USA without the Louisiana Purchase; Canada Ascendant?

If the British absorb the Louisiana territory into "Canada"; what are the effects of linking the large French speaking populations within each under one roof again? Would Cajuns be particularly happy with British rule again after fleeing them when France lost its Canadian possessions? Would there be a French nationalist push within the fledgling "Hyper-Canada" vs the anglos? That large of a French speaking populace might spell disaster for this working.?
 
If the British absorb the Louisiana territory into "Canada"; what are the effects of linking the large French speaking populations within each under one roof again? Would Cajuns be particularly happy with British rule again after fleeing them when France lost its Canadian possessions? Would there be a French nationalist push within the fledgling "Hyper-Canada" vs the anglos? That large of a French speaking populace might spell disaster for this working.?

They're probably given a similar deal that Quebec got. But demographics and geography will be against them, New Orleans ends up becoming Anglo and Anglo settlers will filter up the Mississippi. If there is an alt-1812 and a hyper - Canada develops the French in Louisiana are probably better off than Quebec. British settlers will flood western Quebec and dominate the region. Montreal will be a solidly Anglo city and Quebec will be very close.

In the long run, even though the French are less dominant in Quebec, I think that having a second French speaking region is good for everyone. It becomes much less of an 'us versus them' mentality.
 
They're probably given a similar deal that Quebec got. But demographics and geography will be against them, New Orleans ends up becoming Anglo and Anglo settlers will filter up the Mississippi. If there is an alt-1812 and a hyper - Canada develops the French in Louisiana are probably better off than Quebec. British settlers will flood western Quebec and dominate the region. Montreal will be a solidly Anglo city and Quebec will be very close.

In the long run, even though the French are less dominant in Quebec, I think that having a second French speaking region is good for everyone. It becomes much less of an 'us versus them' mentality.

Although I mostly agree, were Anglo immigrants Evan that high into Canada around this time and beyond? USA vastly outnumbers Canada today, but back then would Britain even encourage citizens to settle hyper Canada or would natural homegrow (and possibly French speaking) native settling he encouraged?

This then leading to a greater Francophone America(as in continent not country)
 
I see this as creating a significant change in the demographics of the United States. OTL immigration from the British Isles remained important in the early & mid 19th Century. The Irish particularly, but Scots, Welsh, and English as well. There would in this situation still be many of those who are too pissed off at the English, or the Crown to remain in Empire territory & many not those will still emigrate to the US. But, those who are migrating for strictly economic reasons are liable to prefer opportunities in Louisiana vs Appalachia, the Ohio, or the Cumberland. This will have two demographic effects. One, it will reduce the gross number of emigrants to the US. Second it means a higher proportion are non English speakers. That is Germanic & Scandinavian emigrants may be near half, or even the majority in the US as the 19th Century runs out. Catholics may be a higher percentage, or a higher percentage be non Protestant. So, while the Eastern establishment of norther merchants and souther planters will still keep up a WASP domination of the US for much of the 19th Century, the overall character will be much less so & the population more of a melting pot amalgamating higher percentages of other cultures.

Economically it means less capitol from Londons banks/investors to the US as Louisiana/Canada will be attractive venues for investment. OTL British capitol remained important for US development throughout the 19th Century. With the expanded North American Dominions of this ATL to asorb investment there will be a lot less for use in the United states.
 
Although I mostly agree, were Anglo immigrants Evan that high into Canada around this time and beyond? USA vastly outnumbers Canada today, but back then would Britain even encourage citizens to settle hyper Canada or would natural homegrow (and possibly French speaking) native settling he encouraged?

This then leading to a greater Francophone America(as in continent not country)

Britain OTL did not want a permanently francophone Québec. It's largely a historical accident that it remained that way. Early anglophone settlers in western regions demanded their own government while they were still a minority of the population, leading to the creation of Ontario. Later, large numbers of Irish were sent to Québec, but to the surprise of the British, many wound up assimilating into the francophone population. Even so, there was a point in the mid-19th century in which anglophones formed something like 60% of the population of Montréal, 40-45% of Québec City, and a solid majority of the Eastern Townships region. But this population tended to be transitory and move further west in Canada, while francophones from the countryside gradually moved in.
 
To connect their territory in North America would the British not build an earlier canal connection the Great Lakes to the Mississippi?
 
To connect their territory in North America would the British not build an earlier canal connection the Great Lakes to the Mississippi?

Along which route? The USA controls Lake Michigan, where a canal was constructed in OTL. And there are no navigable rivers past Lake Superior. Here's a map.

UnitedStatesExpansion.png
 
To connect their territory in North America would the British not build an earlier canal connection the Great Lakes to the Mississippi?

Britain needs to win an alt 1812 and nab the Old Northwest. Otherwise America still holds the choicy territory in between. And even if Britain does get it, I doubt that canal would get built until about 1840.
 
Regarding Texas and California, might Spain sell those lands to Britain once it no longer control's them but before it recognizes Mexico? thereby giving Britain the "authority" to occupy them permanently.
 
Regarding Texas and California, might Spain sell those lands to Britain once it no longer control's them but before it recognizes Mexico? thereby giving Britain the "authority" to occupy them permanently.

You mean like as a kind of Apple of Discord between the British and the revolting Mexicans?
 
Regarding Texas and California, might Spain sell those lands to Britain once it no longer control's them but before it recognizes Mexico? thereby giving Britain the "authority" to occupy them permanently.

That's a good deal of foresight from Spain who displayed astonishingly little during the era. More likely is Spain attempts attempts to hang on as much as possible until they get booted out as per OTL.
 
Along which route? The USA controls Lake Michigan, where a canal was constructed in OTL. And there are no navigable rivers past Lake Superior. Here's a map.

Build from the Mississippi to the St. Croix River to Superior/Duluth. The St. Croix is partially navigable, I believe, and could probably be improved with intensive canal building. The most difficult stretch is the between the upper St. Croix and Lake Superior itself, which will require carving out a new path with only a few pre-existing glacial lakes and ponds. Maybe you could also use the Kettle River/St. Louis River, but that will require a huge amount of work to make it navigable--that route also has somewhat more ponds/lakes to use for a canal.

It's going to be a major undertaking, but certainly a necessary one to tie Hyper-Canada together.
 
Why do they need to be linked up? The British control the seas; they can ship things from Canada to Louisiana if necessary.
 
Build from the Mississippi to the St. Croix River to Superior/Duluth. The St. Croix is partially navigable, I believe, and could probably be improved with intensive canal building. The most difficult stretch is the between the upper St. Croix and Lake Superior itself, which will require carving out a new path with only a few pre-existing glacial lakes and ponds. Maybe you could also use the Kettle River/St. Louis River, but that will require a huge amount of work to make it navigable--that route also has somewhat more ponds/lakes to use for a canal.

It's going to be a major undertaking, but certainly a necessary one to tie Hyper-Canada together.
That route still passes through American territory. Would the Americans be willing to sell some land to the UK?

If there isn't a "proper" land link then it won't become hyper-Canada is the onlt thing.
Canals won't be necessary for a land link once the railways arrive.
 
That route still passes through American territory. Would the Americans be willing to sell some land to the UK?

Depends how the War of 1812 proceeds. In any case, the geography dividing the Louisiana part and the Canada part is even worse without a port on the Great Lakes. The British could go for a minor border adjustment at the very least. Speaking conservatively, maybe up to the Chippewa or Wisconsin Rivers? That would put any canal a decent ways within British territory.
 
True, although would the Brits want to create a hyper-Canada in the first place? It seems more likely that they'd have two dominions, Canada and Louisiana.

Unless there's an alt-1812 with Britain getting some portion of the Northwest that's the most likely scenario. And even in that scenario it could still happen.

A lot depends on how the confederation talks happen, having more (and stronger) British colonies really changes the dynamic from how it happened historically. And it would be so far from the POD that anything is possible. My guess is that a union of British colonies has a lot more benefits that drawbacks and that Louisiana would end up joining whenever it occurs (1850s imho). There would be a lot of nuts and bolts things that benefit it.

But the hyper - Canada is so far down the line that it skips a lot of the interesting debate about other things.

1) Britain and Spain, especially regarding Texas and Florida. Britain had been mucking about is Florida since the end of the Revolution and Texas is ripe for a takeover and in the midst of a rebellion.
2) America. Is there a war? They went to war historically, but now there's a much more important prize... New Orleans
3) American finances. Without New Orleans and the western territories the federal government has just lost a massive source of revenue, what does it do to make up for it? The government (and citizens) were virulently anti-tax.
4) Britain, Louisiana and slavery. Does it get phased out with the rest of the empire? The power of the planters will be even more of an issue if Britain gains Texas too, then you have a sizable block that has a vested interest in the institution.

Debating hyper - Canada is waaaay past the POD, there's too many other issues that need to get solved first.
 
True, although would the Brits want to create a hyper-Canada in the first place? It seems more likely that they'd have two dominions, Canada and Louisiana.

This is the most likely course. After railways connect the region there may be a consolidation, but until then its going to be a long round trip by horseback or blue water ship.
 
Top