AH challenge: USA buys western Canada

Eurofed · Oct 24, 2009

Your task is to devise a PoD (not messing with Union victory in the ACW, nor Italo-Prussian victory in 1866, nor Alaska Purchase, and preferentially not requiring an Anglo-American War) that would make the USA buy western Canada (Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Columbia, although Canada may keep those portions of Rupert's Land that later became northern Ontario and nortwestern Quebec IOTL) between the end of ACW and the formation of the Canadian Confederation.

vultan · Oct 24, 2009

Eurofed said:
Your task is to devise a PoD (not messing with Union victory in the ACW, nor Italo-Prussian victory in 1866, nor Alaska Purchase) that would make the USA buy western Canada (Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Columbia, although Canada may keep those portions of Rupert's Land that later became northern Ontario and nortwestern Quebec IOTL) between the end of ACW and the formation of the Canadian Confederation.

America decides to enforce the Annexation Bill of 1866 due to Britain's contemplation of helping the South. The result is a second Anglo-American War over the possession, where America does fairly well to to their large, battle-tested standing Army. However, Britain does much better at sea and in holding large population centers, so in the peace treaty, America is granted large parts of Western Canada comprising of Columbia, the Northwestern Territory, and portions of Rupert's Land, while some parts of southern and southwestern Rupert's Land are granted to Ontario and Quebec, respectively. America is also required to pay a sum of 15 million dollars for damages and ownership of the land, though. To partially compensate, Britain buys Greenland from the Danes and incorporates it into Canada.

Grey Wolf · Oct 24, 2009

vultan said:
America decides to enforce the Annexation Bill of 1866 due to Britain's contemplation of helping the South. The result is a second Anglo-American War over the possession, where America does fairly well to to their large, battle-tested standing Army. However, Britain does much better at sea and in holding large population centers, so in the peace treaty, America is granted large parts of Western Canada comprising of Columbia, the Northwestern Territory, and portions of Rupert's Land, while some parts of southern and southwestern Rupert's Land are granted to Ontario and Quebec, respectively. America is also required to pay a sum of 15 million dollars for damages and ownership of the land, though. To partially compensate, Britain buys Greenland from the Danes and incorporates it into Canada.

I like that - it would make a great TL

When ya writing it ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

vultan · Oct 24, 2009

Grey Wolf said:
I like that - it would make a great TL

When ya writing it ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

No, I suck at writing TLs. I just make up scenarios.

Eurofed · Oct 24, 2009

vultan said:
America decides to enforce the Annexation Bill of 1866 due to Britain's contemplation of helping the South. The result is a second Anglo-American War over the possession, where America does fairly well to to their large, battle-tested standing Army. However, Britain does much better at sea and in holding large population centers, so in the peace treaty, America is granted large parts of Western Canada comprising of Columbia, the Northwestern Territory, and portions of Rupert's Land, while some parts of southern and southwestern Rupert's Land are granted to Ontario and Quebec, respectively. America is also required to pay a sum of 15 million dollars for damages and ownership of the land, though. To partially compensate, Britain buys Greenland from the Danes and incorporates it into Canada.

A valid suggestion, but for my purposes, a one that does not require an Anglo-American War would be optimal, sorry if I forgot to mention it.

vultan · Oct 24, 2009

Eurofed said:
A valid suggestion, but for my purposes, a one that does not require an Anglo-American War would be optimal, sorry if I forgot to mention it.

How about threat of war?

Eurofed · Oct 24, 2009

vultan said:
How about threat of war?

What do you think about this scenario: ITTL the Fenian Raids are somehow, somewhat more successful. Britain is angered and makes war rumors against America, which it sees as the hand behind the Fenian puppet. America, resentful in turn about British support to Confederate privateering, makes its own war preparations. However, in both states, there are cooler heads, mindful of the costs of such a conflict, on the American side about challenging the RN and facing another major war just after the ACW, on the British side about facing the powerful Union Army which just performed spectacularly. They prevail, and a compromise is reached: Britain sells Columbia, Northwestern Territory, and most of Rupert's Land. America agrees to curb any domestic support for the Fenians and to drop the Alabama damage claims, in addition to paying for the land itself. Britain keeps those portions of Rupert's Land that lie northward of the two Canada colonies, later Ontario and Quebec, in order to safeguard their security.

Umbric Man · Oct 24, 2009

Works well enough for me, Eurofed, as well as for the obvious reason of the Canadians keeping some of Hudson/James Bay.

Eurofed · Oct 24, 2009

Umbric Man said:
Works well enough for me, Eurofed, as well as for the obvious reason of the Canadians keeping some of Hudson/James Bay.

Well, the motive behind this thread is to give western Canada (besides other bits afterwards, see below) to America to prop it up as a superpower counterbalance to the the Anglo-Italo-German Triple Alliance in the "different 1866" TL I developed in cooperation with Lord Kalvan (PoD is a satisfying Italian performance in the 1866 war, with leads to an harsher peace for and later collapse and partition of the Habsburg Empire, Italian intervention in the Franco-Prussian War, and the Italo-German bloc becoming the dominant power of continental Europe). My purpose here is not (necessarily) to have America swallow all of Canada, differently from my other "United States of the Americas and Oceania" TL. So to make Central-Atlantic rump Canada a bit more viable, I let them keep northern Ontario and Quebec. Besides, I'm not convinced that Britain would consent to sell those parts of Rupert's Land, as long as it keeps Upper and Lower Canada, except under duress, everyone can look at a map and realize that Ontario and Quebec sandwitched between American territory are not very viable nor secure. Western Canada is a different story, the Confederation may exist without any of it, albeit diminished.

Besides western Canada, and the OTL Alaska-Hawaii stuff, the Northern Purchase butterflies the USA into accepting the annexation of the Dominican Republic. ITTL the Spanish-American War becomes a part of WWI, which the American-British-Italo-German "Alliance" fights against the Franco-Spanish-Russian "Entente" (different names for the blocs, although) in the 1890s. America gets Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the French Caribbean out of it, and goes on to purchase the British and Dutch Guyanas. Later, when the Mexican Revolution occurs, the US have the revolutionaries' raids in the Southwest as a casus belli and starts the second Mexican-American War. It annexes northern Mexico (Baja, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahulia, Neuvo Leon, Tamaulipas, Sinaloa, Durango, Zacatecas, San Louis Potosi) and turns the rest into a protectorate. Later it also turns Panama and Nicaragua into protectorates to ensure enduring control of the Panama and Nicaragua Canals.

The Kiat · Oct 24, 2009

vultan said:
America decides to enforce the Annexation Bill of 1866 due to Britain's contemplation of helping the South. The result is a second Anglo-American War over the possession, where America does fairly well to to their large, battle-tested standing Army. However, Britain does much better at sea and in holding large population centers, so in the peace treaty, America is granted large parts of Western Canada comprising of Columbia, the Northwestern Territory, and portions of Rupert's Land, while some parts of southern and southwestern Rupert's Land are granted to Ontario and Quebec, respectively. America is also required to pay a sum of 15 million dollars for damages and ownership of the land, though. To partially compensate, Britain buys Greenland from the Danes and incorporates it into Canada.

That would be THIRD Anglo-American War; the first being the Revolution.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Oct 24, 2009

Eurofed said:
Your task is to devise a PoD (not messing with Union victory in the ACW, nor Italo-Prussian victory in 1866, nor Alaska Purchase, and preferentially not requiring an Anglo-American War) that would make the USA buy western Canada (Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Columbia, although Canada may keep those portions of Rupert's Land that later became northern Ontario and nortwestern Quebec IOTL) between the end of ACW and the formation of the Canadian Confederation.

The UK is not, NOT going to sell Canada, or any part thereof. Accepting money to compensate for a fait accompli, which would require a war the US won (more or less), that would be believable.

The US bought Alaska from a Russia that found it too far away, and they could use the money.
They bought Louisiana from France, 'cause France was going to lose it anyway (to the Americans, likely, to the Brits, if not)
They bought the Gadsden purchase 'cause it wasn't doing Mexico much good, and the US could just take it anyway.
They bought the Virgin Islands because they weren't going to let the Germans use it as a base, the Danes were not terribly interested in staying as a colonial power, and the US might have taken them by force if not sold.

To get Britain to actually sell any significant part of Canada or Australia or NZ, you have to have her smashed to being no longer the British Empire. Successful Sealion or something....

The British Empire is not a minor power that can be bullied into 'selling' territory by the US.

Mike Stearns · Oct 24, 2009

Eurofed said:
Your task is to devise a PoD (not messing with Union victory in the ACW, nor Italo-Prussian victory in 1866, nor Alaska Purchase, and preferentially not requiring an Anglo-American War) that would make the USA buy western Canada (Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Columbia, although Canada may keep those portions of Rupert's Land that later became northern Ontario and nortwestern Quebec IOTL) between the end of ACW and the formation of the Canadian Confederation.

That's not hard. Delay the building of the Canadian transcontinental railroad. One of the reasons it was built was because large numbers of American ranchers and farmers were moving north from Okhlahoma, Kansas and the Dakotas and settling around Calgary. The British and Canadian governments were afraid that what happened in the Oregon Territory, ie statehood or war, would happen again. The railway was built to enforce Canadian soverignty in west. If you can delay the building of the railway, then the result is a bigger United States and a rump Canada. Considering that John A MacDonald was thrown out of office over the railroad, a significant delay in construction isn't that hard to engineer.

Eurofed · Oct 24, 2009

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
The UK is not, NOT going to sell Canada, or any part thereof. Accepting money to compensate for a fait accompli, which would require a war the US won (more or less), that would be believable.

The US bought Alaska from a Russia that found it too far away, and they could use the money.
They bought Louisiana from France, 'cause France was going to lose it anyway (to the Americans, likely, to the Brits, if not)
They bought the Gadsden purchase 'cause it wasn't doing Mexico much good, and the US could just take it anyway.
They bought the Virgin Islands because they weren't going to let the Germans use it as a base, the Danes were not terribly interested in staying as a colonial power, and the US might have taken them by force if not sold.

To get Britain to actually sell any significant part of Canada or Australia or NZ, you have to have her smashed to being no longer the British Empire. Successful Sealion or something....

The British Empire is not a minor power that can be bullied into 'selling' territory by the US.

The fact the British chose to cede Oregon graciously rather than facing a war (against a much weaker US than in 1866-67, and busy in Mexico) puts the lie to your claims. Besides, in 1866-67, Quebec, Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces are the true Canada, which your claims would apply to. Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Columbia are a huge stretch of empty land, and they are not any more truly necessary to make Canada viable than Oregon was.

Thande · Oct 24, 2009

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
The US bought Alaska from a Russia that found it too far away, and they could use the money.
They bought Louisiana from France, 'cause France was going to lose it anyway (to the Americans, likely, to the Brits, if not)

In those cases, in the words of Norman Clegg, it's not that the Americans bought those territories - they were sold those territories. Both Napoleonic France and Imperial Russia wanted to sell up and desperately wanted to keep those territories from falling into British hands, and the Americans were (apparently) the lesser of two evils.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Oct 24, 2009

Eurofed said:
The fact the British chose to cede Oregon graciously rather than facing a war (against a much weaker US than in 1866-67, and busy in Mexico) puts the lie to your claims. Besides, in 1866-67, Quebec, Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces are the true Canada, which your claims would apply to. Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Columbia are a huge stretch of empty land, and they are not any more truly necessary to make Canada viable than Oregon was.

But Oregon was disputed territory, and it was split amicably. It was not sold, so it does not 'put a lie' to the claim. It reinforces my claim, I would say.

It's not that the lands are part of Canada that's important, it's that they're part of the British Empire.

Eurofed · Oct 24, 2009

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
But Oregon was disputed territory,

So it was the whole of Canada. See "Annexation Bill of 1866".

and it was split amicably.

Just as here. Britain gets the land east of Lake Winnipeg, America gets the land to the west of it.

It was not sold,

Sold, ceded, not relevant at all.

It's not that the lands are part of Canada that's important, it's that they're part of the British Empire.

First, at the PoD's moment, those lands are not British colonies, but property of the HBC, a private company that only has indirect ties with the Briitsh government, so the loss of face in selling them is much diminished. Second, from that PoV, Oregon too was an indirect British property, yet it was ceded. There are at the time very few British subjects that would find themselves American citizens if those lands are sold by the HBC, they are selling a land concession that was mostly owned for a trade that is in blatant decline at the time. America wants the land because it plans to fill it with settlers, a purpose that is at best halfehearted and peripheral on Britain's part (the British were kickass traders, but luckluster population colonizers, their colonies only really managed well at that when they got political autonomy).

dreadnought jenkins · Oct 25, 2009

Eurofed said:
So it was the whole of Canada. See "Annexation Bill of 1866".

No! The annexation bill would garner no international support and would be a dangerous affront to the British.

I'm in total agreement here with Dathi. Britain WOULD not sell the west to America.

Eurofed said:
Just as here. Britain gets the land east of Lake Winnipeg, America gets the land to the west of it.

Sold, ceded, not relevant at all.

Very relevant. The modern Canadian-American border was settled in the treaty of 1818 which ended all American claims to the land north of the 49th parrallel and east of the rockies. Oregon was in dispute because of continuing confliction claims to the region due to each nations expiditions to the Oregon.

This of couse led to a mostly amicable split between the two nations settled by treaty, not sale.

Eurofed said:
First, at the PoD's moment, those lands are not British colonies, but property of the HBC, a private company that only has indirect ties with the Briitsh government, so the loss of face in selling them is much diminished. Second, from that PoV, Oregon too was an indirect British property, yet it was ceded. There are at the time very few British subjects that would find themselves American citizens if those lands are sold by the HBC, they are selling a land concession that was mostly owned for a trade that is in blatant decline at the time. America wants the land because it plans to fill it with settlers, a purpose that is at best halfehearted and peripheral on Britain's part (the British were kickass traders, but luckluster population colonizers, their colonies only really managed well at that when they got political autonomy).

The ties were far more than indirect, and by the time your POD, the politicians in proto Canada already have designs on the whole area. The area was viewed as British, and the loss of which would be an un-acceptable loss of face to the world's pre-eminent power.

Threatening them would be even worse. The British would not accept such a significant loss of land in the face of illegal ultimatums.

Aranfan · Oct 25, 2009

Eurofed said:
Your task is to devise a PoD (not messing with Union victory in the ACW, nor Italo-Prussian victory in 1866, nor Alaska Purchase, and preferentially not requiring an Anglo-American War) that would make the USA buy western Canada (Rupert's Land, Northwestern Territory, and Columbia, although Canada may keep those portions of Rupert's Land that later became northern Ontario and nortwestern Quebec IOTL) between the end of ACW and the formation of the Canadian Confederation.

I'm wracking my brain, but I'm not seeing this happening without an Anglo-America war that America wins. As others have said, that area was considered "Canadian" by the actual Canadians.

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan · Oct 25, 2009

First off, I don't really think you need the USA to get Western Canada, because the USA was pretty much a superpower in OTL and even if you wanted them to be more powerful, I'm not sure Western Canada will make much of a difference in terms of power.

Secondly, here is a pretty good idea. I think you could have an alternate Civil War where the British give considerable more aid to the Confederates, and almost going to war with the USA. This causes a major anti-British backlash in the USA, and in an effort to stop British intervention, Lincoln gives the Emancipation Proclamation, and portrays the war as an anti-slavery crusade. This in turn causes an major anti-war backlash in Britain, which begins to end the aid, and the USA wins the Civil War. However, the American public is not placated, and small border incidents create another war scare in Britain and the USA. As this is 1866, the British are already facing a major upheaval in Europe, and don't want a war in the United States bogging them down. Furthermore, after the American's 'anti-slaver crusade', which the British were on the wrong side of, there is no stomach in Britain for a war with the USA. This leads to an alternate Treaty of Washington, which grants the USA the right to traverse Western Canada in order to have a land border with Alaska. As time goes on, however, more and more Americans are living in the Western region of Canada, and by the 1880's they outnumber the Canadians. In 1887, the USA buys Western Canada.

dreadnought jenkins · Oct 25, 2009

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:
First off, I don't really think you need the USA to get Western Canada, because the USA was pretty much a superpower in OTL and even if you wanted them to be more powerful, I'm not sure Western Canada will make much of a difference in terms of power.

Secondly, here is a pretty good idea. I think you could have an alternate Civil War where the British give considerable more aid to the Confederates, and almost going to war with the USA. This causes a major anti-British backlash in the USA, and in an effort to stop British intervention, Lincoln gives the Emancipation Proclamation, and portrays the war as an anti-slavery crusade. This in turn causes an major anti-war backlash in Britain, which begins to end the aid, and the USA wins the Civil War. However, the American public is not placated, and small border incidents create another war scare in Britain and the USA. As this is 1866, the British are already facing a major upheaval in Europe, and don't want a war in the United States bogging them down. Furthermore, after the American's 'anti-slaver crusade', which the British were on the wrong side of, there is no stomach in Britain for a war with the USA. This leads to an alternate Treaty of Washington, which grants the USA the right to traverse Western Canada in order to have a land border with Alaska. As time goes on, however, more and more Americans are living in the Western region of Canada, and by the 1880's they outnumber the Canadians. In 1887, the USA buys Western Canada.

That situation fails as such: By 1887, the west is already Canadian and Britain actualy CAN'T sell the west anymore. They would need Canadian consent (since it is a internal, not external issue) and Ottawa would never consent. And I mean never.