During the American Civil War the militarization of American society alarmed the British to the extent of encouraging her colonies to work together for the common defense. Charlottetown Conference was conceived as a union between the Maritime colonies but was joined by the Province of Canada leading later to the Quebec Conference, the London Conference and finally Canadian Confederation. So WI through either better leadership or technological breakthrough the Americans avoided civil war, does this merely delay progress or stop it whole heartedly.
No American Civil War, effects on Canada
- Thread starter danwild6
- Start date
Keenir
Banned
weren't the Fenians (invaders at the end of the US Civil War) part of what motivated Canada to unify into Canada?
usertron2020
Donor
Canadian unity was inevitable. You have to take into account their fanatical sense of nationalism.
Just kidding. Still, it was going to happen. It'll just take longer is all.
Just kidding. Still, it was going to happen. It'll just take longer is all.???Why?Canadian unity was inevitable. You have to take into account their fanatical sense of nationalism.
The Maritimers were really not particularly interested in 'Canada' taking them over. But due to British pushing and being able to palm off their debts on the Feds, they eventually joined.
Without a US Civil War and the huge and activist armies, I think it's entirely possible that OTL's Canada would not form.
Oh, the Maritimes are likely to confederate under British pressure (although Newfoundland stayed out until 1949...)
Without a wider union of the Maritimes and 'Canada', BC isn't entirely likely to join either one. And without the wider union, especially with BC, there won't be a CPR, which means that the prairies will likely be tied to the US by economics and population.
I see, as an entirely reasonable prospect, 4 British Dominions - BC, Canada, Maritimes, and Newfoundland (OK, 5 if Bermuda is North American).
David S Poepoe
Banned
Canadian unity was inevitable. You have to take into account their fanatical sense of nationalism.
I think you are right, much like the colonies of Australia were eventually united. The spark most likely would be the construction of a transcontinental railroad. I don't think one is removing the possibility of hostilities between Britain and the United States in a non-ACW TL and Canada, or the North American colonies will be the easiest way for the US to scare Britain.
The Canadian transcontinental railroad was built to head off de facto US annexation of western Canada. This motivation will still exist (and may be stronger) ITTL, so it will still be built. Canada will still form, although the Maritimes might not be in it.
1) The CPR was built primarily because BC demanded it as a condition of joining Canada
2) OTL, the CPR almost went under a couple of times, and would have if the Second Riel Rebellion hadn't broken out. In a smaller Canada (i.e. just Ontario and Quebec, which is a likely consequence of no ACW), the money to finance such a hugely expensive RR isn't going to be there.
3) Yes, no doubt A reason for the CPR was to keep the US from gobbling up the prairies, but that wasn't the original reason. And I doubt funds could be found to build it for that reason alone.
Edit: building a RR across the prairies is middling trivial. Building the CPR through the Rockies was tough, but doable. Building a RR across the Precambrian Shield north of Superior was an act of financial madness (although political necessity). Granite followed by muskeg followed by.... If there ISN'T a RR across the shield, though, you just hand the west to the US.
archaeogeek
Banned
Labrador already fell under Newfoundland at the time anyway, the name change to "Newfoundland and Labrador" was less than ten years ago, although if it goes bankrupt in 1949 as OTL, Canada ITTL may well ask to buy it (IOTL, Canada supported Quebec's Labrador claims on official maps until Newfoundland became a province). If Britain doesn't try again to pawn off the entire dominion to Canada instead.
This Canada could well have an interesting dynamic, as it would remain majority french longer, especially if the division affects immigration. I suspect negotiations over who gets Manitoba/the West would get rather tense if they don't agree to split it up, and anything further west than Manitoba might not end up canadian at all in those circumstances.
I actually still think they'd move to confederate, especially if tensions still remain in the U.S. The Civil War prodded negotiations, it didn't force them. There was a natural inertia towards consolidating economic interests, especially between the Maritimes and the Province of Canada (Ontario & Quebec at the time were united). It also depends on how the war was avoided. If there was a lot of sabre-rattling but the South eventually conceded, or they set a date for emancipation it's going to alter Canada differently compared to if there was a coup or something. Nonetheless, you might initially see less provinces join confederation: perhaps just P.E.I. and Canada to start, with more and more jumping on board as confederation gets off. Iotl Nova Scotia was fairly reluctant to join and NFLD obviously didn't until the late 1940s; you might see something a bit more similar ittl, but I think the moment one of the Maritimes jumps on board many others will.
An interesting butterfly is opposition to an American-style senate, spearheaded by the Maritime provinces and leader of the Clear Grits George Brown (also founded the Globe & Mail), might not be so virulent. They really feared the stalling of the American senate, but were also pretty aware of regional interests in the country. Rather than a weak appointed senate, Canada might end up with an elected, effective senate based regionally (maybe a bit weighted to equally include the Maritimes). This would have gigantic future political effects and completely alter the political dynamic of the country. No doubt it would lead to a Constitutional crisis when the Senate turns down a budget in the 20th century (like Australia).
An interesting butterfly is opposition to an American-style senate, spearheaded by the Maritime provinces and leader of the Clear Grits George Brown (also founded the Globe & Mail), might not be so virulent. They really feared the stalling of the American senate, but were also pretty aware of regional interests in the country. Rather than a weak appointed senate, Canada might end up with an elected, effective senate based regionally (maybe a bit weighted to equally include the Maritimes). This would have gigantic future political effects and completely alter the political dynamic of the country. No doubt it would lead to a Constitutional crisis when the Senate turns down a budget in the 20th century
(like Australia).67th Tigers
Banned
Why? The US have to war against the most powerful state on the planet for the prairies...
Not really, if 90% of the population were American, and 95% of the commerce, why on earth would Britain go to war?
Britain was pretty realistic about accepting facts on the ground, e.g. Oregon country.
Of course, the US isn't going to take it until there's a RR from Fargo to Winnipeg, and US settlers have settled most of the land, so ... say 1910 or so?
I mean, as it was, about 1/3 of Grandad's neighbours were people up from the States. (Far more on farms, and more in his vicinity than many, but still...)
archaeogeek
Banned
If there's no railroad, there's no settlement of the prairies: in 1867, the combined population of the west is less than that of Washington.
archaeogeek
Banned
In 1867 the territory is not under a country but under a trade corporation; it would be easy to bypass british claims in the region and, in fact, it's exactly why the colonies that became the province of British Columbia were founded: they were not just because suddenly the Columbia valley seemed attracting, it's because all of a sudden unsettled and just claimed territory the empire was eyeing had now 20.000 people living on its borders and considering expanding north of it: British colonization in north america (and the americas in general) in the 19th century was reactive, if the americans come before the British, there will be no fighting because "the hudson's bay company used to hunt there" is not a convincing enough title to the land if the reality happens to be that all of a sudden they end up having american settlers spreading there. The best they'll hope to do is simply settle them there eventually and hope they don't go filibustering.
So no, no fighting, especially not when the only country with effective land access to the region is the united states. And since the Michif aren't on friendly terms with the crown, expect a guerilla campaign on top, in a region of the world away from any significant supply lines: Saint-Paul at the time has more people than the combined population of the Canadian prairies.
Besides it's not like the crown would ultimately care all that much, it's not 1857 anymore, in 1867, they're trying to get rid of Canada.