Assuming we end up with the following northern US border, what are the effects?
(NB shamelessly stolen from here as interested in results
)
(NB shamelessly stolen from here as interested in results
)Different Northern US Border
- Thread starter The Professor
- Start date
Well Canada stands to benefit in a number of ways. For one, building the railways take longer, but becomes easier because you can now build south of Lake Superior. You've also given Canada a second deep water port on the Pacific coast since the border now runs well to the south of Seattle, or its equivalent, in this OTL. It also means that what's left of Washington state will probably be folded into Oregon or Idaho.
Well some of my thoughts:
1)the US still retains +90% of their 'Grain Belt' (i.e. the regions where you need dryland farming but winter wheat isn't crucial), so the economic effects from that won't be very pronounced, and they should fill up with settlers in roughly the same rate as OTL (peaking in 1890).
2) With all the Northern Woods now on the Canadian side you might see a bifurcation in immigrant ethnicities - Canada is seen as a place where Scandinavians go whilst the US is more German-Polish-Irish, and this perception obviously feedbacks to amplify the effect.
3) With the metals of the Upper Peninsula and Minnesota in Canadian hands you'll probably see a shift in industrial development - a bigger industrial zone in Southern Ontario and on the Lake Huron coast. America will still be using the majority of those resources as Canada can't absorb them all, but since they'll go through Canada first and with a slight mark-up the Great Lakes Industrial belt will shift east - more development will occur in Detriot-Erie-Buffalo Arc (where the materials exit Canada) and less in the western states of Illinois, Indiania and Michigan (outside of the Chicago transport hub) which will instead have a more Wisconsin like Agriculture and lighter manufacturing basis. With less states in the Rust Belt to influence washington you may see industrial development in other parts of the US sooner.
4) The CPR and plains development will occur much earlier leading to a bigger economy and population. The Upper Peninisula is now the major Canadian transport artery and will likely see much more growth than its third of a million current population.
5)Greater development of California now as Americas only major pacific seaboard as Oregon has rather fewer good deepwater ports. The US may press for Baja California and lands north-west of the Concepcion river to give Arizona a coast (as a mega Gadsen purchase rather than the seizing of numerious states seen in many Americawanks)
1)the US still retains +90% of their 'Grain Belt' (i.e. the regions where you need dryland farming but winter wheat isn't crucial), so the economic effects from that won't be very pronounced, and they should fill up with settlers in roughly the same rate as OTL (peaking in 1890).
2) With all the Northern Woods now on the Canadian side you might see a bifurcation in immigrant ethnicities - Canada is seen as a place where Scandinavians go whilst the US is more German-Polish-Irish, and this perception obviously feedbacks to amplify the effect.
3) With the metals of the Upper Peninsula and Minnesota in Canadian hands you'll probably see a shift in industrial development - a bigger industrial zone in Southern Ontario and on the Lake Huron coast. America will still be using the majority of those resources as Canada can't absorb them all, but since they'll go through Canada first and with a slight mark-up the Great Lakes Industrial belt will shift east - more development will occur in Detriot-Erie-Buffalo Arc (where the materials exit Canada) and less in the western states of Illinois, Indiania and Michigan (outside of the Chicago transport hub) which will instead have a more Wisconsin like Agriculture and lighter manufacturing basis. With less states in the Rust Belt to influence washington you may see industrial development in other parts of the US sooner.
4) The CPR and plains development will occur much earlier leading to a bigger economy and population. The Upper Peninisula is now the major Canadian transport artery and will likely see much more growth than its third of a million current population.
5)Greater development of California now as Americas only major pacific seaboard as Oregon has rather fewer good deepwater ports. The US may press for Baja California and lands north-west of the Concepcion river to give Arizona a coast (as a mega Gadsen purchase rather than the seizing of numerious states seen in many Americawanks
)Minneapolis and St Paul would be alot different, from the map it seems that St Paul would be in Canada , while mpls would be in the states. what would be wierd is that the reason St Paul is where its at is cause its almost as far as steam boats could go back then, maybe Fort Snelling (confluence of Minnesota and Mississippi) becomes the main US port city? i dont know my coffee isnt done yet..
Assuming we end up with the following northern US border, what are the effects?
(NB shamelessly stolen from here as interested in results
Would you mind sharing the basemap for this? It looks to be quite useful.
Since my understanding of USA state formation is roughly population + free-slave balance, I'd guess that the northern part of OTL Idaho would be part of TTL Washington but I'm not sure how a slightly different ACW would play out assuming minimalist changes to the TL..
St Paul is on the Canadian side, as is all that bank of the river, the border is a few miles south of the St Anthony Falls with the specific reasoning of BNA gaining a foothold on the navigable portion of the Mississippi as per the Treaty of Paris...so not wierd
.Fort Snelling would still be looking across the river at Canada, so I expect Red Wing or something would become the major US city port for the Northern Rivers.
Regarding Washington state, it'd probably remain part of Idaho (or more accurately, Idaho would remain part of washington) as per the OTL washington territory - now set to win the 'Most irregular state in the union' award. (with maybe the region south of the Colombia staying with Oregon). Or since the changed borders would probably butterfly the Montana boundaries as well you might get a more regular and rational shape...
Hehe.
Throwing some musing on state and province borders out there:
-The Canadian Plains provinces are thin and tall so that each one both intersects the firsts CPR and the northern woodlands (important for settlement materials).
-Illinois still has 20+ miles of Michigan coast, Chicago now is evenly spread between three states.
Its one of the numerious resources produced by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Available here: NA-Watersheds.gif
Available here: NA-Watersheds.gif
Susano
Banned
Nwo if only that map had happned to have altitude an dlongitude lines on land, it would just perfect for alternate country and state borders in North America
Nwo if only that map had happned to have altitude an dlongitude lines on land, it would just perfect for alternate country and state borders in North America
But you can interpolate the sea-based lat/long onto the land with a simple curve tool.
VECTORS, BABY.
Susano
Banned
But you can interpolate the sea-based lat/long onto the land with a simple curve tool.
VECTORS, BABY.
Vectors? What are those?
After all my primary mapmaking prorgamm is called MSPaint
Vectors? What are those?
After all my primary mapmaking prorgamm is called MSPaint
Fine, the curve tool in MSPaint, fudged just enough to make it look right.
At least use GIMP so you don't have to scrawl directly onto the map!