Alternate States in a larger USA

[JJohnson]

I have a question concerning states and their development. Let's say that the US starts in 1783, including Quebec/Canada, Nova Scotia, but not Newfoundland. The UK keeps Rupert's Land. How do you think the US would evolve statewise?

I asked on amazon.com the author of 'How the States Got their Shapes' about a US Quebec, and he said it would roughly contain all the then-present French speakers. What would those boundaries be?

I'm assuming west of the Ottawa river would seek separate statehood so they can continue to speak English. Where would a reasonable border be drawn? And would New Brunswick form out of Nova Scotia? Would Prince Edward Island be its own state or part of Nova Scotia?

I'm operating on the assumption that the UK keeps Rupert's Land long enough that the 49° parallel operates for most of the US/Rupert's Land border, and to borrow Union and Liberty's idea, Oregon Country takes the 52° border. That would give a 3° parallel so that OC can form 3 3° tall states, which seems in-line with how the US created states to be roughly equal and roughly self-sufficient in resources. At some later point, maybe the US purchases Rupert's Land from the UK, perhaps in Lend-Lease or some equivalent program, then giving the US most of North America.

I'm looking for ideas on how to divide up the territory the US gains north of its OTL border, given the rough timeline:

1783: US forms out of all British North America colonies aside from Newfoundland island and Rupert's Land; US also hold Bermuda and Bahamas after successfully capturing them in the Revolutionary War.
*Would these islands be states or territories?
1803: Louisiana Purchase
1819: Adams-Onis gives Florida to the US.
1846: Oregon Treaty - Oregon extends to 52° parallel for the US.
1848: Texas and Mexican Cession (including Republic of Rio Grande and land down to Durango/Sinaloa), Cuba sold to US (continental US completed at this point); Cuba would become a state at some point for the South to counter northern states, I assume somewhere along the line.
1867: Alaska purchased by US
1898: Hawaii annexed, Spanish-American War, US gains Puerto Rico, Guam, Phillipines.

If this were the case, how would Rupert's Land evolve, settler-wise, with the US practically controlling Great Lakes access? I'm sure they'd have a treaty provision for access to Rupert's Land for the British traders, but would British citizens emigrate there, or go to the United States? About when do you think the territory itself would become sellable to the US?

 

[Swan Station]

While it's likely that the government will prefer a certain size for states, each state admission, territory organization and land ordinance is a different event in the timeline. Each one is a result of what's already happened in the timeline, and each one can cause further events in the timeline. In that way, they should be each worked out to the same detail as all other events in the timeline, keeping in mind causes and effects.

For example, I don't think I would assume anything about the 49th parallel until I were to work out the result of an alt-war of 1812. I wouldn't even assume that there are states out West until I work out whether the eastern states give up their land claims, and whether there's an equivalent to the Northwest Ordinance. Considering the size of Quebec's land claims at the time, there's another huge party involved in the discussions of those western claims. And the NW Ordinance depends greatly on how those land claims get worked out.

 

[vuun]

OP has US expansion far too closely resemblng OT.
Quebec definitely has French-language rights--in fact I could see "freedom of language" being included in the constitution. Which could have interesting implications in the rights of various immigrant groups farther down the road.
War of 1812 just might not happen without the British in Canada.
I don't see the US acquiring Rupert's Land, at least not for a long time. It's mostly taiga, not a very useful land for settlement, and very sparsely populated to this day. The US certainly can't take it from Britain militarily, and I doubt the British will be selling it to the US either.
On the other hand, the US has a few more northern (read: no slavery) states than in OT, so the US could be more aggressive to the south than in OT to get even more slave states. Or the southerners may never even have hope for such balance, leading to a north-south conflict considerably earlier than in OT. Different political circumstances may allow the south to peacefully secede, potentially inspiring Quebec to separate as well.

 

[Umbric Man]

If Delaware and the New England states got to be their own states instead of being with Pennsylvania or combining into a New England state, then PEI can be its own state. It existed as a separate entity. New Brunswick will NOT form. It came to be because Loyalists didn't want to associate with the neutral Yankees of Nova Scotia.

------

Quebec's borders? The 1763 borders with some adjustments:

-It borders Rupert's land to the north for simplicity (otherwise, we have a no-man's land between the actual 1763 northern QC border and Rupert's Land).
-Eastwards to the St. John River of Quebec (Newfoundland having all of the Labrador watershed until 1774, including east of that).
-Southwards as OTL.
-And westwards to the Ottawa River. I say this than the western Nipissing Line it had in reality because all the states that bordered the Old West ended their western borders at natural points once they ceded land - the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland at the Appalachian Mountains, New York at Lake Ontario, and Georgia with the Chattahoochee River. Thus QC ending at the Ottawa to the west and then a straight line up to Hudson Bay (ala OTL) works if it gives up western claims (and why wouldn't it if it's part of the USA).

By using these borders Quebec State is still a bit larger than the largest of the thirteen colonies, but not by too much. It thus does not look weird on maps.

 

[JJohnson]

If Delaware and the New England states got to be their own states instead of being with Pennsylvania or combining into a New England state, then PEI can be its own state. It existed as a separate entity. New Brunswick will NOT form. It came to be because Loyalists didn't want to associate with the neutral Yankees of Nova Scotia.

------

Quebec's borders? The 1763 borders with some adjustments:

-It borders Rupert's land to the north for simplicity (otherwise, we have a no-man's land between the actual 1763 northern QC border and Rupert's Land).
-Eastwards to the St. John River of Quebec (Newfoundland having all of the Labrador watershed until 1774, including east of that).
-Southwards as OTL.
-And westwards to the Ottawa River. I say this than the western Nipissing Line it had in reality because all the states that bordered the Old West ended their western borders at natural points once they ceded land - the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland at the Appalachian Mountains, New York at Lake Ontario, and Georgia with the Chattahoochee River. Thus QC ending at the Ottawa to the west and then a straight line up to Hudson Bay (ala OTL) works if it gives up western claims (and why wouldn't it if it's part of the USA).

By using these borders Quebec State is still a bit larger than the largest of the thirteen colonies, but not by too much. It thus does not look weird on maps.

Hmm. That sounds pretty reasonable there. Would you or another be able to map that out? I'm a bit unclear on the eastern border you set out.

 

[Reddog794]

Just a point of fact, Nova Scotians were never refered to as Yankees, they were known as "Bluenosers". You might as well call them Upper-Canadians. It was the United Empire Loyalists, that were deemed the Yankees in Nova Scotia.

 

[thekingsguard]

For the story I'm working on, this is the border for the absorbed Canada. You got going east to west, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Gitchegumme, Manitoba, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Athabasca and Columbia. Divides the old provinces enough that they look new and are still politically viable.

 

[Reddog794]

You don't even need to include the whole of Northern Que, to Quebec. Traditionally that area was part of Ruperts Land. By rights, the Quebecois only have traditional rights to the Lower St. Lawrence Valley. The north could be called Ungava, in future development.

I like how you split the Praries, as it's always bothered me how they did the Man-Sask-Albt border. I understand it, it just feels... wierd to look at.

Would you even still have to have Alberta? It will make Saskatchewan a coked out Texas though, if the border simply ran to the Rockies.

Is the brown block Cherokee?

 

[thekingsguard]

You don't even need to include the whole of Northern Que, to Quebec. Traditionally that area was part of Ruperts Land. By rights, the Quebecois only have traditional rights to the Lower St. Lawrence Valley. The north could be called Ungava, in future development.

I like how you split the Praries, as it's always bothered me how they did the Man-Sask-Albt border. I understand it, it just feels... wierd to look at.

Would you even still have to have Alberta? It will make Saskatchewan a coked out Texas though, if the border simply ran to the Rockies.

Is the brown block Cherokee?

Yeah, and I dont imagine the USA would have much incentive to retain Canadian provinces.

I'd think Athabasca would be the frosty Texan analogue here.

Brown block is a Communist CSA Remnant Read this for details.

 

[JJohnson]

So, assuming Rupert's Land stays British, but the US holds "Canada" and Nova Scotia, we would get at least 4 states: Nova Scotia, St John's Island, Quebec, and a state from the peninsula of OTL Ontario (ideas for a name?).

These states take the majority of land that gets densely populated OTL out of British North America, leaving Rupert's Land up there with much less desirable land. I would speculate RL doesn't break a million settlers for most of the 19th century, giving it a much lower return on the Hudson Bay Company's investment there.

Would it be reasonable to assume the 49th parallel still be chosen as the border between RL and the Louisiana Purchase? I don't see much reason to change it, at least for a few decades, while this version of the US probably gets distracted by the north/south debate, and the south wanting more states for "balance."

With 4 (and possibly 6...Labrador, and the western Ontario bit could be made states later) more northern states in the mix, do you think the southerners would push for more land in, say, Cuba or Mexico, if there is a Mexican-American war?

 

[vuun]

The state equivalent to OTL Ontario gets called "Canada"
As for the North-South balance issue, several possibilities:
a. The South is outnumbered and can never hope to achieve the "balance" of states it did in OT. Possibly resulting in an early secession of the southern states, which may or may not be accepted.
b. Slavery never gets abolished in the OT Northwest Territory, possibly resulting in a slave state in OT southern IL/IN. I think it's reasonable to assume northern states phase out slavery similar to OT, but perhaps the dividing line between north and south ends up farther north than OT.
c. As above poster said, more aggressive expansion to the south.

 

[JJohnson]

The state equivalent to OTL Ontario gets called "Canada"
As for the North-South balance issue, several possibilities:
a. The South is outnumbered and can never hope to achieve the "balance" of states it did in OT. Possibly resulting in an early secession of the southern states, which may or may not be accepted.
b. Slavery never gets abolished in the OT Northwest Territory, possibly resulting in a slave state in OT southern IL/IN. I think it's reasonable to assume northern states phase out slavery similar to OT, but perhaps the dividing line between north and south ends up farther north than OT.
c. As above poster said, more aggressive expansion to the south.

I'm thinking that C would be the option to go with for a timeline. I'm thinking the southerners are going to push for more expansion, making Louisiana Purchase more likely, and if there is a Mex-American War, have them want more southern states, even if it's not really feasible for them to be slave-holding. I could see a theoretical butterfly effect bringing Cuba, Republic of the Rio Grande, and possibly even a Durango state into the Union, but when the expansion stops and the southerners have trouble filling that space, and see popular sovereignty take off, around then we'll see some form of civil war.

I was considering a possible timeline giving the US the Rio Grande Republic, Oregon Country to the 52° parallel, a Durango state, and Cuba, and after the 19th century, possibly have Rupert's Land fall to the US in exchange for a lend-lease program if Europe still drags itself into a war. At the minimum, the US would come out of the 19th century with about 11 additional states or so: Quebec, St John's Island, "Canada," Nova Scotia, Cuba, Bermuda, Rio Grande, Durango, South California, Columbia, Sonora, and possibly a Puerto Rico and/or Virgin Islands state, and maybe one or two more.

 

[Tallest Skil]

a. The South is outnumbered and can never hope to achieve the "balance" of states it did in OT.

You're joking, right? Of course they can. All that has to happen is we get the same amount of land we were SUPPOSED to get after the Mexican-American war IOTL.

Our ambassador was ordered to take all the land down to the Tropic of Cancer, but he went easy on the Mexicans and we didn't find out until it was too late.

 

[metastasis_d]

Does Bermuda have enough people to make a state? I guess you could butterfly away the Ordinance Act, or lower the population threshold to become a state. Then again, I'm not sure how much that played a part in a territory's admission to the Union as a state after the Northwest Territories of the US... All I know is that it set the bar at 60,000 at the end of the 18th century, and Bermuda only just has that many now, and had less than 50k 50 years ago or so.

Also, what area would your Durango state consist of? Who would own Chihuahua, and who would own Sinaloa?

 

[Parker51]

Also, please do not forget that without Loyalists moving to what is now Ontario, and actions by them and other English Speaking Canadians, the area we know as Western Canada would have retained a considerable number of French Speakers. Also, I question that the Acadians would have emigrated to Louisiana. So, how many U.S. States would have become French speaking majority? And would they be more like Quebec, or more like Louisiana?

 

[metastasis_d]

I've always liked dual-language US TLs. I imagine that having a society that is used to using 2 languages (especially if it also maintains a majority or large minority in Louisiana, Acadia, Quebec, etm.) opens the door for Spanish being used as well, making future integration of any territory gained from Mexico easier.

 

[tinfoil]

assuming this timeline still has the French Indian wars, then presumably the Cajuns will still be forced out of Nova Scotia, as this was way before the AR.

If the 'Loyalists' are butterflied away by having them join the rebellion, than population growth in OTL 'English Canada' will be severely delayed in this timeline.

OTL Ontario, Montreal, Nova Scotia/NB would lose a huge influx of folk, so the 'Northern territories' would likely have been empty enough to delay pushes for coast-to-coast statehood until well into the 19th century.

Look at Maine. Just because you fought against England did not make you a state right away.

 

[voss749]

Other States

Cuba- McKinley offered to buy cuba from spain in 1897
Puerto Rico
Greenland
East Florida.

 

[thekingsguard]

Kinda sad my Canadian borders got so little attention

 

[JJohnson]

Also, please do not forget that without Loyalists moving to what is now Ontario, and actions by them and other English Speaking Canadians, the area we know as Western Canada would have retained a considerable number of French Speakers. Also, I question that the Acadians would have emigrated to Louisiana. So, how many U.S. States would have become French speaking majority? And would they be more like Quebec, or more like Louisiana?

You're right. West of the Ottawa river, that region was still part of Quebec as the "Province of Quebec" until 1791 OTL. The OTL states ceded their land claims to the federal government between 1781 and 1787 in return for the assumption of state war debt by the federal government, giving the OTL boundaries.

I would assume this would happen pretty much the same as OTL, with Quebec giving up its Ohio river valley claims in exchange for assumption of its war debts, leaving it mostly north of the Great Lakes.

I can imagine at some time after the cessions that west of the Ottawa River, even without the UE Loyalists, those settlers will want to separate to their own state at some point. Perhaps New Yorkers and New Englanders moving westward could form the bulk of the settlers in the peninsula, leading to a growing English-language population that will want to have their own state instead of having to learn French. Maybe Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee will be joined by a 4th state before 1800. Any ideas for a name for this state? Or just call this "Canada" and leave the rest as "Quebec"?


For the Acadians, they had already been expelled by the time of the PoD, so that wouldn't be affected. However, with a stronger French-language influence, I could see more French-language newspapers showing up in the US, and having a few French-speaking settlers from Quebec showing up in Nova Scotia, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York, given that's no longer an international boundary TTL. It might be kind of cool to have an "Acadian League" of states with French language history, with a flag and all, meeting to preserve their French language history and promoting French usage in Quebec, Louisiana, and possibly even Maine and Nova Scotia.