WI: US takes Canada, but doesn't take land from Mexico

Would the US be...?

  • Stronger than IOTL

    Votes: 19 32.8%

  • Less strong than IOTL

    Votes: 39 67.2%
  • Total voters
    58

prani

Banned
dcharleos said:
And both of you are missing the point
Click to expand...
Dude air-conditioning technology has grown leaps and bounds because of the US settlement of sub tropics, if you're not having those regions within the US my money is on the technology in the areas of heating and insulation, you're talking about the fruits of industrial revolution which otl went to solving the problem of disease and heat of the sub tropics to that of the tropics.

dcharleos said:
In 1940, well before the widespread use of air conditioning, California was the 5th most populous state in the US. So plenty of people wanted to live there
Click to expand...
How much of that has to do with the numerous dams Along the Colorado? Like the more i think about it, the less difference i see between the challenges between the cold climate vis a vis warm climate. You needed air-conditioning to settle the arid and semi arid lands of California, you needed massive irrigation works to feed and give water to the population over there, you don't need to build dams in Canada cause it's filled with lakes.

I'm surprised you totally forgotten the role played by the gold rush and the oil boom that helped finance California's economy, the role played by California's horticultural sectors that benefited off those economic booms. Climate did play a role but wasn't the sole reason.
 
Vangogh

Vangogh

Banned
I think it would be better for American politics and ethnoreligious homogenity, but I think it would definitely hamper the US economic and geopolitical potential. No california, and probably very little pacific presence in general.

If the US took Florida, All of british north america and the disputed territory that would still tilt the whole country eastwards imo, in contrast to modern America which is basically a rechtangle
3_US_after-LA-purchase_1803.png
 
Last edited:

dcharles

Banned
prani said:
Dude air-conditioning technology has grown leaps and bounds because of the US settlement of sub tropics, if you're not having those regions within the US my money is on the technology in the areas of heating and insulation, you're talking about the fruits of industrial revolution which otl went to solving the problem of disease and heat of the sub tropics to that of the tropics.


How much of that has to do with the numerous dams Along the Colorado? Like the more i think about it, the less difference i see between the challenges between the cold climate vis a vis warm climate. You needed air-conditioning to settle the arid and semi arid lands of California, you needed massive irrigation works to feed and give water to the population over there, you don't need to build dams in Canada cause it's filled with lakes.

I'm surprised you totally forgotten the role played by the gold rush and the oil boom that helped finance California's economy, the role played by California's horticultural sectors that benefited off those economic booms. Climate did play a role but wasn't the sole reason.
Click to expand...

Still not the point.
 

dcharles

Banned
GDP of Texas: 2.4 trillion
GDP of CA: 3.7 trillion
GDP of Colorado: .385 trillion
GDP of Arizona: .356 trillion
GDP of Utah: .191 trillion
GDP or New Mexico: .094 trillion

That's $7.12 trillion.

The GDP of Canada is 1.98 trillion.

So, sans Mexican Cession, the US is -7.12 trillion.

With Canada, the US is still in a $5 trillion+ hole.

So unless anyone can figure out how to make Canada either gets 3.6x more populous or 3.6x more productive to break even, the answer to this question is that the US is much, much weaker without the Mexican Cession.
 

NedStark

dcharleos said:
Yes, and people find the Canadian environment harsh, because it is cold
Click to expand...

dcharleos said:
In 1940, well before the widespread use of air conditioning, California was the 5th most populous state in the US. So plenty of people wanted to live there.
Click to expand...
You haven't considered that many people moved to California/Texas... because they were parts of the United States, a land of opportunities and liberty. These people would have moved to another US states rather than *Mexican* California/Texas... On the flip side, Canada would have got a lot more people as part of the US.

It is noted that as late as 1914, the North (Northeast & Midwest) accounted for over 80% of US economic and industrial output. The amount of labour movements and capital investments that went from the North to California, Texas... since 1920 would have either stayed put or gone to other US states. Things like Silicon Valley would have been located in another US state, not in Mexico of all place.
 

dcharles

Banned
NedStark said:
You haven't considered that many people moved to California/Texas... because they were parts of the United States, a land of opportunities and liberty. These people would have moved to another US states rather than *Mexican* California/Texas... On the flip side, Canada would have got a lot more people as part of the US.

It is noted that as late as 1914, the North (Northeast & Midwest) accounted for over 80% of US economic and industrial output. The amount of labour movements and capital investments that went from the North to California, Texas... since 1920 would have either stayed put or gone to other US states. Things like Silicon Valley would have been located in another US state, not in Mexico of all place.
Click to expand...

Is Canada going to be 360% richer?
 

Cataphract Khan

Are we really using GDP as the sole measure of how powerful, etc. a nation is? Geographically determinative GDP at that?

Should we perhaps consider the impact that Canada being a part of the US would have on US politics as a counterweight to the South? Perhaps a shorter ACW? Better Reconstruction?

Having control of the St. Lawrence would likely further the industrialization of the Great Lakes region.
 

NotStaleBread

Just gonna add my two cents and agree with some other people that, yeah, citing the GDP of OTL's states vs. Canada is extremely stupid. Like @Cataphract Khan says, having the whole of the Saint Lawrence would do well for America. It would mean a far earlier construction of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, for example (which for those who don't know what that is, is basically the Hudson canal on steriods, in that it allows ocean-going ships to enter and exit the Great Lakes). Further, Canada doesn't have a low population because its cold, or at least that is far from the only reason. Two big reasons it lacks a large population was because it was the UK's policy to restrict immigration to Canada by those who weren't British, and also because they wanted to keep Canada's economy based around resource extraction, rather than have it industrialize. Canada had a significant net-negative migration rate to America for a very, very long time because America's economy was much stronger and afforded more opportunities. As part of America from the start, the lands of what is now Canada can be filled with many more migrants and made much more productive earlier on. The cold is important, and all things being equal, a warmer place like California would have a higher population density than most places in Canada. But all things aren't equal, and it shows a profound lack of understanding of history that so many people in this thread can't comprehend that.

Most of America's population came from across the Atlantic and from east to west. Same with it's wealth. Those people won't end up moving to California, sure, but they sure as hell can stay where they are or move to some place in what was Canada. The GDPs of today's states in the Southwest are like that because they are part of America, not the other way around. Is anyone going to tell me that Utah, Nevada, Arizona, or New Mexico were more hospitable than Canada until recently? It's not called the Great American Desert for nothing. Having Ontario, Quebec, and the Maratimes from the start are already major boosts, because they're in the east and will be populated and developed very rapidly, giving America an early advantage that gives it a lot compared to having to wait decades and even over a century for the economies of the Southwest to start churning. The prairie provinces and BC will be populated faster and become more productive quicker than the Southwest, save California and Texas. I can't say with 100% confidence that this alternate America would be more powerful, but it seems like it would have a damn good shot.
 
Last edited:

Elfwine

I think it would offer advantages initially, but I am not sure it would be an advantage in 1950 (over 1950 OTL) or 2023 as opposed to more of a wash at best.

1950 to mark a century of California's statehood, not for any particular economic statistic.
 

GuildedAgeNostalgia

dcharleos said:
California has about as many people as NY, PA, and NJ put together. One California or six, it's a big state with a lot of money and people, and the US is going to be less well off and powerful without her.
Click to expand...
Those people didn't start out there, they came from other US states first. Not having California doesn't impact US population growth.
 

GuildedAgeNostalgia

US ends up stronger with all of Canada since they are inheriting a preexisting significant population instead of settling an area with a low population. Population goes up because of this.

US ends up stronger because it inherits Canada's natural resources, which are far more plentiful than what is located in the otl American Southwest. Not to mention additional river systems that further boost industrialization.

US still maintains a West Coast in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, meaning they still can project some power in the Pacific. However having Canada and no American Southwest means to maintain the balance between slave states and free states, the US will annex parts of the Caribbean such as Cuba, Hispaniola, etc.

Acquiring Canada further incentivizes American annexation of Greenland as well, which opens up more natural resources for the United States.

Finally, HUGE profits are made from Canadian fishing areas and fur trade.
 
Last edited:
Vangogh

Vangogh

Banned
The great lakes region would really prosper in this world, with all of it being part of the US and one great economic system. I think the US could be an even bigger production center with imports from Asia being more limited without californian ports.

US-Europe ties would be bigger and America would have a large french speaking minority instead of spanish speaking one. I wonder if Quebec french could survive
 

NotStaleBread

Vangogh said:
The great lakes region would really prosper in this world, with all of it being part of the US and one great economic system. I think the US could be an even bigger production center with imports from Asia being more limited without californian ports.
Click to expand...
Question, why does the loss of California inhibit trade with/power projection into Asia? I've seen this comment earlier in the thread, but I don't quite understand the logic. The Salish Sea is closer to Asia if you go via the northern route and is roughly the same distance to Hawaii as San Fransisco. Is it that the Pacific Northwest would lack a gold rush to establish an early population from which to connect with Asia?
 
Last edited:

RY1985

Fabius Maximus said:
Say that the Revolutionary War goes better for the Americans and they manage to get Canada at the peace treaty. However, for whatever butterfly-related reason (maybe Mexico is stronger and more stable for some reason), the Mexican-American War never happens, meaning that the US doesn't take OTL's Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Califormia, et al. Whad difference would this make to the US' development compared to OTL? How would the slavery issue play out? Would the US c. 2023 be stronger or weaker than its OTL counterpart?
Click to expand...
Off hand, I would be wondering what would be the effect on the Middle East in the late half of the 20th century, since this is an ATL USA with the oil and gas resources of Canada and with greater energy independence.
 

Beatriz

Gone Fishin'
RY1985 said:
Off hand, I would be wondering what would be the effect on the Middle East in the late half of the 20th century, since this is an ATL USA with the oil and gas resources of Canada and with greater energy independence.
Click to expand...
The POD would have butterflies in the development of the British empire and the Ottomans/Persians
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top