would have to conquer all of Canada while holding off England. But any speculation about the US including all of Canada is going to have those problems.

If done that way it would make for some REALLLLLLLLLY big states.

"The Annexation Bill of 1866 was a bill introduced on July 2, 1866, but never passed in the United States House of Representatives. It called for the annexation of British North America and the admission of its provinces as states and territories in the Union."


Arrticle IV declared that the "Territorial divisions are established as follows:
(1) New Brunswick, with its present limits;

(2) Nova Scotia, with the addition of Prince Edward Island;

(3) Canada East, with the addition of Newfoundland and all territory east of longitude eighty degrees and south of Hudson's strait;

(4) Canada West, with the addition of territory south of Hudson's bay and between longitude eighty degrees longitude ninety degrees;

(5) Selkirk Territory, bounded east by longitude ninety degrees, south by the late boundary of the United States, west by longitude one hundred and five degrees, and north by the Arctic circle;

(6) Saskatchewan Territory, bounded east by longitude one hundred and five degrees, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, west by the Rocky mountains, and north by latitude seventy degrees;

(7) Columbia Territory, including Vancouver's Island, and Queen Charlotte's island, and bounded east and north by the Rocky mountains, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, and west by the Pacific ocean and Russian America."

 

[EnglishCanuck]

"The Annexation Bill of 1866 was a bill introduced on July 2, 1866, but never passed in the United States House of Representatives. It called for the annexation of British North America and the admission of its provinces as states and territories in the Union."


Arrticle IV declared that the "Territorial divisions are established as follows:
(1) New Brunswick, with its present limits;

(2) Nova Scotia, with the addition of Prince Edward Island;

(3) Canada East, with the addition of Newfoundland and all territory east of longitude eighty degrees and south of Hudson's strait;

(4) Canada West, with the addition of territory south of Hudson's bay and between longitude eighty degrees longitude ninety degrees;

(5) Selkirk Territory, bounded east by longitude ninety degrees, south by the late boundary of the United States, west by longitude one hundred and five degrees, and north by the Arctic circle;

(6) Saskatchewan Territory, bounded east by longitude one hundred and five degrees, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, west by the Rocky mountains, and north by latitude seventy degrees;

(7) Columbia Territory, including Vancouver's Island, and Queen Charlotte's island, and bounded east and north by the Rocky mountains, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, and west by the Pacific ocean and Russian America."

Though the proposed declaration is in itself chuckle worthy, its conceptualized division of the territory is interesting. It does seem to have an idea of how to separate these large and largely uninhabited (save by Amerindians) territories into reasonably functioning territorial entities, which probably wouldn't achieve statehood for a while.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Remember- Territories (with the exception of Alaska and Hawai'i of course, and Tennessee and Kentucky) never are formed and become states with the same boundaries as the original territory. An original territory is divided multiple times before it becomes a final left over "one-state" territory. I doubt, with the exception of New Brunswick that it would have been one state formed from that territory.

Now, if we go farther back to 1770s, remember the US Articles of Confederation allows for Canada to join the US unilaterally at any point, ever. I don't think at that point it would have been up to the US to divide it into states... I think that Canada literally would have the right to come as one state or divide itself (think of later Texas, it has the right to divide into 5 states if it wished without Congressional approval; whereas all other states need Congressional approval). Even after the US Constitution is adopted, that offer may in fact still (to this day technically) still be valid and open to "Canada" per the fact that the federal courts had always found all acts of Congress under the Articles to still be binding after the Constitution as long as there is no conflict (eg- the Northwest Ordinance dealing with territorial govt north of the Ohio River, and foreign treaties). If Canada joins the US, unless it's by conquest, I'd say the dividing up of, at least the Quebec part, is out of Congress' hands.

 

[thekingsguard]

The prairie provinces would be much smaller as states - comparable to the Dakotas I imagine.

 

[Napoleonrules]

The prairie provinces would be much smaller as states - comparable to the Dakotas I imagine.

The Congress did a good job of weighing demographics versus geographic constraints towards the future... knowing the farther north you go you're going to have less density I'm sure Congress will make the states there quite a bit larger. Each Dakota is roughly similar to Kansas and Nebraska and Oklahoma and yet a lot less in population than any of those. Don't think if you divided Canadian provinces there into places the size of either Dakota that you'd be able to make all of your divisions reach the population requirement of the Constitution anytime prior to the 1940s. long time to be a territory.

 

[AJNolte]

I'm working with this division issue for Founding Family right now, and even with just New Brunzwic, Quebec and Ontario the borders are a bear.

Of course, if it happens in the ARW, the northwest ordinance might well apply to Ontario. Additionally, there's also no particular reason, that early at least, that the OTL border between the U.S. and Canada would necessarily make up the border of any of the Midwestern states.

Add to that the fact that, in a lot of "U.S. takes Canada in the ARW" TLs I've seen Hudson's Bay gets handwaved and that seems... rather unlikely... and you've got a real complicated issue about the northern borders of whatever the U.S. takes. I don't see Britain just unilaterally giving up a monopoly as profitable as the HBC, and the U.S. certainly isn't in any position to take it for a long time.

So to answer your broader question: a lot depends on the process by which Canada comes under U.S. control. And paradoxically, it's easier for this to happen the earlier you set the POD--very difficult post-1812 IMHO--but much harder to figure out the borders of subsequent states.

 

[Napoleonrules]

I'm working with this division issue for Founding Family right now, and even with just New Brunzwic, Quebec and Ontario the borders are a bear.

Of course, if it happens in the ARW, the northwest ordinance might well apply to Ontario. Additionally, there's also no particular reason, that early at least, that the OTL border between the U.S. and Canada would necessarily make up the border of any of the Midwestern states.

Add to that the fact that, in a lot of "U.S. takes Canada in the ARW" TLs I've seen Hudson's Bay gets handwaved and that seems... rather unlikely... and you've got a real complicated issue about the northern borders of whatever the U.S. takes. I don't see Britain just unilaterally giving up a monopoly as profitable as the HBC, and the U.S. certainly isn't in any position to take it for a long time.

So to answer your broader question: a lot depends on the process by which Canada comes under U.S. control. And paradoxically, it's easier for this to happen the earlier you set the POD--very difficult post-1812 IMHO--but much harder to figure out the borders of subsequent states.

Very true about the HBC. Not all of "Canada" is "Canada" depending on the year. But you may want to look into what happened OTL, the US did offer CA$10 million dollars for Rupert's Land in 1869. In this ATL there's no reason for the HBC to say no, especially if the US bought Alaska on schedule per OTL. Most likely I would say it is very difficult to get Newfoundland to be American as early as Quebec, the British have obligations to their fishermen and to the French per treaties regarding the Grand Banks.

 

[jahenders]

I would tend to agree. Our current smallest population state (WY) is about 550K and we hear lots of complaints that they're "over-represented" relative to people in CA. That being the case, I can't see the states being too excited about bringing in additional states with lower population unless the boundaries of such a province/state already exist.

The Congress did a good job of weighing demographics versus geographic constraints towards the future... knowing the farther north you go you're going to have less density I'm sure Congress will make the states there quite a bit larger. Each Dakota is roughly similar to Kansas and Nebraska and Oklahoma and yet a lot less in population than any of those. Don't think if you divided Canadian provinces there into places the size of either Dakota that you'd be able to make all of your divisions reach the population requirement of the Constitution anytime prior to the 1940s. long time to be a territory.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Prior to 1898 there was never the idea in the American political culture of a territory that would never become a state. That was the whole problem with the Spanish-American War and Cuba and the Philippines, controversies and a huge shift in American attitudes towards what a territory was. In fact for the first time ever we had to figure out if "the Constitution followed the flag" or not. If we ended up with "Canada" and still went Manifest Destiny across that part of the North American Continent (depending on PoD getting Canada does not guarantee Rupert's Land, Newfoundland and Labrador, or British Columbia) then we have a bunch of Inuit lands that even Canada has as still territories.

Would we have Alaska become a state or does Alaska go the way of Yukon and Northwest Territories and remain a territory? In OTL Alaska and Hawai'i were both put on the UN's list of non-self governing territories that the UN wanted nations to put forth plans to incorporate or to give independence. With the Cold War of course the US made them states, independent nations that could be attacked, coerced, or go communist would be unacceptable. Alaska's borders would be different, as Congress would want the Yukon to have it's own access to the sea (even though one would think that's not important, it really was and having access to "import/export" areas were an important reason some states look the way they do).

 

[Chris S]

Interesting, though (of course) the bill would not only have to be passed by the house, passed by the senate, not vetoed by Johnson, and THEN the US would have to conquer all of Canada while holding off England. But any speculation about the US including all of Canada is going to have those problems.

If done that way it would make for some REALLLLLLLLLY big states.

Read the whole bill. If I'm not mistaken it envisions an annexation after obtaining the agreement of the UK and the British provinces in North America themselves.

 

[jahenders]

While that's nice to envision in a bill, that certainly does NOT imply that either the Brits or Canadians would go along with it.

Read the whole bill. If I'm not mistaken it envisions an annexation after obtaining the agreement of the UK and the British provinces in North America themselves.

 

[DracoLazarus]

What is sure is that there will be at least one state with French as the official language.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

I'm wondering if lower-canada/canada-east/quebec, at least the francophone part, would actually be accepted as a state or instead being given a puerto-rico like status. I get the feeling they might not want to have a predominantly "alien race" state joining and might instead only allow it if the border were drawn to include a large number of anglophones.

 

[Chris S]

While that's nice to envision in a bill, that certainly does NOT imply that either the Brits or Canadians would go along with it.

The point of the bill is that if it is approved it becomes law and as law it would only be effective if the conditions outlined in the law (i.e. British and provincial approval) were in effect.

Hence your speculation about the bill having to be approved and then the US has to conquer Canada is non sequitur - if the US approves the bill then the method the US would go about to fulfill the law would be to gain approval of the British (no approval means no annexation as envisioned in the scheme under the bill). If the US went to conquer British North America then the provisions of the law would have zero bearing on how the US subsequently chose to govern the conquered territory as the law admitting the states envisioned is dependent entirely on British and provincial consent. After a conquest the US could divide up the conquered territories and admit them as states in an entirely different way from that envisioned in the 1866 Annexation Bill as it would not be legally bound by that specific law to admit the British North American territories in the manner envisioned by the scheme.

 

[Chris S]

"The Annexation Bill of 1866 was a bill introduced on July 2, 1866, but never passed in the United States House of Representatives. It called for the annexation of British North America and the admission of its provinces as states and territories in the Union."


Arrticle IV declared that the "Territorial divisions are established as follows:
(1) New Brunswick, with its present limits;

(2) Nova Scotia, with the addition of Prince Edward Island;

(3) Canada East, with the addition of Newfoundland and all territory east of longitude eighty degrees and south of Hudson's strait;

(4) Canada West, with the addition of territory south of Hudson's bay and between longitude eighty degrees longitude ninety degrees;

(5) Selkirk Territory, bounded east by longitude ninety degrees, south by the late boundary of the United States, west by longitude one hundred and five degrees, and north by the Arctic circle;

(6) Saskatchewan Territory, bounded east by longitude one hundred and five degrees, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, west by the Rocky mountains, and north by latitude seventy degrees;

(7) Columbia Territory, including Vancouver's Island, and Queen Charlotte's island, and bounded east and north by the Rocky mountains, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, and west by the Pacific ocean and Russian America."

Would be nice to see this mapped out on an 1866 North America map

 

[kasumigenx]

Vermont and Maine will be included in Quebec

 

[vuun]

I'm wondering if lower-canada/canada-east/quebec, at least the francophone part, would actually be accepted as a state or instead being given a puerto-rico like status. I get the feeling they might not want to have a predominantly "alien race" state joining and might instead only allow it if the border were drawn to include a large number of anglophones.

I think Quebec would be more analogous to Louisiana or New Mexico. Language alone won't prevent statehood. Quebec would be bilingual with its own cultural identity at first, but Quebecois language/culture would probably decline under American rule due to standardized English education and cultural assimilation, and Quebec would be primarily Anglophone by today.

Prior to 1898 there was never the idea in the American political culture of a territory that would never become a state. That was the whole problem with the Spanish-American War and Cuba and the Philippines, controversies and a huge shift in American attitudes towards what a territory was. In fact for the first time ever we had to figure out if "the Constitution followed the flag" or not. If we ended up with "Canada" and still went Manifest Destiny across that part of the North American Continent (depending on PoD getting Canada does not guarantee Rupert's Land, Newfoundland and Labrador, or British Columbia) then we have a bunch of Inuit lands that even Canada has as still territories.

I highly doubt Philippines-like colony status would be done to the Inuit in northern Canada for the simple reason that their population is far too small to be a "threat" to majority white Anglo-American society. The Inuit would end up being treated, well, just like they are in Alaska OTL. Their land probably just gets absorbed into large (by land area) states, I don't really expect a "Nunavut" analog.