I'm not taking in relative terms to colonies owned overseas but as a sum of global influence. This is going to be a long paragraph so excuse the bulge:
Is it possible, and if it is perhaps throw some ideas out there, for Canada to exist either relatively similar to the form it's in now or bigger with more international prestige, a larger population (more big cities), GDP, etc. (all that fun stuff) while not unilaterally simply absorbing lots of U.S. territory? I've read a few TL concepts for "better" Canadas and I've read a few Canadawanks and most involve absorbing copious amounts of U.S. territory, often coupled with balkanization of the U.S. (i.e New England/Confederate States successfully secede, independent Texas, west-cost absorbed by Britain, etc.) What I am wondering is, given some good circumstances or good leaders or what have you; is it possible that Canada could have greater international prestige/power, a larger population *and* perhaps more territory without significant expense to the U.S.? I know I'm throwing these terms out like they're easily rectified so don't take offense if you're American, just theoretically.
I suppose to establish the boundaries of what I mean by "significant expense" (with regards to American territories) I mean that without absorbing huge amounts of land held by U.S. states or future U.S. territories. I'll leave things up to your imaginations but generally where things were in dispute (dispute over northern part of the Louisiana Territory, Oregon Territory) ruling in Canada's favor (or the U.S.'s, as was done mostly IRL) would not count as significant expense, but absorbing vast parts of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Washington/Oregon, California (you get it...) would be. If there's any argument about Alaska it'd be good to have, but at most a rule in Canada's favor on the border dispute there would be all I'd be looking at (not wanking it out of the U.S./Russia/other's hands). The U.S. should have similar international strength today i.e. Canada is still not as strong as the U.S. but is stronger, perhaps with more territory (perhaps with the U.S. compensating southward, or holding onto former colonies?) Outside the U.S. however, the "significant expense" demand by me does not apply
.
If you can, for interest's sake, add in more balkanized provinces in Canada and have more populated northernly settlements (if possible). This is mostly just a thought exercise so I'm not considering this seriously as a giant cohesive TL or something, just sort of "in general, what do you think?" There's no need to glue yourself to a history book and the more interesting butterfly possibilities the better to me.
*post thought: I put this in the pre-1900 section because I thought to do this you'd need an earlier PoD (since I thought this would have a lot to do with immigration to Canada/earlier policies) but if that's not appropriate I apologize.
Is it possible, and if it is perhaps throw some ideas out there, for Canada to exist either relatively similar to the form it's in now or bigger with more international prestige, a larger population (more big cities), GDP, etc. (all that fun stuff) while not unilaterally simply absorbing lots of U.S. territory? I've read a few TL concepts for "better" Canadas and I've read a few Canadawanks and most involve absorbing copious amounts of U.S. territory, often coupled with balkanization of the U.S. (i.e New England/Confederate States successfully secede, independent Texas, west-cost absorbed by Britain, etc.) What I am wondering is, given some good circumstances or good leaders or what have you; is it possible that Canada could have greater international prestige/power, a larger population *and* perhaps more territory without significant expense to the U.S.? I know I'm throwing these terms out like they're easily rectified so don't take offense if you're American, just theoretically.
I suppose to establish the boundaries of what I mean by "significant expense" (with regards to American territories) I mean that without absorbing huge amounts of land held by U.S. states or future U.S. territories. I'll leave things up to your imaginations but generally where things were in dispute (dispute over northern part of the Louisiana Territory, Oregon Territory) ruling in Canada's favor (or the U.S.'s, as was done mostly IRL) would not count as significant expense, but absorbing vast parts of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Washington/Oregon, California (you get it...) would be. If there's any argument about Alaska it'd be good to have, but at most a rule in Canada's favor on the border dispute there would be all I'd be looking at (not wanking it out of the U.S./Russia/other's hands). The U.S. should have similar international strength today i.e. Canada is still not as strong as the U.S. but is stronger, perhaps with more territory (perhaps with the U.S. compensating southward, or holding onto former colonies?) Outside the U.S. however, the "significant expense" demand by me does not apply
. If you can, for interest's sake, add in more balkanized provinces in Canada and have more populated northernly settlements (if possible). This is mostly just a thought exercise so I'm not considering this seriously as a giant cohesive TL or something, just sort of "in general, what do you think?" There's no need to glue yourself to a history book and the more interesting butterfly possibilities the better to me.
*post thought: I put this in the pre-1900 section because I thought to do this you'd need an earlier PoD (since I thought this would have a lot to do with immigration to Canada/earlier policies) but if that's not appropriate I apologize.
