Earlier Canadian Confederation

[LoftonHenderson]

I've been thinking a lot about more populous ALT Canada's in recent months. I'm not well versed in the intricacies of the Confederation, but for those who do have expertise how soon could confederation plausibly have happened after the 1837-8 Rebellions. And Assuming a TL where confederation is accelerated by 10 or even 20-odd years (1840s or '50s), what impact is that likely to have. Especially if in this TL Petropavlovsk also falls and Alaska is ceded to the British in 1856 as part of the Crimean War settlement.

Right before WW1 Canada was experiencing an unprecedented immigration boom. If confederation happened sooner, could have boom have started sooner too, and lasted longer? Or was it caused by circumstances independent of Canada and would have run its course (ending at the start of WW1) regardless?

 

[LoftonHenderson]

Bumping this as I know people have thoughts, @TheMann @Yourdamgrandpa @SealTheRealDeal @The Gunslinger @AlexanderDragon

Edit: Also, is there a way to force a full customs union to stop inter-provincial tariffs upon confederation? Maybe because Canada had a free trade agreement with the US in the 1850s (until 1865) that could lead to that arrangement being adopted internally since it's crazy to be able to trade with the US customs-free but not each other?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I've been thinking a lot about more populous ALT Canada's in recent months. I'm not well versed in the intricacies of the Confederation, but for those who do have expertise how soon could confederation plausibly have happened after the 1837-8 Rebellions. And Assuming a TL where confederation is accelerated by 10 or even 20-odd years (1840s or '50s), what impact is that likely to have. Especially if in this TL Petropavlovsk also falls and Alaska is ceded to the British in 1856 as part of the Crimean War settlement.

There was a push for it in the late 1850s by the Tories and Bleus of the Province of Canada. So I could see it perhaps be accomplished 10 years earlier if the colonial office is in a "Little England" phase.

To get it done in the 1840s I think you'd need to avoid the Rebellions, as they knee-capped the Reform movement and ensured that when Responsible Government was enacted politics would be frequently derailed by Tory-Grit/Bleu-Rouge animosity.

Right before WW1 Canada was experiencing an unprecedented immigration boom. If confederation happened sooner, could have boom have started sooner too, and lasted longer? Or was it caused by circumstances independent of Canada and would have run its course (ending at the start of WW1) regardless?

It was a mixture of domestic and international developments.
Domestically:
-Confederation created common financial regulations and forced the big banks in each of the colonies to compete with each other, which basically un-ruined the financial system of British North America.
-Confederation was a necessary precursor to westward expansion, the land there would be a major attraction to immigrants and a major source of revenue come the wheat boom
-Confederation created a large domestic market that with the help of tariffs could support an industrial sector
-the continent-spanning infrastructure projects enabled by Confederation would greatly accelerate Canada's industrialization
-gaining domestic gold sources was very advantageous during the era of the gold standard
Internationally:
-new more frost-resistant strains of wheat would open up much more of the Prairies to settlement
-the international price of wheat (Canada's main export commodity) was consistently high from mid 1890s to 1914, which spawned a general economic boom

Barring international butterflies you won't get the wheat boom much earlier than OTL, but getting the hard work of nation-building, expansion, and early industrialization out of the way a decade ahead of schedule should lead to better economic and demographic performance in the 1880s.

 

[LoftonHenderson]

There was a push for it in the late 1850s by the Tories and Bleus of the Province of Canada. So I could see it perhaps be accomplished 10 years earlier if the colonial office is in a "Little England" phase.

To get it done in the 1840s I think you'd need to avoid the Rebellions, as they knee-capped the Reform movement and ensured that when Responsible Government was enacted politics would be frequently derailed by Tory-Grit/Bleu-Rouge animosity.

Okay so an 1857ish confederation is plausible potentially then, and likely not earlier (unless people have ideas to butterfly away the rebellions in a plausible way) – would the terms of confederation be similar to the 1860s OTL agreement? Who would the leading the effort? Macdonald was technically in his "leadership" position by 1857 so I could see it being him as per OTL potentially, just a decade sooner. But things would really need to have momentum and happen quickly for it all to fall into place. What were the OTL hurdles that stopped the 1850s confederation push?

It was a mixture of domestic and international developments.
Domestically:
-Confederation created common financial regulations and forced the big banks in each of the colonies to compete with each other, which basically un-ruined the financial system of British North America.
-Confederation was a necessary precursor to westward expansion, the land there would be a major attraction to immigrants and a major source of revenue come the wheat boom
-Confederation created a large domestic market that with the help of tariffs could support an industrial sector
-the continent-spanning infrastructure projects enabled by Confederation would greatly accelerate Canada's industrialization
-gaining domestic gold sources was very advantageous during the era of the gold standard
Internationally:
-new more frost-resistant strains of wheat would open up much more of the Prairies to settlement
-the international price of wheat (Canada's main export commodity) was consistently high from mid 1890s to 1914, which spawned a general economic boom

Barring international butterflies you won't get the wheat boom much earlier than OTL, but getting the hard work of nation-building, expansion, and early industrialization out of the way a decade ahead of schedule should lead to better economic and demographic performance in the 1880s.

Ah okay, I figured as much – mainly an international thing. And I'm trying to avoid as many non-Canada changes as possible so non-starter. However, I'd imagine that as you say an extra decade of centralized federal development, including a CPR by as early as the 1860s (without the delay caused by the bribery scandal and resulting fall of Macdonald), would lay a much better groundwork for mass migration starting in the 1890s. Essentially a more developed Canada better able to attract and integrate more immigrants. How many more do you think TTL Canada would potentially get before 1914?

Edit: also does TTL potentially see a real effort (even if ultimately unsuccessful) to get the Georgia Bay Ship Canal built?

 

[Viriato]

I've been thinking a lot about more populous ALT Canada's in recent months. I'm not well versed in the intricacies of the Confederation, but for those who do have expertise how soon could confederation plausibly have happened after the 1837-8 Rebellions. And Assuming a TL where confederation is accelerated by 10 or even 20-odd years (1840s or '50s), what impact is that likely to have. Especially if in this TL Petropavlovsk also falls and Alaska is ceded to the British in 1856 as part of the Crimean War settlement.

Right before WW1 Canada was experiencing an unprecedented immigration boom. If confederation happened sooner, could have boom have started sooner too, and lasted longer? Or was it caused by circumstances independent of Canada and would have run its course (ending at the start of WW1) regardless?

Between the 1850s and 1920s Canada also lost a huge amount of migrants to the United States, not only Canadian-born individuals, but also immigrants from other countries, perhaps if there was a way to retain more of these individuals. Many European immigrants often used Canada as an entry point into the United States, often arriving in Halifax or Montreal and moving to the US. Canada did enjoy a boom starting in 1897, and the population of the four Western Provinces grew ten-fold between 1891 and 1921 from a quarter of a million people to 2.5 million, with most of that growth occurring between 1897 and 1913.

One interesting thing was that from 1882 until 1897 there were below average rainfalls in the prairies and this made the region somewhat stagnant. Also, improved dry farming techniques coupled with a sharp rise in wheat prices in 1896, allowed the Canadian west to boom. By the late 1890s the available homesteads in the United States were also drying up and many moved north to Canada. Many who moved to Canada were actually first and second generation Germans and Scandinavians, mostly from neighbouring states, particularly from Minnesota and the Dakotas. Canadians moved west as well, but many more sought prosperity further south with Maritimers settling in and around Boston, Quebecois in New England (avoiding Boston) and Michigan and Ontarians settling in the Midwest, New York. By 1900, 22% of all people born in Canada resided in the United States.

One thing that is important to note is that while English Canada's birth and death rates mirrored those of the United States, Quebec had much higher birth rates, but slightly higher death rates than English Canada, and Canada would have certainly had more people if they could have been created the conditions to stay in Canada. In the era of open immigration, the pull of industrial jobs and higher wages made it so that between the 1860s and 1890s most years more people left Canada than arrived. Even in Montreal, Canada's largest city, few French Canadians were attracted to industrial work where wages were often lower than those in the U.S. leading employers to look for Italians or Eastern Europeans. Additionally, manufacturing in Canada was on a much smaller scale and fewer people were employed in industry than in the neighbouring U.S.

USA average crude birth rate vs crude death rate
1870-1879 41.16 vs 23.66
1880-1889 37.03 vs 21.34
1890-1899 32.22 vs 19.44
1900-1909 30.10 vs 17.27
1910-1919 27.15 vs 15.70

Quebec average crude birth rate vs crude death rate
1871-1880 – 43.6 vs 24.5
1881-1890 – 39.5 vs 22.0
1891-1900 – 36.7 vs 20.1
1901-1910 – 35.8 vs 18.5
1911-1920 – 37.8 vs 17.8

 

[LoftonHenderson]

Between the 1850s and 1920s Canada also lost a huge amount of migrants to the United States, not only Canadian-born individuals, but also immigrants from other countries, perhaps if there was a way to retain more of these individuals. Many European immigrants often used Canada as an entry point into the United States, often arriving in Halifax or Montreal and moving to the US. Canada did enjoy a boom starting in 1897, and the population of the four Western Provinces grew ten-fold between 1891 and 1921 from a quarter of a million people to 2.5 million, with most of that growth occurring between 1897 and 1913.

One interesting thing was that from 1882 until 1897 there were below average rainfalls in the prairies and this made the region somewhat stagnant. Also, improved dry farming techniques coupled with a sharp rise in wheat prices in 1896, allowed the Canadian west to boom. By the late 1890s the available homesteads in the United States were also drying up and many moved north to Canada. Many who moved to Canada were actually first and second generation Germans and Scandinavians, mostly from neighbouring states, particularly from Minnesota and the Dakotas. Canadians moved west as well, but many more sought prosperity further south with Maritimers settling in and around Boston, Quebecois in New England (avoiding Boston) and Michigan and Ontarians settling in the Midwest, New York. By 1900, 22% of all people born in Canada resided in the United States.

One thing that is important to note is that while English Canada's birth and death rates mirrored those of the United States, Quebec had much higher birth rates, but slightly higher death rates than English Canada, and Canada would have certainly had more people if they could have been created the conditions to stay in Canada. In the era of open immigration, the pull of industrial jobs and higher wages made it so that between the 1860s and 1890s most years more people left Canada than arrived. Even in Montreal, Canada's largest city, few French Canadians were attracted to industrial work where wages were often lower than those in the U.S. leading employers to look for Italians or Eastern Europeans. Additionally, manufacturing in Canada was on a much smaller scale and fewer people were employed in industry than in the neighbouring U.S.

USA average crude birth rate vs crude death rate
1870-1879 41.16 vs 23.66
1880-1889 37.03 vs 21.34
1890-1899 32.22 vs 19.44
1900-1909 30.10 vs 17.27
1910-1919 27.15 vs 15.70

Quebec average crude birth rate vs crude death rate
1871-1880 – 43.6 vs 24.5
1881-1890 – 39.5 vs 22.0
1891-1900 – 36.7 vs 20.1
1901-1910 – 35.8 vs 18.5
1911-1920 – 37.8 vs 17.8

Those are all very solid points, the only issue is the massive gravitational pull of the US economy is always going to be there and I'm not sure how all those Canadians can plausibly be kept in Canada during this period. Earlier confederation and increased industrialization/development might help, but I doubt they'd meaningfully reverse the emigration trend.

Do you see any opportunities in the 19th/early 20th centuries where different choices or butterflies could make a dent in emigration outflow south?

 

[Liminia1]

Those are all very solid points, the only issue is the massive gravitational pull of the US economy is always going to be there and I'm not sure how all those Canadians can plausibly be kept in Canada during this period. Earlier confederation and increased industrialization/development might help, but I doubt they'd meaningfully reverse the emigration trend.

Do you see any opportunities in the 19th/early 20th centuries where different choices or butterflies could make a dent in emigration outflow south?

The British blunder over Texas and the subsequent power struggle over Oregon?

 

[LoftonHenderson]

The British blunder over Texas and the subsequent power struggle over Oregon?

I'm not sure I follow? Could you expand?

Also, is there a way to force a full customs union to stop inter-provincial tariffs upon confederation? Maybe because Canada had a free trade agreement with the US in the 1850s (until 1865) that could lead to that arrangement being adopted internally since it's crazy to be able to trade with the US customs-free but not each other?

 

[Liminia1]

I'm not sure I follow? Could you expand?

Also, is there a way to force a full customs union to stop inter-provincial tariffs upon confederation? Maybe because Canada had a free trade agreement with the US in the 1850s (until 1865) that could lead to that arrangement being adopted internally since it's crazy to be able to trade with the US customs-free but not each other?

American-Mexican war was a blunder on British diplomacy, watch Old Britannia's video on it its great. TLDR: Britain basically screwed their foreign policy when dealing with Texas' independence they didn't use their guarantee of independence to get further concessions which leads to the whole Oregon territory being split down the 49th parallel. If Britain played their cards right, Canada would be larger while America would be weakened severely due to an independent Texas stopping it from heading west. Honestly these events are in early 19th centuries ngl.

 

[AlexanderDragon]

a more nativist america in the nineteenth century could scare french canadians from leaving. early confederation would have the benefit of allowing canada to impose some form of protection on american imports, and if in exchange for confederation the british say, force the keeping of the pound as the canadian currency u could see something of a decoupling between the economies.

 

[Viriato]

a more nativist america in the nineteenth century could scare french canadians from leaving. early confederation would have the benefit of allowing canada to impose some form of protection on american imports, and if in exchange for confederation the british say, force the keeping of the pound as the canadian currency u could see something of a decoupling between the economies.

The French Canadians did face quite a bit of discrimination in New England and there were even theories that they were flooding Maine to take over the region. The article below mentions some of the examples of the discrimination they faced, yet they kept coming to the U.S.

https://france-amerique.com/the-french-canadian-conspiracy-to-invade-the-united-states/

Also, Canada's economy performed better during the period of reciprocity from 1854 to 1866 than in subsequent decades when it was somewhat stagnant, but this was also a product of the depression lasting from 1873 to 1896. Canada did raise tariffs on industrial imports to 17.5% in 1874 and manufacturing increased in Ontario and Quebec, but most of the goods produced were for the small domestic market, with only 20% of manufactures being exported by 1900. The Maritimes benefited little from this policy, and by the 1860s migration to the United States and other parts of Canada increased. Between 1881 and 1901 the population of the Maritime Provinces increased at a rate of 0.13% per year, even during the more prosperous years between 1901 and 1931 the population of the Maritimes only grew at a rate of 0.41% per year, reflecting a general divergence from Central and Western Canada.

I imagine that having Britain hold onto or at least obtain part of the Northwest Territory would have done more for Canada than the Oregon Territory. The entirety of the Oregon Territory only had just over one million inhabitants in 1900, and holding it would not have stemmed the outflow of Anglo and French Canadians to the Eastern and Central United States, but perhaps a more ambitious/expansionist Britain could hold everything north of the 42nd parallel stretching from the Pacific to Lake Michigan. This coupled with the Northwest Territory could have attracted more settlers from the U.S. along with Eastern Canada to create a more populous and more powerful Canada. Also, I don't buy the idea that Americans settling in British North America would have wanted to join the U.S. Until 1914 the U.S. provided Canada with the largest number of immigrants and many were content to live under the British crown as long as their property rights were respected. In 1921, Canada had 374,000 American-born residents, with two-thirds living in Western Canada, they were particularly numerous in Alberta where they outnumbered British immigrants.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I'm not sure an earlier Confederation solves the root problem of a bigger Canadian population. Canada's biggest problem was never demographics, it was always geography. There's a few things you could do to pad the numbers, but nothing will really crank the population unless you add territory.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

What were the OTL hurdles that stopped the 1850s confederation push?

It was mainly that the colonial office just wasn't interested.

 

[Viriato]

I'm not sure an earlier Confederation solves the root problem of a bigger Canadian population. Canada's biggest problem was never demographics, it was always geography. There's a few things you could do to pad the numbers, but nothing will really crank the population unless you add territory.

Very much this, despite the size of British North America it had several geographic disadvantages. Firstly, there were only two ice-free deep water ports, namely Saint John and Halifax, possession of territory in Maine would have been an advantage to Canada, particularly the harbour of Portland. Also, as large as the country is, the arable land in the Maritimes and the Saint Lawrence Valley was largely settled by the early 19th century. In Upper Canada, available land for homesteading had dried up by the 1820s. New England had been mostly settled by the late 18th century, but during the Napoleonic Wars it was able to build up an important textile industry protected from British cheaper imports initially by war and later by tariffs, this was a luxury that the Maritime Provinces never enjoyed as British manufactured goods enjoyed access to their colonial markets.

Then there was the difficult route north of the Great Lakes through the Canadian shield to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. Possessing more territory further south would make the country more viable. Until the completion of the railway, settlement of the prairies was often expensive, and even when it was completed farmers from eastern Canada found it less expensive and risky to move south of the border.

 

[LoftonHenderson]

While this is all true I'm interested in how to "max" Canada in its historical borders (maybe +Alaska, MAYBE +Washington). I don't think there's a plausible way to stop emigration to the US, but I still think an earlier confederation, even if only by 7 years, leading to an earlier CPR by ~13 years opening up the prairies and west much sooner, and control over Alaska and thus the Klondike gold rush benefiting Canada much more than OTL, would definitely increase development and the capacity to absorb population during the wheat boom.

Also curious if anyone has thoughts on internal free trade and/or GBSC happening as a result of earlier confederation?