Was the unification of Canada inevitable from the 1860s on, or not?

[rfmcdonald]

I did go to Charlottetown's Province House on my recent visit back to Prince Edward Island, but I did not go inside.



I could not. The entire building has been closed down indefinitely for much needed repairs, the provincial legislature adjourning for the duration to the Coles Building to the east, and a recreation of the chambers where the Fathers of Confederation met to discuss Canadian unification appearing to the west in a foyer in the Confederation Centre of the Arts.



Being in the birthplace of Confederation got me thinking. It's likely that there would have been some general reform of British North America, one leading in the direction of greater unity, simply because the existing colonial polities were just not working. The smaller colonies in the east were fast approaching limits to growth in an increasingly competitive North Atlantic and North American economy, while the western colonies will afterthoughts, and, as I noted back in July 2008, the Province of Canada had become a deadlocked mess riven by ethnopolitical conflict. The different colonies had come to a dead-end politically, and the most obvious way out of this involved the partial fusion of these colonies into a larger entity. Since union with the United States was a non-starter, this would seem to require the colonies to unite with each other.

Is this actually the case, though? If the 1864 discussions had failed, would there have been impetus anywhere to start things up again? Might we have seen, instead of a general union, more partial reforms, perhaps a federalization of the Province of Canada, perhaps a Maritime union? I wonder. How differently could the map of Canada ended up given a point of divergence in the 1860s?

 

[Faeelin]

My understanding is that much of Canadian unification was driven by the fear that, after the Civil War ended, the Union would conquer a divided Candaa like it had the rest of the continent. No?

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Absent a Canadian civil war or a complete break-up of the USA, it was probably inevitable after 1850. If we go back to the 1700s, France might be able to stop things.

- BNC

 

[Alt History Buff]

It may be less likely if the British lost control of the west (northern Oregon Territory) and Canada was cut off from the Pacific. Canada had its "sea to shining sea" concept too. If that concept was dead with a worse British Oregon Treaty (1842ish?), then there might be less impetus to unite into one federation.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The original conferences were to unify the Maritimes. Canada invited herself.

(Most of) BNA as a single entity is probably likely in the long run, but it is by no means certain.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

As nothing in history is inevitable it can be stopped, but post 1850 this is a difficult proposition.

The underlying need and groundwork for a larger political union of some sort was already in place with the creation of the Province of Canada, and the Baldwin and Lafontaine example has already helped bridge the linguistic/political gap for steps forward. The need for some sort of Intercolonial rail road for both economic and military purposes has been obvious since 1850, and a merging of the Maritime provinces was another obvious step forward, but that Canada joined them was not an obvious one absent a railroad pre-existing in 1860.

Really to prevent it you would have to change or remove some of the prime shakers like Tupper, Macdonald, and Tache.

I've said before that if you kill John A. Macdonald prior to 1864, there's probably no politician capable of combining all the fracticious political elements into one whole.

 

[Johnrankins]

My understanding is that much of Canadian unification was driven by the fear that, after the Civil War ended, the Union would conquer a divided Candaa like it had the rest of the continent. No?

At the very least that it would be eventually be tempted to do so, particularly after 1870 when it became increasingly clear that if it got into a war with the US it would be pretty much on its own. The ACW made it clear there would be no repeat of 1812 as the US could raise an army that GB could not possibly support from that far away.

 

[Saphroneth]

At the very least that it would be eventually be tempted to do so, particularly after 1870 when it became increasingly clear that if it got into a war with the US it would be pretty much on its own. The ACW made it clear there would be no repeat of 1812 as the US could raise an army that GB could not possibly support from that far away.

Not to sidetrack this too much, but I'm fairly sure that - while the perception probably was that the US Army was too large to easily stop - the reality (driven primarily by the greater availability of waterborne logistics when there's RN gunboats on them) would be that the British could stop the US taking all of Canada for several months (long enough for a blockade to have a serious effect).

This doesn't change the reasoning in Canada, though - and I understand that they began some fairly serious defence preparations at various points in their history, such as in 1895-6 when they purchased large amounts of rifles and artillery.

 

[Johnrankins]

Not to sidetrack this too much, but I'm fairly sure that - while the perception probably was that the US Army was too large to easily stop - the reality (driven primarily by the greater availability of waterborne logistics when there's RN gunboats on them) would be that the British could stop the US taking all of Canada for several months (long enough for a blockade to have a serious effect).

This doesn't change the reasoning in Canada, though - and I understand that they began some fairly serious defence preparations at various points in their history, such as in 1895-6 when they purchased large amounts of rifles and artillery.

Blockades don't win large land wars. Your gunboats aren't going to stop the US Army from marching to Toronto. If GB wants to stop the US from conquering Canada it would have to get its hands dirty and fight a land war. This is a war it can't win. The British strategy was basically put up enough of a fight to satisfy its honor and look for an exit strategy. Canada was indefensible after the ACW, certainly after reconstruction. Canada's defense strategy against the US after ACW was basically to not piss off the US at all costs.

 

[Saphroneth]

Blockades don't win large land wars. Your gunboats aren't going to stop the US Army from marching to Toronto. If GB wants to stop the US from conquering Canada it would have to get its hands dirty and fight a land war. This is a war it can't win. The British strategy was basically put up enough of a fight to satisfy its honor and look for an exit strategy. Canada was indefensible after the ACW, certainly after reconstruction. Canada's defense strategy against the US after ACW was basically to not piss off the US at all costs.

Blockades do put pressure enough on a country to make it come to terms, though, and seriously impact the land war (the War of 1812 involved the British basically destroying the US economy, and with no blockade it's quite likely WW1 would have been rather different.) And I dispute the idea that the British would have immediately looked for an exit strategy since OTL as late as the 1890s they were willing to engage in saber-rattling (over Venezuela) - this suggests that they felt they could win a fight.

As for gunboats - well, all the viable logistics routes the US Army has to Toronto run over water, even if it's just a river crossing. And that makes them vulnerable.

If Canada was indefensible post-ACW, then it raises the question of where the US is going to get an army to do this - and the money, for that matter, with their trade shut off by the aforementioned blockade.

 

[Johnrankins]

Blockades do put pressure enough on a country to make it come to terms, though, and seriously impact the land war (the War of 1812 involved the British basically destroying the US economy, and with no blockade it's quite likely WW1 would have been rather different.) And I dispute the idea that the British would have immediately looked for an exit strategy since OTL as late as the 1890s they were willing to engage in saber-rattling (over Venezuela) - this suggests that they felt they could win a fight.

As for gunboats - well, all the viable logistics routes the US Army has to Toronto run over water, even if it's just a river crossing. And that makes them vulnerable.

If Canada was indefensible post-ACW, then it raises the question of where the US is going to get an army to do this - and the money, for that matter, with their trade shut off by the aforementioned blockade.

The US was around 5,000 miles long and 2,500 miles wide by this point. It could find virtually any raw materials in its borders. The War of 1812 was against a minor power which wasn't the case by 1870 and GB and France were fighting a land war with Germany in WWI as well , which was the case with the US in 1812 also. If ALL GB did was blockade the Central Powers they would have won. If all GB did in the War of 1812 was to blockade the US the US would have taken Canada.

You couldn't get major warships down 19th century canals. The Saint Lawrence wasn't built yet. That means it depends on how many ships you can build on the lakes and Canada will be out built every time. Count the number of US cities on the Great Lakes and compare them with Canadian cites and then compare the number of people in those cities. That would tell you who would out build whom.

For it to win it needs to get its hands dirty and send enough troops to Canada to win it. This is something it was unable to do. It would need to transport and supply hundreds of thousands of troops against a peer power from 3,000 miles away with basically only Canada to provide local logistical support. It would be like the US invading Germany via Norway during WWII instead of GB. GB had the infrastructure to permit it, Norway did not. At best it could have supported a secondary invasion.

Venezuela would have been mostly a naval war as the US couldn't literally march troops to Venezuela. That is an entirely different thing and that is a war GB can win. Send a decent sized fleet to Venezuelan waters and dare the US to fight it. There would be no need to fight on land because the US couldn't land troops there anyways.

 

[Wendell]

It was probable, but very few things are truly inevitable.