More Loyalists leave for Canada and elsewhere

sum sine regno

Seeing of how Canada, at least in its modern form was created by the American Revolution, and the settlement of Loyalists in parts of Quebec. I am wondering what sort of effects would there be on history if more loyalists left for Canada than OTL?

How would that change the countries involved?
 

sum sine regno

Probably, so I wonder if the Red River Rebellion was butterflied?

Anyways I think I should have done better on the op, but I am just asking out of historical interest.
 

Enigmajones

Cuāuhtemōc said:
Isn't Manitoba rather away from where most Loyalist settlement in Canada was concentrated in, i.e New Brunswick and Onatario?
Click to expand...

Its right next to Ontario actually. But he said more, so it was a possibility. But in reality all of the UEL that wanted to already left America for Canada.
 

RCAF Brat

Cuāuhtemōc said:
Isn't Manitoba rather away from where most Loyalist settlement in Canada was concentrated in, i.e New Brunswick and Onatario?
Click to expand...

Yes. Something on the order of a thousand miles. Southern Ontario (Upper Canada) and Manitoba are a long way apart, and until the 1880s there were no roads through northern Ontario.

You'd probably see heavier settlement in Upper Canada, Nova Scotia/New Brunswick and enough anglophone United Empire Loyalist settling into Lower Canada (Quebec) that the area becomes predominately anglophone.

Knock on effects would be a weaker anglophobic US, probably a second Anglo-American war by 1800 and a more southerly border for British North America.
 

sum sine regno

I had thought as much, but I wanted other people's opinions, and hopefully I can see more responses.

So even if this doesn't mean a more southerly border in general, I would assume that this means BNA gets to keep Cariboo, and all of Oregon?
 

Midas

Uh.. I have to disagree here. Manitoba isn't really a possibility until after the 1800s. Ontario and Nova Scotia would be a lot bigger earlier on with more Loyalist settlement, and it would lead to an earlier expansion into Manitoba but not expansion to there right away. The reason is hereww12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/img/map-2006-pop-density-canada-sz01-en.gif"]reason is here[/URL]. As you can see, most of Western Ontario is pretty sparsely settled with a large gaps between Manitoba and Ontario. Those gaps aren't just pure luck; that areas horrible to build on and hard to travel through.

RCAF Brat said:
You'd probably see heavier settlement in Upper Canada, Nova Scotia/New Brunswick and enough anglophone United Empire Loyalist settling into Lower Canada (Quebec) that the area becomes predominately anglophone.

Knock on effects would be a weaker anglophobic US, probably a second Anglo-American war by 1800 and a more southerly border for British North America.
Click to expand...

I highly, highly doubt this. Even if you assume that all 70,000ish end up in Canada (46,000 did IOTL), the probability they'd settle in Quebec (of which the only real part available for settlement was the Eastern Township, now entirely Francophone despite it not being the case at all 100 years ago) over the free land tracts in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario is... not very likely. Quebec still had its own civil code recognized by the British and was run by the Catholic Church. The seigneuries were kept and most of the land along the St. Lawrence was already owned by someone. Many of these UEL will not want to live in an occupied territory like that. What's more likely is you'll see an earlier boom in Ontario and Nova Scotia's population and faster growth in Ontario, with more Loyalist sentiment perhaps creating more conflict long-term with Quebec. Don't think it would affect the border more than anything else; Canada could've had a more southern border but the Brits chose against it. -shrug-
 

Domoviye

Midas said:
Uh.. I have to disagree here. Manitoba isn't really a possibility until after the 1800s. Ontario and Nova Scotia would be a lot bigger earlier on with more Loyalist settlement, and it would lead to an earlier expansion into Manitoba but not expansion to there right away. The reason is hereww12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/img/map-2006-pop-density-canada-sz01-en.gif"]reason is here[/URL]. As you can see, most of Western Ontario is pretty sparsely settled with a large gaps between Manitoba and Ontario. Those gaps aren't just pure luck; that areas horrible to build on and hard to travel through.



I highly, highly doubt this. Even if you assume that all 70,000ish end up in Canada (46,000 did IOTL), the probability they'd settle in Quebec (of which the only real part available for settlement was the Eastern Township, now entirely Francophone despite it not being the case at all 100 years ago) over the free land tracts in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario is... not very likely. Quebec still had its own civil code recognized by the British and was run by the Catholic Church. The seigneuries were kept and most of the land along the St. Lawrence was already owned by someone. Many of these UEL will not want to live in an occupied territory like that. What's more likely is you'll see an earlier boom in Ontario and Nova Scotia's population and faster growth in Ontario, with more Loyalist sentiment perhaps creating more conflict long-term with Quebec. Don't think it would affect the border more than anything else; Canada could've had a more southern border but the Brits chose against it. -shrug-
Click to expand...
Your absolutely correct about Western Ontario. I grew up there and its terrible for farming or travel. Even the mining is difficult without effective pumps and explosives. Manitoba will have to wait.
I could see Britain demanding a more southern border if there is a significant border dispute. Possibly Northern Michigan and more of the Red River Drainage area. But only if the Loyalists push for it and have started settling the land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top