USA without the Louisiana Purchase; Canada Ascendant?

It's a different situation, early on you had loyalists moving, and later the people immigrating recognized that the land had a government, that's not the case here. Britain can try to assimilate them if they allow a high degree of local control, it will be a tricky balance. They don't necessarily have to want to rejoin the U.S. to not react well to British government.

In any case, it's going to be a while before "Hyper-Canada" has the population to be the equal of the U.S. (not counting Britain whose support they would presumably have if there was a conflict of course).
Hardly throughout much of our History Americans have settled parts of BNA and then promptly assimilated why would this be any different?
 
I don't think America would realistically be able to conquer Hyper-Canada, even if they wanted to. IOTL the UK was ahead industrially and population-wise in the early part of the 19th century, which would give the British an advantage if it came to war; by the time America's caught up (which would probably take longer TTL than OTL) there would have been plenty of time to get enough people settled in Hyper-Canada to stop it getting flooded with American immigrants.
 
Settlers went to the US for economic advantage, not because of some irresistible urge to become Americans. Had there been better prospects in (say) Argentina, or South Africa, or Australia, they'd have gone there instead. If they go to Canada they'll be just as loyal to their new country as they were to the US. Events in Texas were basically due to racism on the part of the American settlers: they considered the Mexicans to be 'inferior' and were annoyed that they couldn't have slaves. Additionally, Mexico was a bit of a 'paper tiger': a war with Super-Canada backed by Britain would be a very different thing.
 
If Louisiana is part of *Canada, then I imagine quite a few slaves would escape there. The Underground Railroad will have far more potential destinations ITTL.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It this could butterfly the construction of Transcontinental Railroads or move it to Hyper Canada (maybe from New Orleans to Cali, if Britain was bloody-minded enough to take this region), then a huge amount of the money the US received from Britain IOTL would go to Canada.

All the gold and oil of this Hyper Canada including Cali would be huge. The gold of Cali would boost the UK and Canada's economies the most rather than the US IOTL.
 
It this could butterfly the construction of Transcontinental Railroads or move it to Hyper Canada (maybe from New Orleans to Cali, if Britain was bloody-minded enough to take this region), then a huge amount of the money the US received from Britain IOTL would go to Canada.

All the gold and oil of this Hyper Canada including Cali would be huge. The gold of Cali would boost the UK and Canada's economies the most rather than the US IOTL.
It does not include California, Texas, Nevada, or half of Colorado. Depending on how their border is, but it will be close enough. Thy will have minerals in Minnesoota, Alaska, and Yukon but the most famous areas are in New Spain.
 
I think many readers are underestimating just how vital control of the Mississippi is to the Americans during this era - or, at the very least, how much it was in their mindset of the time.

I'm guessing that we see an Alt-War of 1812 developing. Now, assuming that the Americans fair no better in this war than in OTL, they are still going to make a bee line for New Orleans and try to knock Louisiana out of the British sphere as soon as possible. They aren't stupid and are going to definitely see the potential for British settlement in the region.

Now, if the war comes to a draw, I could see John Quincy Adams (still one of the greatest diplomats the Republic has) negotiating passage for Americans on the Mississippi. This will calm some tensions, but not all. The US is still going to feel encircled and threatened - and it won't matter if the British go out of their ways to appear nonthreatening. You can also bet that British Louisiana will become a safe harbor for native tribes in the Western US to seek sanctuary from American pressure as well as a place to fall back to after raiding. This is going to cause western settlers to agitate against Britain even more than on OTL. Especially if Britain is smart and tries to limit/block American emigration into the region.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised for a third war in the 1830s or 1840s to develop as the Americans make one last attempt to drive the British from the region. A Jackson figure would certainly push for this. The fact that such a war would likely decimate the New England economy also needs to be made a factor.

Even if we suppose that cooler heads prevail, somehow, a British Louisiana is going to dramatically impact internal developments in the United States. I would imagine a push for an even more extensive canal system to help link the interior to the east coast. In OTL the Mississippi played a huge part in the settlement and commerce of the interior during this period.

Also, how do you think the British will settle Louisiana? I'm guessing New Orleans becomes the preeminent Port in *Canada - but there is also the chance that settlement patterns come in from the North and move South. Could we see an earlier emergence of *Saint Paul and *Duluth?

A lot of this almost sets up a more prominent East vs West division in the United States. Slavery has nowhere to expand to, so perhaps it will be allowed to die a slow death?

Is internal navigation even possible? Seems ridiculously expensive to pierce the Eastern Continental Divide with a canal, as seen in the cases of the James River and Kanawha Canal and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. I guess an earlier Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway is also feasible, although that relies on Alabama being settled.

I'm also interested to see how canals would work in this Hyper-Canada. Maybe linking Duluth (or Superior) to the Mississippi? It would be expensive, but a crowning achievement that effectively links the nation together. That corner of Minnesota has enough rivers and lakes to make it feasible. Or even more impressive, link the Red River of the North to the Mississippi via the Minnesota River. I don't know how feasible that one is, but there are some natural lakes around the site used historically as a portage. But a lot of western rivers don't seem suitable for canalisation. Are any of the Missouri's tributaries aside from the Osage and Kansas suitable? In any case, most western rivers are probably better used for irrigation than navigation.

If Louisiana is part of *Canada, then I imagine quite a few slaves would escape there. The Underground Railroad will have far more potential destinations ITTL.

Once the British abolish slavery, of course. Would adding another colony good for slavery like Louisiana (and Arkansas) delay the British abolishing slavery by a few years?

It does not include California, Texas, Nevada, or half of Colorado. Depending on how their border is, but it will be close enough. Thy will have minerals in Minnesoota, Alaska, and Yukon but the most famous areas are in New Spain.

Why would they not seek border revision (by peaceful means if possible) on New Spain/Mexico? Or would you get a lasting Republic of Texas which ends up a close British ally? California's arguably even more likely than Tejas, since quite a few of those Forty-Niners are going to be Anglo and could force the issue of a California Republic. The rest of the Mexican Cession is more likely to remain in Mexico, although you can probably stoke a New Mexico cession if you needed/wanted to.
 
Why would they not seek border revision (by peaceful means if possible) on New Spain/Mexico?
Because the opening post talks about Louisiana, the Oregon Country, Alaska, and Canada (with Rupet's Land being assumed to be included in this) being unified under the British. It does not talk about them then going further south. If you are talking about border revision in the same way the US originally did, in that they got rid of a lot of bumps, making the American-Mexican border three straight lines and two or three rivers, then fine. Otherwise we should not make too many assumptions. Having the Texans and Californians on the British side would be desirable for them, but you are as likely to have American filibusters there.
 
Because the opening post talks about Louisiana, the Oregon Country, Alaska, and Canada (with Rupet's Land being assumed to be included in this) being unified under the British. It does not talk about them then going further south. If you are talking about border revision in the same way the US originally did, in that they got rid of a lot of bumps, making the American-Mexican border three straight lines and two or three rivers, then fine. Otherwise we should not make too many assumptions. Having the Texans and Californians on the British side would be desirable for them, but you are as likely to have American filibusters there.

I'm just proposing what I think would be a logical result. Our POD is 1802. With how empty the Mexican Far North was (even compared to Mexican states like Sonora, etc.), it does seem like that someone might try and force the issue. Britain just needs to have a lobby advocating purchase of those territories, in exchange for both the land and other favours (Mexico could get a lot out of it, let's just say). How would an Adams-Onís Treaty between Spain and Britain work?

A mass annexation of Mexican land (aside from the Mexican Cession lands, US could've grabbed so much more, including all of Mexico) is much less likely with Britain than the US, but border revisions strike me as plausible. It could just end up a bunch of separate republics. Using the Mexican-American War-era state borders, I could see the most likely borders being a separate Alta California republic, a Texas Republic (minus Coahuila, since it was Coahuila y Tejas after all), and then a Nuevo México republic. Texas and California will be Anglo, Nuevo México Spanish. Alternatively, Nuevo México could stay within Mexico as a massive panhandle. I don't know if Texas and California would remain independent or otherwise join the British Empire. I think we're assuming for this scenario that all of these colonies (Columbia, Rupert's Land, Upper and Lower Canada, Louisiana, etc.) all confederate into one colony to begin with, so I suppose that Texas and California join this confederation regardless of opposing arguments TTL.

And then you have the argument of how to settle this border. Well, the Rio Grande is very long river and a very nice border, but it's up to the diplomats as to where to draw the border from there using unfortunately straight lines. You can't (or ideally shouldn't) use the Rio Grande to its source, because that cuts Nuevo México, the biggest area of Spanish settlement north of the Rio Grande, in half. And the Rio Grande wasn't even the border in the Mexican era. There's a lot of choices to make. Incidentally, because of the reality of borders, you'll still see tons of major cities like Ciudad Juárez/El Paso (Juárez would be a small town named Paso del Norte if you drew the border differently) along the border.
 

Deleted member 67076

I'm just proposing what I think would be a logical result. Our POD is 1802. With how empty the Mexican Far North was (even compared to Mexican states like Sonora, etc.), it does seem like that someone might try and force the issue. Britain just needs to have a lobby advocating purchase of those territories, in exchange for both the land and other favours (Mexico could get a lot out of it, let's just say). How would an Adams-Onís Treaty between Spain and Britain work?
The thing that I don't get is why would Britain force such an issue? They could easily do what they did in Argentina and send settlers while having extensive de facto influence on government economic policy, effectively outsourcing the costs of rule to Mexico while still reaping the rewards of the land through British companies.
 
The thing that I don't get is why would Britain force such an issue? They could easily do what they did in Argentina and send settlers while having extensive de facto influence on government economic policy, effectively outsourcing the costs of rule to Mexico while still reaping the rewards of the land through British companies.

That's true, but Mexican instability combined with the fact that the majority of these settlers are British could mean it ends up differently. Also, a lot of these settlers will be Americans and not just British.
 
That's true, but Mexican instability combined with the fact that the majority of these settlers are British could mean it ends up differently. Also, a lot of these settlers will be Americans and not just British.
How will they get there? And why? If gold is discovered in California, then you will see Mexicans pouring upwards. It would be, after all, their territory. As for any British people colonizing the area, keep in mind that in IOTL, the British set up laws that raised the prices of tickets across the Atlantic, so that crofters and others being thrown off their land by landowners and Highgland Chiefs could keep them around as free labor. And if you get a lot of poor Englishmen, disposed Highlanders, or any sort of Irishmen coming over... Outside of language, I think they will be somewhat hostile to the British if they try to make a move on them.
 

Deleted member 67076

That's true, but Mexican instability combined with the fact that the majority of these settlers are British could mean it ends up differently. Also, a lot of these settlers will be Americans and not just British.
Eh, I don't think Mexican instability as we know it is guaranteed given its very tied to the incredible mess that was its Independence war, and an 1802 is well before it begins.

But even so, a couple more warships and railroads and the Mexican state would have firm control over its land, ala the Porfiriato. Britain stands much to gain by forcing concessions in exchange for sending the cash, guns, and training to swat down rebels (which is far cheaper than an actual campaign).
 
How will they get there? And why? If gold is discovered in California, then you will see Mexicans pouring upwards. It would be, after all, their territory. As for any British people colonizing the area, keep in mind that in IOTL, the British set up laws that raised the prices of tickets across the Atlantic, so that crofters and others being thrown off their land by landowners and Highgland Chiefs could keep them around as free labor. And if you get a lot of poor Englishmen, disposed Highlanders, or any sort of Irishmen coming over... Outside of language, I think they will be somewhat hostile to the British if they try to make a move on them.

Americans from the United States, in addition to British? Certainly some Mexicans, but as I said, few people lived in California in 1848 (when Mexico lost it) and half of those people were Anglo. Even if it isn't part of the United States, why wouldn't many Americans come to California regardless by any of the means the Forty-Niners came? Although I am ignoring the California Indians in this estimation, but none of the Euroamerican powers cared about them in any case. Early Mexico had so many problems with regionalism, and I think a California Republic of gold miners and the Californios, and British and American traders who were already there would easily make for a good secessionist state which Britain could leap in and defend.

How would they get there? The same way the Forty-Niners got there OTL. Cross the Plains, go by Central America, round Cape Horn, etc. River boundaries always run the problem of the fact that rivers are often used as networks of trade, so dividing one side of the river from the other makes as little sense of dividing one side of an Interstate Highway from the other. But here we're working on the idea that one side of the Mississippi is in another country from the other, even though the Mississippi has been a highway of trade since long before Europeans ever knew of the Americas.
 
Where would the Canada-Mexico border be? I am guessing that Texas, New Mexico and California stay solidly in the Mexican camp. Given the lower white population, I can see Canada cultivating a good relationship with the native tribes to counterbalance US attempts to settle their land while ignoring the laws/outright expansionsim, with internal territorial borders eventually determined via tribal traditions.
 
Once the British are entrenched in New Orleans I can guarantee that the locals will claim that Louisiana extends all the way to the Rio Grande. Britain might disagree, but there will be agitation for it the moment the ink is dry on British Louisiana maps. The British had longed for Florida too, so expect them to be more active there as well in the decade that follows 1803.

A lot of British policy regarding British intrigue in California was all constructed with appeasing America in mind, if America is a non-issue the British will be playing a far more nasty game than historically, especially since Mexico was up to its eyeballs in debt to the UK. Britain might nab it to erase the debt. The bigger question is where the border goes in New Mexico/California.

Another wonder is what happens to the Mormons if it still pops up. The British were pretty welcoming of Americans as long as they weren't rabble rousers or terribly ambitious... but the Mormons don't fit the bill for what the British considered 'ideal'.

Unless there's an Anglo-American war down the line and Britain carves off a big piece of the old Northwest I honestly doubt there would be a hyper Canada. Two dominions makes way more sense. The two power bases (both ex-French funnily) of Montreal and New Orleans are almost impossible to reach each other until a massive railroad gets constructed. And I have my doubts New Orleans would happily prostrate itself to the whims of central Canada unless there was better communications than going around the north shore of Lake Superior.
 
Unless there's an Anglo-American war down the line and Britain carves off a big piece of the old Northwest I honestly doubt there would be a hyper Canada. Two dominions makes way more sense. The two power bases (both ex-French funnily) of Montreal and New Orleans are almost impossible to reach each other until a massive railroad gets constructed. And I have my doubts New Orleans would happily prostrate itself to the whims of central Canada unless there was better communications than going around the north shore of Lake Superior.

Or even more than two; IOTL Canada confederated largely to better co-ordinate defence against the Americans, ITTL the US would be less threatening so the perceived need for unity might be less.
 
Or even more than two; IOTL Canada confederated largely to better co-ordinate defence against the Americans, ITTL the US would be less threatening so the perceived need for unity might be less.
Without the Americans being a major threat I could easily see Louisiana being separate, a maritime union, Canada perhaps even separated into upper and lower and a Colombia/Cascadia entity, outside of that I think things get a little dicey as to whether you get new seperate interior dominions or the others are just expanded.
 
Unless there's an Anglo-American war down the line and Britain carves off a big piece of the old Northwest I honestly doubt there would be a hyper Canada. Two dominions makes way more sense. The two power bases (both ex-French funnily) of Montreal and New Orleans are almost impossible to reach each other until a massive railroad gets constructed. And I have my doubts New Orleans would happily prostrate itself to the whims of central Canada unless there was better communications than going around the north shore of Lake Superior.

There's also the fact that the northern parts of Louisiana (pretty much the Missouri River north, as well as the inland, Ozarks, etc.) have naturally different economic outlooks than the plantation-centered economy of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. To actually knit the whole thing together, you'll either need earlier railroads, or a clear passage from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi.
 
What would be the culture of "Hyper-canada"?

Canadian culture post US revolution came about from the Loyalist settlers. Would the southern-canadians be any culturally different from the northern Canadians?

Quebec would be a smaller player for sure in hyper-cananda.
 
Top