What if Canada was conquered by the US?

[Deity Dude]

I generally agree with Dr S. I think the south would have been forced to secede earlier because the slave/free state balance would have never existed. I also agree that a civil war fought in 1820's would not have been the same a civil war fought in the 1860's.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


How on earth have the prairies been 'liberal' compared to the US?

I just don't see it. BC only changed with the demographic shift to Vancouver. Prior to that they were hard core conservative.

Tommy Douglas would like a word with you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


At the time of the signing of the Constitution only Massachusetts of the 13 former colonies outlawed slavery. Furthermore slavery had been legal in the British empire. Do you have any information to the effect that slavery was illegal in any of the Canadian provences prior to 1800? I doubt that the additon of Canada would have made a difference at the time of the signing of the US Constitution, but it might have after 1800. Significant tension between North and South began in the 1830's, but was countered by maintaining a delicate balance in the US Senate. If the addition of Canada meant an added 3 or 4 'free' states in the Union the South might have seceded. Had they done so I think their chances of success might have been higher. They probably would have added Texas to their number. The history of the Far West might have been greatly different. Would either the South or the North alone have been able to defeat Mexico and capture the Far West?

Hey, we have a novel alternate history timeline going here.

It is quite interesting.

Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia would have been among the US free states in the long run.

Would that have led to more Western States being settled as slave states?

Ontario would never have been settled as a single state.

Quebec would have been very interesting. The north wouldn't have been added to it, I don't think. That would have still made it one of if not the largest state by land area.

Most of the Canadian West would form a pock marked map of greater or lesser Dakotas. There would have been little more impetus to settle the Canadian prairies than Montana.

There would have been a sadder end for many of the First Nations with nowhere to hide in the North, and more of them would have been exposed to harsher treatment. Unless, maybe the treatment of natives would not have been as harsh.

The worst thing would be that the White House would not be white.

[DRoseDARs]

But would the British still have burned down the Capital?

[notyoueither]

Unlikely. There would have been little impetus for it with no presence in BNA and no bases to operate from.

I highly doubt that any great number of soldiers would have been in any shape to invade more than an outhouse had they had to cross the Atlantic to get there.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi is online now New Post 15-11-2008 16:33 This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

My guess: BK is getting a chubby at the thread's hypothesis while at the same time demonstrating a total lack of understanding of both Canadian and US politics.

Come on, man. If you're going to ignore him then just ignore him but don't put him on ignore and then taunt him.

[KrazyHorse]

It's more fun this way.

[OzzyKP]

We'd have lots of oil.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by notyoueither

There would have been a sadder end for many of the First Nations with nowhere to hide in the North, and more of them would have been exposed to harsher treatment. Unless, maybe the treatment of natives would not have been as harsh.

I suspect you'd have had one giant Oklahoma, actually, called Manitoba... or maybe Alberta. Whatever land was considered mostly worthless, I imagine.

Can you imagine if the First Nations had been granted Alberta (under the premise it was useless land for White Folk) and now owned all that oil money...

[KrazyHorse]

Like you would have shown any compunction about reneging on your Indian treaty as soon as the oil was found.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I suspect you'd have had one giant Oklahoma, actually, called Manitoba... or maybe Alberta. Whatever land was considered mostly worthless, I imagine.

Can you imagine if the First Nations had been granted Alberta (under the premise it was useless land for White Folk) and now owned all that oil money...

They wouldn't have survived without the buffalo.

The land is either arid or bitterly cold, or both. Not very many people could be supported,

It's good agricultural land in parts, but not a whole lot of people could be supported by hunting and trapping.

[chequita guevara]

Re: What if Canada was conquered by the US?

What do you mean, if?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
We'd have lots of oil.

Yeah but it would be illegal to drill for any of it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It was declared illegal in Upper Canada by 1792, and those were the only slaves in Canada at the time. AFAIK, slavery wasn't abolished until the vote later on, but there wasn't any slavery up here after the British conquest.

The US Constitution was ratified 3 years earlier.

There was serious tension prior, and the response of Canada after the UAEs came up here (my family actually was here before the Loyalists), wrt to slavery. From everything I've read the response of the colonies was to ban slavery outright.

If the United States conquered Canada then the Loyakists wouldn't have moved to Canada would they?

Doubtful. If they had incorporated all of the territories of Quebec (which they didn't get until much later), it is questionable given the sudden expansion that the US would have successfully seceded. Secession was a loser even with the north, and adding all of Canada to the North, isn't going to help matters any.

What???!!! I think you misunderstand me. In 1789 only one of the 13 states outlawd slavery, so the Southern slave states didn't fear being outnumbered at the time. In the following decades all of the stated north of Maryland and the Ohio river abolished slavery. By 1830 the southern states were afraid that as new states were added in the west the northern 'free' states would acquire sufficient majority in the Senate, House of Representatives and total number of states as to permit them to pass a Constitutional Amendment to free the South's precious slaves. ( A Constitutional Amendment must pass the House, Senate and be ratified by 2/3rds of the states.) If the conquest of Canada had brought to the Union an additional 3 or 4 free states, the south would have had reason to fear this earlier on.[/quote]

Texas did secede. You need to read up on your history. [/QUOTE]You're not understanding me. In the 1830s the northern United States was less industrial than in 1861. The idea od southern secession was first seriously mentioned in 1830. Had the South seceded in 1830 the North might not have had the strength to win a Civil War. Texas did not break away from Mexico until 1836, and did not seek annexation until after some confllicts with Mexico in 1842. Since Texas broke away from Mexico largely due to the slavery issue than if the South suceded in 1830 and stayed independent, then Republic of Texas would surely choose to join with the South, not the North.

[KrazyHorse]

A Constitutional Amendment must pass the House, Senate and be ratified by 2/3rds of the states.

No.