Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion
I always wonder what the west coast would be like if British Envoy Richard Pakenham actually gave a crap during the Oregon Treaty negotiations and the Columbia river became the US/Canada border, as it should have been. What is now Vancouver, WA, would be the third biggest city in the country with tons of room to sprawl like LA. It would also be far and away the best climate in Canada, just as far south as Toronto but with moderating ocean effect and no imposing mountain range to trap all the rain clouds.
That means Seattle would be part of Canada too, with significantly reduced importance and population. Current Vancouver would have a different name and be even smaller still, only relevant due to the Fraser River. Portland, as a border city, would probably be smaller too. Or maybe more important to the US? Not sure. Despite its name it's not really an important port. Though as the new northwest corner of the USA it would probably become an important US military city, much like San Diego.
Victoria, too, would see reduced importance since the need to secure Vancouver Island for Canada wouldn't happen with Fort Vancouver staying put. And Fort Vancouver would most likely be the BC capital instead of New Westminster/Victoria.
The real impact would be 100+ years from now when more people have settled in the west, lured by multiple large cities and warmer climates. Current Vancouver WA might eventually become the largest city in the country, and the west coast would have far more political influence with 3+ cities over 1 million.
|
I've wondered the same thing as well. Here's my 2 cents:
If the Canadian border went as far south as the Columbia River, I suspect that as long as Canada maintained immigration levels which could sustain growth, the area would arguably grow to be a legitimate second core to Quebec-Ontario. It also would have changed how the prairies provinces were settled.
The area west of the Cascades has fairly good agricultural land (similar to BC’s Fraser Valley) which would attract settlers and development, so it’s likely that it could become a "California north" in terms of attraction. Because of Fort Vancouver (present-day Vancouver, WA) being the important centre and the Canadian government building the trans-continental rail as a way to check American northern expansion, the CP probably would have terminated at Fort Vancouver. The CP would have probably taken a different route through southern Alberta, staying closer to the 49th parallel and passing through Lethbridge and the Crowsnest Pass, as opposed to Calgary. Depending on the location of the eastern boundary; the Continental Divide, the Bitterroot Range (geographic barrier that separates Montana and Idaho, or the Columbia River), the CP mainline would have passed through either Nelson, BC or Spokane, WA before continuing southwest. As a result, the West Kootenays would be less isolated and more populated, along with one of either Lethbridge or Fort Macleod being the major southern Alberta city, while Calgary would have been relegated to a lower tier city.
The same would go for Canada’s second trans-continental railway, the Canadian Northern. The Palliser Triangle made preferred agricultural land in the central, parkland areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta, hence today’s Winnipeg-Saskatoon-Edmonton-Yellowhead Pass-Kamloops-Vancouver CN line. The question is would the line follow the same route if the Pacific ports were further south? As far as the Canadian Rocky’s go, the terrain is fairly tame between Edmonton and Kamloops with wider valleys and lower elevation, but if the destination didn’t have to be Vancouver, BC, then it might have followed an alternate route. Prior to the 1846 Treaty, the Okanagan valley functioned as a major travel corridor to Fort Vancouver, so it might have followed that south before turning west in central Washington. It also might have chosen not to go as far north as Edmonton, instead taking the Howse Pass west of Red Deer.
Present-day Vancouver BC’s location along Burrard Inlet would still make it an attractive port, so it probably would have eventually get a railway connection, but might have been left out of the first two trans-continental railways which would have delayed its development. The two biggest losers probably would have been Prince Rupert, which may have never gotten a railway, and the Roger’s Pass area which might would have been bypassed (or received road/rail connections a lot later). Because of geography, the Fraser Valley/Vancouver, BC would probably be part of the same province as present-day Seattle/Vancouver, WA; while the interior would be a separate province, possibly centered around the Kelowna-Wenatchee corridor. What we regard as the major cities west of Winnipeg in present-day Alberta and Saskatchewan would probably be completely different, and arguably the provincial boundaries would be different as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One
I also have wondered the opposite as well, what if the US border did take BC all the way to 54.40.
That literally would have left Canada with a tiny sliver wedged between 54.40 and the Alaskan panhandle for Pacific access.
Would there be a big city there sandwiched between the US on both sides?
|
Realistically, BC would probably be part of the US. The Treaty was signed 1846 but BC didn't enter confederation until 1871 with the promise of a trans-continental railway. With virtually no populated areas on the Pacific coast and no incentive to join Canada, the Americans probably would have closed the gap.