Now, i am wondering, what would the USA look like without Canada? How would UK fair with Canada?
(OOC: In this, America took Canada in 1775)
(OOC: In this, America took Canada in 1775)
Now, i am wondering, what would the USA look like without Canada? How would UK fair with Canada?
(OOC: In this, America took Canada in 1775)
Well, I dunno, TBH. One thing to realize is that it wasn't until the last two decades of the 19th century that anything north of, say, Thunder Bay or Saguenay was really all that well developed. And even today, Winnipeg, Man. and Calgary, Assi. have only been major cities for the past 60 years now. The U.K., being across the Atlantic, would probably have a harder time making use of it than we did; as it is, although the former Canada & Rupert's Land have about 50 million people, it took quite a bit of effort.
Clearly Rupertsland would end up in the US. I mean, just look at the geography - the only decent way to get to Assininiboia and Manitoba is north, up the Red River from StAnthony (1). Trying to make a connection across the Precambrian Shield(2), give me a break. There STILL isnt a road all the way across.
Ooc: 1 St.Anthony is otl's Minneapolis, StPaul
2 that mass of rock isnt likely to be the 'Canadian' Shield, ittl, so Im giving it the geological name. Which would be different, too, sigh.
3 Calgary is most assuredly NOT going to be called that. The name was only given in 1876, by MacLeod of the NWMP (precursor to the RCMP). Given that otl's Canada is far, far more heavily Scots influenced than the US is, there just wont be a Scots name like Calgary used.
Now, i am wondering, what would the USA look like without Canada? How would UK fair with Canada?
(OOC: In this, America took Canada in 1775)
speaking of immigration... you have to wonder just how different things would be if the USA hadn't had all that room to fill up. Especially after the Mexican War. I mean, everything from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle was open for settlement. The USA basically threw the immigration doors wide open and said, "hey, everyone welcome!", there was such a need for labor and settlers and soldiers. What might have happened to Europe if so many people hadn't left? Would there have been a delay in the reforms so many monarchies made? After all, they only did it in OTL because everyone who was the slightest bit unhappy could go to the USA and improve their lives, so the rulers had little choice but to implement reforms (or try to ban immigration, and that didn't work out so well). Not to mention, the just general lack of conflict with so many population pressures reduced...
Keep in mind that some of best units in the Union Army during the ACW came from Canada. It seemed like the further north you went, the stronger abolitionist settlement got and the more motivated the soldiers were.
speaking of immigration... you have to wonder just how different things would be if the USA hadn't had all that room to fill up. Especially after the Mexican War. I mean, everything from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle was open for settlement. The USA basically threw the immigration doors wide open and said, "hey, everyone welcome!", there was such a need for labor and settlers and soldiers. What might have happened to Europe if so many people hadn't left? Would there have been a delay in the reforms so many monarchies made? After all, they only did it in OTL because everyone who was the slightest bit unhappy could go to the USA and improve their lives, so the rulers had little choice but to implement reforms (or try to ban immigration, and that didn't work out so well). Not to mention, the just general lack of conflict with so many population pressures reduced...
Keep in mind that some of best units in the Union Army during the ACW came from Canada. It seemed like the further north you went, the stronger abolitionist settlement got and the more motivated the soldiers were.
Well, we certainly would have seen a stronger and longer-lasting Concert of Europe as well as the Ancien Regimes---I see France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, and Austria all remaining strong monarchies well into the 19th and even 20th century.
I bet with all that right-wing sentiment floating around, things get nasty for Europe around the turn of the century.
Speaking of the 20th century, I doubt we would have seen the nasty conglomerate that is the EEC/EU(1) emerge until much, much later on. We may have even avoided a good measure of global conflict, although that's pretty speculative I'll warrant.
I shudder to think of the possibility of a world in which other countries have the Bomb besides America. Imagine a world without American Hegemony. Yes, America has its sordid affairs and past, but can you imagine a multi-polar, nuclear world?
Other nations do have the bomb. Just not as many.
OOC: I don't see how other nations won't get the bomb.
Other nations do have the bomb. Just not as many.
Maybe the British use it for loyalist settlement - both to reinforce the territory and because loyalists, grown up in a North American society, would probably prefer it to the Caribbean or mainland Britain. Its politics would be weird though - half French, half English, probably staying together (and staying close to Britain) to keep the Americans out. Maybe it'd still be a British protectorate to the present, despite the trend to decolonization in the rest of the empire, and the Canada issue would probably through a wrench in OTLs rapprochement, especially if it leads to a Britain with a greater North American presence trying to hold Rupert's Land and the northeastern states from New Brunswick to Newfoundland.
Well, we certainly would have seen a stronger and longer-lasting Concert of Europe as well as the Ancien Regimes---I see France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, and Austria all remaining strong monarchies well into the 19th and even 20th century.
I bet with all that right-wing sentiment floating around, things get nasty for Europe around the turn of the century.
Speaking of the 20th century, I doubt we would have seen the nasty conglomerate that is the EEC/EU(1) emerge until much, much later on. We may have even avoided a good measure of global conflict, although that's pretty speculative I'll warrant.
I shudder to think of the possibility of a world in which other countries have the Bomb besides America. Imagine a world without American Hegemony. Yes, America has its sordid affairs and past, but can you imagine a multi-polar, nuclear world?
Are you suggesting that the South may have enjoyed more success than they did? What of the Abolitionist movement in the North, would it have had the same momentum without the impetus of the Canadian Abolitionists?
Maybe the British use it for loyalist settlement - both to reinforce the territory and because loyalists, grown up in a North American society, would probably prefer it to the Caribbean or mainland Britain. Its politics would be weird though - half French, half English, probably staying together (and staying close to Britain) to keep the Americans out. Maybe it'd still be a British protectorate to the present, despite the trend to decolonization in the rest of the empire, and the Canada issue would probably through a wrench in OTLs rapprochement, especially if it leads to a Britain with a greater North American presence trying to hold Rupert's Land and the northeastern states from New Brunswick to Newfoundland.