WI: No Quebec Act?

The population figure is total population counted (may not include some natives in the bush).

'Kay, certainly still on the higher end of the lower half.

Umm.. Maine wasn't a state until 1820, so by your numbers, Quebec is in the lower half of the states population-wise. Several people have been referring to it being 'one of the biggest', which it certainly isn't.

I know Maine wasn't, but it was counted separately on on the 1790 Census.

Quebec would still have a respectable population.
 
My pessimism aside, I'm interested to see- if you write a TL, what a Quebec involved in the ARW would like how and how the post-Confederation states would look like.

If you take a step back from all the logistics of figuring everything out (I doubt you're as concerned over many of them regarding francophone culture and such, so I'll lay off it a bit), how would this affect immigration to the U.S. colonies? Would catholics gravitate towards moving north to Canada or Quebec or whatever the state decides to call itself?
 
My pessimism aside, I'm interested to see- if you write a TL, what a Quebec involved in the ARW would like how and how the post-Confederation states would look like.

If you take a step back from all the logistics of figuring everything out (I doubt you're as concerned over many of them regarding francophone culture and such, so I'll lay off it a bit), how would this affect immigration to the U.S. colonies? Would catholics gravitate towards moving north to Canada or Quebec or whatever the state decides to call itself?

You'd certainly see more French immigrants, and most of them would be Catholic.
 

Eurofed

Banned
You'd certainly see more French immigrants, and most of them would be Catholic.

And some of the Irish and Italian immigrants that went to New England, New York, and the Midwest IOTL could go to Quebec and the other US states on the northern shore of the Great Lakes (that are going to be part French-speaking, part linguistically mixed ITTL) instead.

Moreover, a larger USA could easily attract more immigrants. Typically, America was rather more friendly to large-scale immigration from Europe than British Dominions until late in the 20th century. So we may easily end up with more populous Canadian states.

I totally expect that in order to gain more influence in Congress, French-speakers shall be as enthusiastic about setting up new states as their Anglo pals south of the Great Lakes. So ITTL we shall still have a division of Upper Canada and Lower Canada in separate states, and the northern shore of the Great Lakes shall be apportioned in a number of states more ore less mirroring the ones on the southern shore. It is also possible that eastern Quebec becomes another separate state. If , as I expect, there is a substantial re-immigration to Acadia, it may split from Nova Scotia, too. Of course, the Dixie shall be encourage to create more states of their own to narrow the unbalance between free and slaveholding states (although ITTL a complete balance shall be impossible). So you can expect Florida being divided in two states, Texas in 4-5, a bigger drive to expand in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, and so on.
 
Moreover, a larger USA could easily attract more immigrants. Typically, America was rather more friendly to large-scale immigration from Europe than British Dominions until late in the 20th century. So we may easily end up with more populous Canadian states.

Highly likely. The Golden Horseshoe IOTL is very populated despite regressive immigration policies up until recent years. Immigration and settlement would explode in this area.

Would this lead to a more north-south oriented U.S.? I mean, are they guaranteed to go cherry picking westward? And in addition, would Britain ultimately try to re-establish themselves on the west-coast or something. Native populations are likely to suffer heavily, as many supported the British as opposed to the Americans.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Would this lead to a more north-south oriented U.S.? I mean, are they guaranteed to go cherry picking westward?

I think that the essential drive to settle westward won't be changed. But we can easily expect another row of US states between the 50° and the 55° Parallel or so to be established that more or less are as populaed as their counterparts in the row next south. E.g. I expect southern Northern Ontario to get as populated as the other shore of the Great Lakes, more or less.

Take a look on a map from my signature TL, to see the kind of Canadian state pattern I predict for this larger USA.

And in addition, would Britain ultimately try to re-establish themselves on the west-coast or something.

Nearly ASB. They may try for a while, but they are doomed to failure. Canada going American in the ARW or 1812 pretty much kills the economic and strategic chances of the British Empire keeping Rupert's Land, the North-Western territory, or the Pacific Northwest in the long run. They won't have nowhere the population basis necessary to colonize the land, while increasing numbers of American settlers shall pressure from west and south alike, and they will lack any decent logistic access to the area. The Hudson's Bay and the Northwest Passage may have been good to run a people-scarce trade like the fur one, but it sucks for colonization, any developed economic base, and to supply an army in case of a war.

My sure expectation is that either the British get kicked out in the War of 1812 equivalent, if they try too obtrusively to keep a foothold in North America, or otherwise they gradually give up on North America as the fur trade dries up and the pressure of American settlers increases, and they sell or cede Rupert's Land, the North-Western territory, and the Pacific Northwest in a few decades, just like they did with Oregon IOTL.

Native populations are likely to suffer heavily, as many supported the British as opposed to the Americans.

Probably, but sadly nothing really different from OTL. The harshness get spread to more tribes in the North. OTOH, With a stronger Patriot movement, it is also possible that many natives switch sides.

E.g. in my signature TL, I had the Iroquois side with the Americans because of this PoD. This has huge long-term effects, since American culture becomes much more tolerant of "civilized Indians" that accept assimilation, and indirectly of mixed-blood and native South Americans.
 
Highly likely. The Golden Horseshoe IOTL is very populated despite regressive immigration policies up until recent years. Immigration and settlement would explode in this area.

Would this lead to a more north-south oriented U.S.? I mean, are they guaranteed to go cherry picking westward? And in addition, would Britain ultimately try to re-establish themselves on the west-coast or something. Native populations are likely to suffer heavily, as many supported the British as opposed to the Americans.
:confused:Regressive immigration policies? Walking through the mall in St.Catharines ON, in the early '80s (before the massively increased immigration) I often heard as many as 12 languages spoken. Or have you seen the bilingual street signs in Toronto in the same era?

Or going back a ways, how about Clifford Sifton.

I really don't see how you can call Canada's immigration policy in most of the last century 'regressive' except by comparison with the modern one.
 
Regressive immigration policies? Walking through the mall in St.Catharines ON, in the early '80s (before the massively increased immigration) I often heard as many as 12 languages spoken. Or have you seen the bilingual street signs in Toronto in the same era?

Or going back a ways, how about Clifford Sifton.

I really don't see how you can call Canada's immigration policy in most of the last century 'regressive' except by comparison with the modern one.

We didn't allow dual citizenship until 1977 and had comparatively low caps on imimgration until the Mulroney gov't. We now have the highest per capita immigration in the world. If by the last century you mean the whole of the 20th century I would beg to differ, but I think post-1960s our immigration has improved immensely.

We had extremely anti-Chinese laws in the early 1900s, including the Head Tax (also introduced in the U.S. though ours remained in effect for longer iirc). We expelled all the Japanese from the West Coast, turned away numerous ships- most famously several hundred Punjabs escaping ethnic violence in India (Komagata Maru, 1914) and 500 Jews escaping from Nazi Germany (I forget the name). We had extremely restrictive laws on Eastern European immigration that were laxed in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, to lure Ukranians and Belarussians out to unused farmland in the praries.

Compared to the U.S. though, and several countries at the time we really didn't want people to come over, so it seemed.

The post-Lester B. Pearson era however has been far more liberal, it has just taken some time for immigration to adapt to our policies. Perhaps the word "regressive" seems too harsh, but compared to the United States (which was where my original comparison came from), our policies were not allowing the same % of immigrants per year nor the same kind of diversity. The Trudeau Administration and Mulroney Administration are really the ones who brought immigration to the level it is today, by providing citizenship and loosening the caps on immigration per year (as I said, we now have the highest per capita).

But that's far from the point of this thread! :p
 

Glen

Moderator
Nearly ASB. They may try for a while, but they are doomed to failure. Canada going American in the ARW or 1812 pretty much kills the economic and strategic chances of the British Empire keeping Rupert's Land, the North-Western territory, or the Pacific Northwest in the long run. They won't have nowhere the population basis necessary to colonize the land, while increasing numbers of American settlers shall pressure from west and south alike, and they will lack any decent logistic access to the area. The Hudson's Bay and the Northwest Passage may have been good to run a people-scarce trade like the fur one, but it sucks for colonization, any developed economic base, and to supply an army in case of a war.

Although I agree that it is likely the British lose the Pacific Northwest if they lose Canada, I don't entirely agree that it is absolute. If the ARW peace ends with Rupert's Land remaining in British hands (and more importantly, exclusive to the Hudson Bay Company), then you still have the HBC spearheading much of the exploration of the Oregon Country, which gives them a claim to the territory based on discovery. Then, as the sea otter trade with China increases, that will give them the economic incentive to keep in that area, at least for a critical few decades. As to populating, if the British can settle Australia and New Zealand, they can send settlers anywhere!

On the other, other hand, they are at a disadvantage for competing for settlement of the region. If nothing else changes except they lose Canada at the end of the ARW and retain Rupert's Land, then they are likely to be outbred in the area. that means the Americans will take more of the Southern part of the Oregon Country than OTL, and maybe push British Columbia up above the 50th Parallel.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Although I agree that it is likely the British lose the Pacific Northwest if they lose Canada, I don't entirely agree that it is absolute.

Nothing is ever absolute, but there is reasonable certainety. :D

If the ARW peace ends with Rupert's Land remaining in British hands (and more importantly, exclusive to the Hudson Bay Company),then you still have the HBC spearheading much of the exploration of the Oregon Country, which gives them a claim to the territory based on discovery.

Well, if Canada joins the ARW from the start, and we can reasonably assume that the British reap no greater military and diplomatic success than IOTL, America ends up the sole controller of the Great Lakes and would be greately interested into getting free settlement access to Rupert's Land. Therefore, I see only two likely outcomes: a) Britain and America agree by treaty to some form of joint ownership (like OTL Oregon) over Rupert's Land, or at the very least free access to American settlers and partially free access to US traders, even if the HBC may keep some trade privilege. In due time, American settlers swamp the area, and Britain agrees to sell RL b) Britain tries to keep sole ownership of RL, pressure by American settlers and traders grows to gain free access to the area, UK and USA fight TTL War of 1812 over this as well the other casi belli (impressment, blockade, etc.). War is fought over RL instead of Canada, only America shall be stronger and have a much better strategic position, whereas the British one shall be much worse. It is reasonable to expect that America reaps enough success that Britain agrees to sell or cede RL at once, or sees the futility of trying to keep it against American hostility and does so soon afterwards.

After all, when fur trade declines, the area becomes much less profitable for Britain, the mineral resources won't become known until much later, whereas America has strong interest in the area for agricultural settlement. And without Canada, the possibility of creating viable British colonies in the region becomes much worse.

Then, as the sea otter trade with China increases, that will give them the economic incentive to keep in that area, at least for a critical few decades.

That economic incentive seems rather marginal, and no worth risking the trouble of another war with a stronger America. When the fur trade declines, and without a Canada to latch it to, the value of Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Oregon-Columbia for the British Empire seems more and more marginal, esp. if the price is the hostility of America.

As to populating, if the British can settle Australia and New Zealand, they can send settlers anywhere!

But the vast majority of settlers for western Canada came from the rest of the Dominion. Britain actually was rather inefficient as it concerned populating its own White Dominions, and it does not seem credible that in addition to scrounging up the settlers for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Kenya-Uganda, they can do so for populating western Canada from scratch, esp. in the face of the ever-growing pressure of plentiful American settlers to do the same.

On the other, other hand, they are at a disadvantage for competing for settlement of the region. If nothing else changes except they lose Canada at the end of the ARW and retain Rupert's Land, then they are likely to be outbred in the area. that means the Americans will take more of the Southern part of the Oregon Country than OTL, and maybe push British Columbia up above the 50th Parallel.

If America holds Canada from the start, it means they shall have sole control of the Great Lakes. They are not going to accept permanent British control and a barrier to their settlers as it concerns the valuable lands of Rupert's Land, Oregon, and Columbia, at least the agriculturally-valuable area between the 50° and 55° parallel.
 

Glen

Moderator
Nothing is ever absolute, but there is reasonable certainety. :D

In this case, I will agree to the reasonable part but not necessarily the certainty part.

Well, if Canada joins the ARW from the start, and we can reasonably assume that the British reap no greater military and diplomatic success than IOTL, America ends up the sole controller of the Great Lakes and would be greately interested into getting free settlement access to Rupert's Land. Therefore, I see only two likely outcomes: a) Britain and America agree by treaty to some form of joint ownership (like OTL Oregon) over Rupert's Land, or at the very least free access to American settlers and partially free access to US traders, even if the HBC may keep some trade privilege. In due time, American settlers swamp the area, and Britain agrees to sell RL

Which is more or less what I had happen in my Dominion of Southern America timeline.

b) Britain tries to keep sole ownership of RL, pressure by American settlers and traders grows to gain free access to the area, UK and USA fight TTL War of 1812 over this as well the other casi belli (impressment, blockade, etc.). War is fought over RL instead of Canada, only America shall be stronger and have a much better strategic position, whereas the British one shall be much worse.

Agree with some of this, but not all. The strength of the British position is that there really isn't much of a vulnerable population for them to protect. They let the Americans wonder through the tundra, and they sink them at sea, then reaffirm their right to RL at the bargaining table. While Canada gave them more to fight with, it also gave them more they had to protect.

It is reasonable to expect that America reaps enough success that Britain agrees to sell or cede RL at once, or sees the futility of trying to keep it against American hostility and does so soon afterwards.

Yes, that is reasonable. It is also reasonable for the British to keep it (the Americans have plenty of other land to settle, and if the War of 1812 goes anything like OTL, it's not going to make the British say uncle except maybe to stop impressments) and squeeze the last pelt out of the area, and use it as a springboard to maintain their claims to the Oregon Country, which is the even bigger prize.

After all, when fur trade declines, the area becomes much less profitable for Britain, the mineral resources won't become known until much later, whereas America has strong interest in the area for agricultural settlement. And without Canada, the possibility of creating viable British colonies in the region becomes much worse.

True to a degree, but only in the far south of Rupert's land, which I can see them being pressured to hand over. Doesn't mean they are destined to give over the whole kit and kibudle, though. However however, they might be willing to sell it off by the late 1800s. Then again, by that time the US might also be less interested in buying (unless you have a Seward analogue, who never met a permafrost he didn't like!).

That economic incentive seems rather marginal, and no worth risking the trouble of another war with a stronger America. When the fur trade declines, and without a Canada to latch it to, the value of Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Oregon-Columbia for the British Empire seems more and more marginal, esp. if the price is the hostility of America.

I agree that is likely. I don't agree that it is a historical imperative.

But the vast majority of settlers for western Canada came from the rest of the Dominion. Britain actually was rather inefficient as it concerned populating its own White Dominions, and it does not seem credible that in addition to scrounging up the settlers for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Kenya-Uganda, they can do so for populating western Canada from scratch, esp. in the face of the ever-growing pressure of plentiful American settlers to do the same.

But your assumption is that they let Western Canada go in favor of the others. Why not more population for Western Canada and less for New Zealand, for example?

If America holds Canada from the start, it means they shall have sole control of the Great Lakes. They are not going to accept permanent British control and a barrier to their settlers as it concerns the valuable lands of Rupert's Land,

Only the Red River area and the northernmost plains, I suspect.

Oregon, and Columbia, at least the agriculturally-valuable area between the 50° and 55° parallel.

I agree that is the most likely case, but I disagree that it might not be possible to see timelines where Britain does hold Rupert's Land and the Pacific Northwest. And the loss of Eastern Canada might even help. Where are the loyalists going in such a timeline? Perhaps we see a great trek to the Red River and up to Lake Winnepeg! Then expansion to the Northern Great Plains for farming. And finally across the mountains to British Columbia, which is going to look even more attractive to these Northern Midwesterners, and thus might get more population earlier, a hardy pioneer folk with a tradition of suffering for their loyalty to the Crown and a distinct distaste for the Americans who drove them out of the East. Such a people may hold the North and the West, and may be enough to motivate the Mother Country to support them against their perennial enemy, America!
 

Eurofed

Banned
Agree with some of this, but not all. The strength of the British position is that there really isn't much of a vulnerable population for them to protect. They let the Americans wonder through the tundra, and they sink them at sea, then reaffirm their right to RL at the bargaining table. While Canada gave them more to fight with, it also gave them more they had to protect.

This is reasonable. Something else would be needed for America to win decisively that war. E.g. in my TL I have Washington getting a third term, which butterflies away the Alien and Sedition Acts and leaves the Federalists in power a long time. They build the US military to kickass levels. While this is a plausible butterfly, I agree it is by no means certain.

Yes, that is reasonable. It is also reasonable for the British to keep it (the Americans have plenty of other land to settle, and if the War of 1812 goes anything like OTL, it's not going to make the British say uncle except maybe to stop impressments) and squeeze the last pelt out of the area, and use it as a springboard to maintain their claims to the Oregon Country, which is the even bigger prize.

Trying to keep RL and OC until they can squeeze the last pelt of the area up to the point they can avoid a war with America is reasonable. An all-out effort to make them permanent colonies is less so. The British Empire is quite large already, and without Middle Canada, the vast majority of BNA's importance for the Empire is gone.

True to a degree, but only in the far south of Rupert's land, which I can see them being pressured to hand over. Doesn't mean they are destined to give over the whole kit and kibudle, though. However however, they might be willing to sell it off by the late 1800s. Then again, by that time the US might also be less interested in buying (unless you have a Seward analogue, who never met a permafrost he didn't like!).

Well, I eagerly agree that with the right butterfly, America may never get interested enough in getting the frozen slice of North America above the 55°-60° Parallel, including Alaska, in the lack of a Seward analogue (although things may radically change when the gold in Yukon and Alaska is discovered !). I hold that it is going to take quite exceptional butterflies for America not to get very determined in getting the valuable belt between 50° and 55° parallel, and for Britain to become focused on keeping it at any cost.

But your assumption is that they let Western Canada go in favor of the others. Why not more population for Western Canada and less for New Zealand, for example?

I don't see any special reason why Western Canada, which without Middle Canada is economically and strategically rather marginal to the British Empire, and quite imperiled in the face of American pressure or hostility, should become a preferential colonization location rather than ANZUS, where Britain is the indisputed master.

Only the Red River area and the northernmost plains, I suspect.

Can we agree to use the same threshold that America used IOTL about its claims on Oregon ? The 55° Parallel.

I agree that is the most likely case, but I disagree that it might not be possible to see timelines where Britain does hold Rupert's Land and the Pacific Northwest. And the loss of Eastern Canada might even help. Where are the loyalists going in such a timeline? Perhaps we see a great trek to the Red River and up to Lake Winnepeg! Then expansion to the Northern Great Plains for farming. And finally across the mountains to British Columbia, which is going to look even more attractive to these Northern Midwesterners, and thus might get more population earlier, a hardy pioneer folk with a tradition of suffering for their loyalty to the Crown and a distinct distaste for the Americans who drove them out of the East. Such a people may hold the North and the West, and may be enough to motivate the Mother Country to support them against their perennial enemy, America!

It is theoretically possible of course, but I hold it terribly unlikely, for various reasons. It would be a very long and hard trek across raging wilderness, when there are several less troublesome destinations for the Loyalists; America would be quite hostile to letting the UEL go there, and with control of the Great Lakes, it has means to hamper that trek; this reverses the point you previously made about RL being empty, and thus not very vulnerable to American conquest in 1812. In the vast majority of TLs where America gets Canada in the ARW, I expect the UEL to end up in either Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Patagonia, or the mix of the above, rather than trying to stay in North America at any cost.
 
Top