Increased Migration to Canada in the 19th century

[Namayan]

Could Canada pull migration that was bound for the United States in the 19th century that by 1870 the population of Canada would be 10 million and USA reduced to 30 million?

E.g. Scandinavian preferring Canada instead of the United States instead of like in the prairies like North and South Dakotas.

What is needed to change from OTL to attract more Scandinavian migrants and pull them away from the USA?

What about acquiring more German(who settled mostly in US Midwest) and British migrants more than OTL? What kind of laws or situation or incentives Canada or Britain needs to do to attract what migrated to the USA in OTL and bring them to Canada?

If Canada can attract more migrants, how can Canada sustain and become the second most attractive migration target after United States in the Americas that by 1900 Canada's population would be 30 million(from OTL 5 million) while USA is reduced to 50 or 60 million instead of OTL 70-80 million?

 

[Nivek]

Could Canada pull migration that was bound for the United States in the 19th century that by 1870 the population of Canada would be 10 million and USA reduced to 30 million?

E.g. Scandinavian preferring Canada instead of the United States instead of like in the prairies like North and South Dakotas.

What is needed to change from OTL to attract more Scandinavian migrants and pull them away from the USA?

What about acquiring more German(who settled mostly in US Midwest) and British migrants more than OTL? What kind of laws or situation or incentives Canada or Britain needs to do to attract what migrated to the USA in OTL and bring them to Canada?

If Canada can attract more migrants, how can Canada sustain and become the second most attractive migration target after United States in the Americas that by 1900 Canada's population would be 30 million(from OTL 5 million) while USA is reduced to 50 or 60 million instead of OTL 70-80 million?

No Australia, New zeeland and South Africa could help massively

 

[Namayan]

No Australia, New zeeland and South Africa could help massively

Thanks for the reply.

I was thinking if those other colonies still exist, simply to outcompete USA in certain areas that certain groups of people like Scandinavians and Germans would have settled in the colder parts of the USA anyways.

Was the Canadian side of the Great Lakes attractive enough for that?

 

[Pesterfield]

What is needed to change from OTL to attract more Scandinavian migrants and pull them away from the USA?

Emphasize the potential for reindeer herding in the north?
Maybe work on muskox taming/domestication too

 

[Nivek]

I was thinking if those other colonies still exist, simply to outcompete USA in certain areas that certain groups of people like Scandinavians and Germans would have settled in the colder parts of the USA anyways.

Was the Canadian side of the Great Lakes attractive enough for that?

Remember a lot of settlers were farmers wanting cheap lands or jobs they couldn't find in a changing europe, less colonies means less competitions and all those would goes there. if ANZAC was part of Indonesia, that means less competition for Canada, the same if South Africa was part of Netherlands or a local kingdom.

 

[Thisisnotausername]

This is very difficult without significantly changing the US-Canada border (if for no other reason than that a much larger Canadian population would lead to Britain/Canada being more aggressive about pushing their own territorial claims). Perhaps you could have the British government take British Columbia away from the Hudson Bay Company and open it to settlement earlier? Have Canada never implement any barriers to immigration based on race, nationality, etc? Even those probably aren't going to be enough, though.

Was the Canadian side of the Great Lakes attractive enough for that?

Not really. Southern Ontario is pretty similar in terms of soil and climate to upstate New York or Michigan's lower peninsula, and IOTL its population grew accordingly, but northern Ontario, being geologically a part of the Canadian Shield, is pretty useless for agriculture even in its warmer regions. Which gets at the main problem here: Canada just doesn't have anywhere near as much good land as the US does. That's not to say that you couldn't get more immigration and a larger population in the 19th century, but more than double the OTL population by 1870? More than quintuple the OTL population by 1900? Even with the best policy in the world, it's hard to see how you'd manage that.

 

[Namayan]

This is very difficult without significantly changing the US-Canada border (if for no other reason than that a much larger Canadian population would lead to Britain/Canada being more aggressive about pushing their own territorial claims). Perhaps you could have the British government take British Columbia away from the Hudson Bay Company and open it to settlement earlier? Have Canada never implement any barriers to immigration based on race, nationality, etc? Even those probably aren't going to be enough, though.

Not really. Southern Ontario is pretty similar in terms of soil and climate to upstate New York or Michigan's lower peninsula, and IOTL its population grew accordingly, but northern Ontario, being geologically a part of the Canadian Shield, is pretty useless for agriculture even in its warmer regions. Which gets at the main problem here: Canada just doesn't have anywhere near as much good land as the US does. That's not to say that you couldn't get more immigration and a larger population in the 19th century, but more than double the OTL population by 1870? More than quintuple the OTL population by 1900? Even with the best policy in the world, it's hard to see how you'd manage that.

What about Oregon and California? Britain or Hudson Bay Company solidifies their control over Oregon? British California in early 19th century purchasing from Mexico in exchange for debt? Or Britain did not want anymore colonies?

Can U.S. challenge Britain 1830s for Oregon and California? Or British interest in the area are nil 1830s?

 

[Frodopatty]

What about Oregon and California? Britain or Hudson Bay Company solidifies their control over Oregon? British California in early 19th century purchasing from Mexico in exchange for debt? Or Britain did not want anymore colonies?

If Britain/Canada took Oregon and California, would the US take more of Northern Mexico (Sinaloa and Durango) to get a western coastline?

Also are there any major (or possibly major) ports in northwestern Mexico that could be expys to cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego?

 

[Thisisnotausername]

What about Oregon and California? Britain or Hudson Bay Company solidifies their control over Oregon? British California in early 19th century purchasing from Mexico in exchange for debt? Or Britain did not want anymore colonies?

Can U.S. challenge Britain 1830s for Oregon and California? Or British interest in the area are nil 1830s?

Okay, if we are open to changing borders to such an extent as to possibly admit California as a Canadian province, this becomes easier. My first thought is to have the US get wrecked in the War of 1812 and have the border west of Lake Erie set at 42 N, leaving most or all of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (and parts of Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska) to fall into Canadian hands. A quick estimate using OTL figures suggests that this would increase Canada's population from 3.7 million in 1870 and 5.4 million in 1900 to 6.5 million in 1870 and 13.8 million in 1900. (California would add another 0.6 million in 1870 and 1.5 million in 1900.) This is a significant increase, and the right immigration policies could increase this even further, but it speaks to the ambition of your goals that even these changes aren't enough on their own.

 

[Namayan]

Okay, if we are open to changing borders to such an extent as to possibly admit California as a Canadian province, this becomes easier. My first thought is to have the US get wrecked in the War of 1812 and have the border west of Lake Erie set at 42 N, leaving most or all of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (and parts of Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska) to fall into Canadian hands. A quick estimate using OTL figures suggests that this would increase Canada's population from 3.7 million in 1870 and 5.4 million in 1900 to 6.5 million in 1870 and 13.8 million in 1900. (California would add another 0.6 million in 1870 and 1.5 million in 1900.) This is a significant increase, and the right immigration policies could increase this even further, but it speaks to the ambition of your goals that even these changes aren't enough on their own.

What about urbanization?
Can Quebec Surpass New York assuming external forces develops Quebec or any Canadian Port ?

Or is New York destined to dominate urbanization in North America?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

No war of 1812 leading to continued mass migration of "late loyalists" and weaker oligarchs allowing responsible government and Confederation to be enacted sooner?