DBWI: America without Canada

Now, i am wondering, what would the USA look like without Canada? How would UK fair with Canada?

(OOC: In this, America took Canada in 1775)
 
Well the US only had Lower Canada at first, though that made Upper Canada untenable in the long term.

Its hard to answer though, Canada has been part of the US from the start. Without the Canadien militias and 1st Canadian Regiment preventing the Loyalist militias from reinforcing Quebec the whole campaign might have failed. I guess the British wouldn't have been as willing to sell the Oregon Country in the late 1830's, so who knows what the border between the US and this independent!Canada would be. Hell, there might have been a third Anglo-American War over the matter.
 
Now, i am wondering, what would the USA look like without Canada? How would UK fair with Canada?

(OOC: In this, America took Canada in 1775)

Well, I dunno, TBH. One thing to realize is that it wasn't until the last two decades of the 19th century that anything north of, say, Thunder Bay or Saguenay was really all that well developed. And even today, Winnipeg, Man. and Liberty City, Assi. have only been major cities for the past 60 years now. The U.K., being across the Atlantic, would probably have a harder time making use of it than we did; as it is, although the former Canada & Rupert's Land have about 50 million people, it took quite a bit of effort.
 
Last edited:
Well, I dunno, TBH. One thing to realize is that it wasn't until the last two decades of the 19th century that anything north of, say, Thunder Bay or Saguenay was really all that well developed. And even today, Winnipeg, Man. and Calgary, Assi. have only been major cities for the past 60 years now. The U.K., being across the Atlantic, would probably have a harder time making use of it than we did; as it is, although the former Canada & Rupert's Land have about 50 million people, it took quite a bit of effort.

Clearly Rupertsland would end up in the US. I mean, just look at the geography - the only decent way to get to Assininiboia and Manitoba is north, up the Red River from StAnthony (1). Trying to make a connection across the Precambrian Shield(2), give me a break. There STILL isnt a road all the way across.

Ooc: 1 St.Anthony is otl's Minneapolis, StPaul
2 that mass of rock isnt likely to be the 'Canadian' Shield, ittl, so Im giving it the geological name. Which would be different, too, sigh.
3 Calgary is most assuredly NOT going to be called that. The name was only given in 1876, by MacLeod of the NWMP (precursor to the RCMP). Given that otl's Canada is far, far more heavily Scots influenced than the US is, there just wont be a Scots name like Calgary used.
 
Last edited:
Clearly Rupertsland would end up in the US. I mean, just look at the geography - the only decent way to get to Assininiboia and Manitoba is north, up the Red River from StAnthony (1). Trying to make a connection across the Precambrian Shield(2), give me a break. There STILL isnt a road all the way across.

Ooc: 1 St.Anthony is otl's Minneapolis, StPaul
2 that mass of rock isnt likely to be the 'Canadian' Shield, ittl, so Im giving it the geological name. Which would be different, too, sigh.
3 Calgary is most assuredly NOT going to be called that. The name was only given in 1876, by MacLeod of the NWMP (precursor to the RCMP). Given that otl's Canada is far, far more heavily Scots influenced than the US is, there just wont be a Scots name like Calgary used.

OOC: Okay. How about Liberty City in place of Calgary? And maybe Hamilton could be TTL's Edmonton? :D:cool:
 
French would probably a less important language. Even in Virginia, schoolchildren learn it as a second language. Maybe without the huge group of French speakers around Montreal, it would die out in places like Louisiana and New Hampshire. We might even end up being less friendly with France as a result.
 
Well if Canada was it's own country then Hetalia: Axis Powers could have another character. Maybe he'd be Alfred's younger brother, perhaps a twin... But I just can't think of anything that 'Canada' would have that would be distinct enough for him to stand out in a crowd.

Poor guy would be get up all the time because all the other nations would mistake him for America. :D
 
Now, i am wondering, what would the USA look like without Canada? How would UK fair with Canada?

(OOC: In this, America took Canada in 1775)

I'm more curious as to the fate of Canada. How long could it remain a British colony? Could have even given the Crown a springboard to take back the fledgling 'States (killing the proto-Empire in its carriage, obviously).

The American Republic would have a weird, 'chopped-off' look along some parallel, and would likely be a second-tier power at best. Hard to imagine America getting the immigrant boom it did without the draw of the Canadian wilderness. The American West is attractive, I suppose, and gold obviously, but the wilds of Hibernia seem far more appealing to me, personally. The 'Hundred Acre Woods' plan was by far the best thing to ever happen to the American Empire (cheeky, I know) and I just don't see an equivalent happening in a Canada-less America.
 
speaking of immigration... you have to wonder just how different things would be if the USA hadn't had all that room to fill up. Especially after the Mexican War. I mean, everything from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle was open for settlement. The USA basically threw the immigration doors wide open and said, "hey, everyone welcome!", there was such a need for labor and settlers and soldiers. What might have happened to Europe if so many people hadn't left? Would there have been a delay in the reforms so many monarchies made? After all, they only did it in OTL because everyone who was the slightest bit unhappy could go to the USA and improve their lives, so the rulers had little choice but to implement reforms (or try to ban immigration, and that didn't work out so well). Not to mention, the just general lack of conflict with so many population pressures reduced...
 
speaking of immigration... you have to wonder just how different things would be if the USA hadn't had all that room to fill up. Especially after the Mexican War. I mean, everything from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle was open for settlement. The USA basically threw the immigration doors wide open and said, "hey, everyone welcome!", there was such a need for labor and settlers and soldiers. What might have happened to Europe if so many people hadn't left? Would there have been a delay in the reforms so many monarchies made? After all, they only did it in OTL because everyone who was the slightest bit unhappy could go to the USA and improve their lives, so the rulers had little choice but to implement reforms (or try to ban immigration, and that didn't work out so well). Not to mention, the just general lack of conflict with so many population pressures reduced...

Yes, but it would led to some problems later on in the US.
 
Keep in mind that some of best units in the Union Army during the ACW came from Canada. It seemed like the further north you went, the stronger abolitionist settlement got and the more motivated the soldiers were.
 
Keep in mind that some of best units in the Union Army during the ACW came from Canada. It seemed like the further north you went, the stronger abolitionist settlement got and the more motivated the soldiers were.

Very true. In fact, several of my own ancestors actually came directly from the former Canada, from places like Peterborough, and Welland, Ont., and even around Montreal in Quebec; the 1st Quebec regiment in particular was well known for helping arm slaves willing to fight the Confederates. :D

OOC: I'm assuming it wouldn't be an issue if Ontario + Quebec kept their OTL names? The former does sit on one of the Great Lakes, of that same name.....
 
speaking of immigration... you have to wonder just how different things would be if the USA hadn't had all that room to fill up. Especially after the Mexican War. I mean, everything from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle was open for settlement. The USA basically threw the immigration doors wide open and said, "hey, everyone welcome!", there was such a need for labor and settlers and soldiers. What might have happened to Europe if so many people hadn't left? Would there have been a delay in the reforms so many monarchies made? After all, they only did it in OTL because everyone who was the slightest bit unhappy could go to the USA and improve their lives, so the rulers had little choice but to implement reforms (or try to ban immigration, and that didn't work out so well). Not to mention, the just general lack of conflict with so many population pressures reduced...

Well, we certainly would have seen a stronger and longer-lasting Concert of Europe as well as the Ancien Regimes---I see France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, and Austria all remaining strong monarchies well into the 19th and even 20th century.

I bet with all that right-wing sentiment floating around, things get nasty for Europe around the turn of the century.

Speaking of the 20th century, I doubt we would have seen the nasty conglomerate that is the EEC/EU(1) emerge until much, much later on. We may have even avoided a good measure of global conflict, although that's pretty speculative I'll warrant.

I shudder to think of the possibility of a world in which other countries have the Bomb besides America. Imagine a world without American Hegemony. Yes, America has its sordid affairs and past, but can you imagine a multi-polar, nuclear world?


Keep in mind that some of best units in the Union Army during the ACW came from Canada. It seemed like the further north you went, the stronger abolitionist settlement got and the more motivated the soldiers were.

Are you suggesting that the South may have enjoyed more success than they did? What of the Abolitionist movement in the North, would it have had the same momentum without the impetus of the Canadian Abolitionists?
 
Well, we certainly would have seen a stronger and longer-lasting Concert of Europe as well as the Ancien Regimes---I see France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, and Austria all remaining strong monarchies well into the 19th and even 20th century.

I bet with all that right-wing sentiment floating around, things get nasty for Europe around the turn of the century.

Speaking of the 20th century, I doubt we would have seen the nasty conglomerate that is the EEC/EU(1) emerge until much, much later on. We may have even avoided a good measure of global conflict, although that's pretty speculative I'll warrant.

I shudder to think of the possibility of a world in which other countries have the Bomb besides America. Imagine a world without American Hegemony. Yes, America has its sordid affairs and past, but can you imagine a multi-polar, nuclear world?

Other nations do have the bomb. Just not as many.

OOC: I don't see how other nations won't get the bomb.
 
Other nations do have the bomb. Just not as many.

America has way too many Nuclear bombs. I mean, what is the need to have the capacity to turn the world into a wasteland 6 times over when you merely need to do so once? I mean, the European superstate has enough to turn the world into a wasteland a single time, and it's a pretty effective deterrent. Heck, even the ability to turn a few cities into ash is just as effective, as Kurdistan demonstrated when the Turks back away from them. Sometimes, I think that the American planners are just too paranoid. They're on their nice continent with no real rivals capable of knocking out even a tenth of their nuclear arsenal even in a first strike scenario.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
Maybe the British use it for loyalist settlement - both to reinforce the territory and because loyalists, grown up in a North American society, would probably prefer it to the Caribbean or mainland Britain. Its politics would be weird though - half French, half English, probably staying together (and staying close to Britain) to keep the Americans out. Maybe it'd still be a British protectorate to the present, despite the trend to decolonization in the rest of the empire, and the Canada issue would probably through a wrench in OTLs rapprochement, especially if it leads to a Britain with a greater North American presence trying to hold Rupert's Land and the northeastern states from New Brunswick to Newfoundland.
 
Maybe the British use it for loyalist settlement - both to reinforce the territory and because loyalists, grown up in a North American society, would probably prefer it to the Caribbean or mainland Britain. Its politics would be weird though - half French, half English, probably staying together (and staying close to Britain) to keep the Americans out. Maybe it'd still be a British protectorate to the present, despite the trend to decolonization in the rest of the empire, and the Canada issue would probably through a wrench in OTLs rapprochement, especially if it leads to a Britain with a greater North American presence trying to hold Rupert's Land and the northeastern states from New Brunswick to Newfoundland.

Well, it's possible, although many ex-Loyalists simply left for other parts of the world when Nova Scotia, Saint-Jean Island, and Nova Acadia officially became part of the U.S. in 1788.....quite a few former Maritimers actually ended up in Australia, during some of the earliest days of settlement(I actually have quite a few distant relatives in New South Wales in particular, one of whom moved to California in the '70s.); apparently, the Brits hoped that putting some more loyal subjects down there might help keep the transportees in check.....which worked quite well, it seems, from all I've read.
 
Last edited:
Well, we certainly would have seen a stronger and longer-lasting Concert of Europe as well as the Ancien Regimes---I see France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, and Austria all remaining strong monarchies well into the 19th and even 20th century.

I bet with all that right-wing sentiment floating around, things get nasty for Europe around the turn of the century.

Speaking of the 20th century, I doubt we would have seen the nasty conglomerate that is the EEC/EU(1) emerge until much, much later on. We may have even avoided a good measure of global conflict, although that's pretty speculative I'll warrant.

I shudder to think of the possibility of a world in which other countries have the Bomb besides America. Imagine a world without American Hegemony. Yes, America has its sordid affairs and past, but can you imagine a multi-polar, nuclear world?




Are you suggesting that the South may have enjoyed more success than they did? What of the Abolitionist movement in the North, would it have had the same momentum without the impetus of the Canadian Abolitionists?

Assuming the parts of the US that were once Canada did not become part of the US, I have no about the Union would have still won the ACW but the war would have been longer and bloodier and maybe it would have dragged on long enough for the people in the North to say enough is enough. It's impossible to tell. All I know is that from the Mason-Dixon line north was a vast nation of resources, manpower, and industry and the CSA never had a chance.
 
Maybe the British use it for loyalist settlement - both to reinforce the territory and because loyalists, grown up in a North American society, would probably prefer it to the Caribbean or mainland Britain. Its politics would be weird though - half French, half English, probably staying together (and staying close to Britain) to keep the Americans out. Maybe it'd still be a British protectorate to the present, despite the trend to decolonization in the rest of the empire, and the Canada issue would probably through a wrench in OTLs rapprochement, especially if it leads to a Britain with a greater North American presence trying to hold Rupert's Land and the northeastern states from New Brunswick to Newfoundland.

What is this New Brunswick you speak of? :confused:

OOC: New Brunswick was separated from Nova Scotia by the British in 1784, after the POD, so there wouldn't be any such thing
 
Top