How would Canada develop with these borders?

Yes, AH.com's been swamped lately by Canada threads :D. I made a map earlier since when school finishes I'll have time to do a TL and why not do one including the country I live in.

Anyway, as the title says, here's the borders:

newcanadacopy.png


I superimposed the extent of Canada over modern borders and added in dotted lines to represent the borders I have assumed existed at the start of when these borders become relevant.

I haven't decided on everything yet, and it isn't a realistic TL like some people have here. I want to see how Canada would devleop with these borders first and then explore whether the borders are feasible, etc. I'll throw down some generalizations of the dotted lines anyway and where I imagined them coming from

- The territory around New Brunswick is clearly divided. This came from a "lighter Acadien-expulsion" TL where instead of being mass-deported, Acadiens are coerced after the Seven Years' War (or some analogue) into moving into the heavily unsettled regions of northern New Brunswick or to Louisbourg on the eastern part of Île-Royale (Cape Breton Island). With a large enough, concentrated French-speaking Acadien population in northern New Brunswick I thought it might merit its only colony, perhaps under British rationale to 'contain' Acadiens and prevent them from moving around other colonies (IOTL the British were highly distrustful of the Acadiens and repeatedly tried to make them take oaths to the King).

- Cape Breton Island is similarly divided. This comes from a "More successful French in the Seven Years' War" PoD, originally from one where Montcalm successfully defends Québec from Wolfe's troops at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and captures / destroys most of the invading force at the battle. With more careful French conduct they are able to preserve more French lands, and although Louisbourg is likely still destroyed they get Cape Breton long with Quebec north of the Ottawa river in terms of settlement. With the "lighter Acadien-expulsion" in mind, Acadiens would either be deported to northern New Brunswick or to Cape Breton. I am assuming that, if it was given back to the French they'd try to rebuild Louisbourg, though maybe the rationale of keeping the island would be only if Louisbourg survives. At any rate, I assumed the French-speaking population here would be large enough to merit an administrational split when the island is eventually conquered by the British and incorporated into British North America (as I assuming in this Canada TL :D).

- Most of Lake Champlain, Northern Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine are all Canada-controlled. I am not sure how they'd split the borders between the provinces (or colonies at that time). This is during a more favorable solution to the American revolution (perhaps no disaster at Saratoga for the British) and perhaps during a War of 1812 where the British are more successful. Maine east of the Penobscot River, along with outlet of the river are occuped by the British (and integrated later I imagine). I stuck in a hypothetical neutral Iroquois "buffer state", that's the funny little border from Lake Erie to Lake Champlain. It's not a given yet, but perhaps instead of settling the Six Nations in Ontario they could be settled there- either Reserve lands as IOTL or perhaps a favorable full land grant to the Iroquois peoples, something I believe I read the British had intended to do to some extent (not sure how much).

- Upper Michigan, much of northern Minnesota and the Red River are Canadian. Not sure how many butterflies might kill this one but I'm going with it anyway. Not all of Northern Minnesota is Canadian, so I imagine a fair chunk of Iron reserves are still there (but way less than IRL). Wisconsin also has a small outlet to Lake Superior there. Whether or not some form of the Louisiana Purchase ends up happening here, the U.S. gets the land up to the Milk River (largely unsettled in Canada anyway).

- The Oregon Dispute ends at a different parallel, here I set it around the 47th-48th (at least I thought I did). This leaves a similar border for the U.S., with Canada simply absorbing lands as far south as Mt. Vernon- meaning they basically absorb some extra mountains and Bellingham Bay. It also leaves Canada in full control of the San Juan Islands (yay?).

- I've assumed a Canadian Alaska by any means necessary, being from B.C. :p. No but it's just assumed in this map I have no idea how it'd turn out, I just accidentally colored it in and thought "eh, what the hell why not". It may or may not get purchased, but it's so far off in terms of the TL I am not sure what would go on with Alaska.

That's the gist. My take on Canada would be a bit more optimistic in terms of development, so hopefully a larger population with some more major cities than IOTL but I'll listen to anything. Interested to hear your thoughts- though judging by the past few threads I won't expect too many. Any are appreciated!
 
Hehe yeah it's funny cause to a Canadian like myself this is borderline wank-ish but I dunno how much the United States would actually miss Bellingham, Upper Michigan, Northern Maine or North Dakota :D.
 
lol so true:)
besides, with these additions, would we be the largest country in the world yet?
(ps, i say we should take greenland as well :))
 

Thande

Donor
lol so true:)
besides, with these additions, would we be the largest country in the world yet?
(ps, i say we should take greenland as well :))

No. Even Canada and the USA together would only just eclipse the size of modern Russia and wouldn't come close to the size of the old Russian Empire and Soviet Union.
 
Hehe yeah it's funny cause to a Canadian like myself this is borderline wank-ish but I dunno how much the United States would actually miss Bellingham, Upper Michigan, Northern Maine or North Dakota :D.
If you think we wouldn't miss northern Maine or Vermont, you've got another thing coming *shakes fist threateningly* I liked the map before I got to the Northeast, though... :p

With most of the Acadians in New Brunswick, I suppose the Loyalists who in OTL settled there will tend more to be in Ontario, giving it a higher population early on? Or will New Brunswick just be more mixed and have a higher population? (No Cajuns would also have effects down in Louisiana, but I guess this thread is about Canada)
 
I'd imagine that Michigan's Upper Peninsula would add a significant boost to Canada's industry, although the lack of any land connection to Ontario would mean that the *United States would still at least enjoy some transportation revenue from the business.

At its peak around 1910 or so, stamp mills in the Keweenaw Pensinsula alone were producing 54900 tons of copper a day. Total ore production from 1845 to 1930 was somewhere in the range of 8 billion pounds. Coldelco, the Chilean state-owned mining company and top copper producer in the world today, only spits out about 4550 tons of copper a day. Imagine what all that copper produced by the U.P. could do for Canada...
 
Last edited:
If you think we wouldn't miss northern Maine or Vermont, you've got another thing coming *shakes fist threateningly* I liked the map before I got to the Northeast, though... :p

With most of the Acadians in New Brunswick, I suppose the Loyalists who in OTL settled there will tend more to be in Ontario, giving it a higher population early on? Or will New Brunswick just be more mixed and have a higher population? (No Cajuns would also have effects down in Louisiana, but I guess this thread is about Canada)

Hehe *hides*. I meant it more tongue-in-cheek (you got that obviously), but because you'd think in a Canada-wank thread the Great Lakes, Oregon Territory and Louisiana Territory would be in our hand. But no, a wank to us is Northern Dakota, the forested, largely uninhabited parts of Northern Maine and Bellingham, WA :cool:.

I actually was interested in discussing the U.S. borders as well, since I think some of these changes would affect statehood. I don't have a problem with it. I considered bumping back the PoD a bit to get more frenchies in Louisiana, Huguenots and the like but I'm not sure. A PoD like that would be like, 1560ish which would probably butterfly away most modern U.S. states and perhaps even Canada. But then again, I'm not too picky about it- it'd be a fun thought experiment to see how America could've developed different if I just stuck it in there (ASB perhaps, but I digress :D). And then Americans would have their own Protestant Quebec to counter ours :eek:.

Ofaloaf said:
I'd imagine that Michigan's Upper Peninsula would add a significant boost to Canada's industry, although the lack of any land connection to Ontario would mean that the *United States would still at least enjoy some transportation revenue from the business.

At its peak around 1910 or so, stamp mills in the Keweenaw Pensinsula alone were producing 54900 tons of copper a day. Total ore production from 1845 to 1930 was somewhere in the range of 8 billion pounds. Coldelco, the Chilean state-owned mining company and top copper producer in the world today, only spits out about 4550 tons of copper a day. Imagine what all that copper produced by the U.P. could do for Canada...

In two other threads where I posted ideas pre-this one, there was somewhat a consensus that it would definitely drive development in places like Ontario more. Would this, do you think, increase the population of the peninsula itself? OTL Upper Michigan is pretty empty. Would this sort of bring more people to the area or would its prime appeal remain mining and natural resource development, meaning cities built around mines (as IOTL).

Looking at the poster below, if it's true that a Trans-Canada Railway is easier through Upper Michigan then perhaps it would get a bit of a boost to population.

Thande said:
No. Even Canada and the USA together would only just eclipse the size of modern Russia and wouldn't come close to the size of the old Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

However we could claim more year-long non-frozen coastline :D (on the Atlantic :\).
 
Last edited:
In two other threads where I posted ideas pre-this one, there was somewhat a consensus that it would definitely drive development in places like Ontario more. Would this, do you think, increase the population of the peninsula itself? OTL Upper Michigan is pretty empty. Would this sort of bring more people to the area or would its prime appeal remain mining and natural resource development, meaning cities built around mines (as IOTL).
Part of the reason that the Upper Peninsula isn't so highly populated now in OTL is because
1. The mines are depleted.
2. The climate is not so appealing to the average American.
3. Something like half of the state is either national park land, state parks, or nature reserves of some kind, making development a little tricky.
4. There is no other industry there to attract people or support the economy (besides tourism, but even they've got problems...)
Now, if Canada focuses on the Upper Peninsula solely for copper, the region's probably going to suffer a similar fate in that ATL, since there will be nothing for them to fall back on once the copper's gone. But, since the climate in the U.P., although rather cold and unwelcoming by U.S. standards, is about the same as north-central Ontario (the flies are atrotious in the summer), it may be able to attract more settlers in this TL than OTL, perhaps being enough to form stronger secondary industries in manufacturing and services and maintain a higher population than here. On the other hand, that may just be wistful thinking on my part, I dunno.

Looking at the poster below, if it's true that a Trans-Canada Railway is easier through Upper Michigan then perhaps it would get a bit of a boost to population.
A trans-Canadian railroad through the Upper Peninsula would have to cross the Soo Locks and cross what seems to be a smigeon of U.S. territory in northern Wisconsin, which would make it a bit less of a Trans-Canadian route and more broadly trans-continental.
 
A couple things I don't think anyone's mentioned yet:

1. northern Minnesota was (maybe still is) a major iron-ore producing region. I'm not sure from that map how much of the iron region would be Canadian, but some of it probably would be.

2. this Canada got Alaska somehow or other, which means it has all that oil.

Between those and the UP copper already mentioned, this Canada is going to be a major natural-resource powerhouse. I suspect ITTL Canada and the US will be much closer to having economies of about the same size.
 
Alaska and the parts around the Great Lakes would be useful. The rest... not so much. The chunk of MT is basically Glacier Park... pretty, but not all that useful. Not sure just what is in northern Maine. The weird strip of land in ND/MN is mostly prairie, I think...
 
A trans-Canadian railroad through the Upper Peninsula would have to cross the Soo Locks and cross what seems to be a smigeon of U.S. territory in northern Wisconsin, which would make it a bit less of a Trans-Canadian route and more broadly trans-continental.

However the solid rock of the upper peninsula will be much more favourable to drive a railroad across than the swamps of northern Ontario, so it'd probably get done a lot quicker as well as being built faster.

The tiny bit of America on lake superior is odd though.
 
Northeastern Minnesota was very strongly stipulated to be American territory, and Canada certainly wouldn't have received it unless the POD was before 1803. The only way I could imagine it going Canadian is if America and Britain did some good old fashioned horse trading back around the end of the war of 1812 (remember, America came out way on top in the western front, and Britain was only able to defend itself out west). I could easily imagine the US trading that area for some sort of beneficial trade agreement. But that's one of the more unlikely things on this map, along with Michigan's UP. It just doesn't make great geographical sense (as there are a series of closely-placed rivers that delineate the present border of northeastern Minnesota and Canada) to have that be the border. And Michigan's UP was partially decided as American territory due to greater financial difficulties in controlling the territory, versus the (minimal) profit it would've gained whoever controlled it.
 
Last edited:
The chances that a Canada would develop borders like yours are pretty high, since essentially you just need a slightly alternate Treaty of Paris regarding the borders near the East Coast and have the Russians sell Alaska to Great Britain, assuming a) the Russians still take settle there and b) the U.S. doesn't want it, with both of these conditions being easy to meet.

However, it would really not change that much for Canada and the British Empire, since none of these territories prove themselves to be useful, except Alaska once they find out about the oil there. The only thing different would be that the British won't run out of oil that fast and that Canada will have a slightly better infrastructure (more people, more possibilites, oil).
 
However, it would really not change that much for Canada and the British Empire, since none of these territories prove themselves to be useful, except Alaska once they find out about the oil there. The only thing different would be that the British won't run out of oil that fast and that Canada will have a slightly better infrastructure (more people, more possibilites, oil).
-Iron in Minnesota
-Copper in northern Michigan
-Gold (-rush) in Alaska

Canada would be a much greater ore and metal producer than in OTL, which would in turn invite greater industrialization.
 
northern Minnesota was (maybe still is) a major iron-ore producing region. I'm not sure from that map how much of the iron region would be Canadian, but some of it probably would be.
Still is, though it wasn't for about 20 years starting around 1970, due to taconite processing having lower margins. But the ore wasn't really discovered until 1866 IOTL. So if POD was post-1866... no, it just wouldn't have happened.

My real issue with this map is that some things seem very plausible, like the Red River valley going to Canada, while other things seem extremely implausible, like northeastern MN going to Canada, and the Hudson Valley not being taken by NY. The latter seems like quite a high-priority target. Personally, I think it needs a wee bit of revision.
 
Still is, though it wasn't for about 20 years starting around 1970, due to taconite processing having lower margins. But the ore wasn't really discovered until 1866 IOTL. So if POD was post-1866... no, it just wouldn't have happened.

My real issue with this map is that some things seem very plausible, like the Red River valley going to Canada, while other things seem extremely implausible, like northeastern MN going to Canada, and the Hudson Valley not being taken by NY. The latter seems like quite a high-priority target. Personally, I think it needs a wee bit of revision.

The PoD would be likely be in the 1750s, so well before the United States was a country. I can give you the estimation on where the borders come from;

a) Northern Maine, Northern New York, Lake Champlain: Occupied after assumed American Revolution, with Northern New York and "upper Maine" (the border there is the Saint Jean river and the Penobscot). Could really go in either war. I think if the War of 1812, or some analogue happens and the British get a bit more lucky, it could leave these regions in control of a future Canadian state. The border there is at the Black River (I think?) an outlet of the Hudson. Much of this land was completely unsettled and was Iroquois territory. Therefore, prior to the Iroquois being largely ejected after Revolutionary War (and perhaps in a War of 1812 analogue) this territory might still be reasonably in play. The border on Lake Champlain there excludes much of the south of the lake (such as Saratoga), aprox. 70/30 split between the two countries (as opposed to maybe 5/95 today in favor of the U.S. :p).

b) Upper Michigan and Northern Minnesota were both considered unsettleable wastelands by the U.S. up until resources were discovered there. iirc it would be the same for Britain. Negotiations in any war could with that territory being roughly ceded. I tried to give an estimate of how a negotiation might occur after resources are found- the minerals in Minnesota should have one of the largest iron ore deposits still on the U.S. side, but still with large amounts in Canada. The rest is mostly just creative- the actual border, how much of the lake it takes up etc. is not too important because I doubt if they were mapping it they'd give much thought.

c) North Dakota and the odd Idaho/Manitoba border exchanges actually come from negotations in 1818 over the Louisiana Purchase. It might be a stretch assume a purchase occurs with a PoD almost 70 years ago, but with the assumption it does these borders were offered to Great Britain at the time. Had Britain chosen to play hard-ball, they likely could've kept the territories, but the Red River colony established by Selkirk wasn't so profitable and the land wasn't considered very valuable (iirc).

d) B.C.'s southern border just imagines a bit more of a favorable Oregon Dispute resolution to the British.

Perhaps it is totally implausible, perhaps not! The actual reality isn't such a concern to me as I'm more interested about how Canada would develop with these borders.

As an aside, do you think Canadian cities would develop around the same geographical metropoles- I mean, specifically in places where new territory was added. Would any new, somewhat large polis' develop or would we likely just see this land get added in terms of resource production and not settlement. The two places I am wondering about are the area around Lake Champlain and the Red River, where somewhat large populations are now but am unsure of whether they might get more or less people in Canada (Burlington and Fargo-type cities come to mind). I know Northern Maine is just forest and doesn't add much except on a map :p.

The chances that a Canada would develop borders like yours are pretty high, since essentially you just need a slightly alternate Treaty of Paris regarding the borders near the East Coast and have the Russians sell Alaska to Great Britain, assuming a) the Russians still take settle there and b) the U.S. doesn't want it, with both of these conditions being easy to meet.

However, it would really not change that much for Canada and the British Empire, since none of these territories prove themselves to be useful, except Alaska once they find out about the oil there. The only thing different would be that the British won't run out of oil that fast and that Canada will have a slightly better infrastructure (more people, more possibilites, oil).

That's actually how I expect it as well, though there are more resources as pointed out. This isn't going to make Canada a great power in the world or anything. I am actually interested in the minor demographic alterations (Cape Breton, Acadia, etc.), immigration differences, metropolitan changes- some bigger, smaller, industry, etc. It's like a beefy Canada but it's still Canada :D.
 
Last edited:
Top