What if no Russian America Company - no Russian Alaska?

[raharris1973]

What if the Russians said 'enough' with the Chukchi peninsula/Kamchatka, and the vastness of the task of developing their northeast Asian Arctic claims, and never started a Russian America company to mess around Alaska, Oregon or Fort Ross?

Who becomes the first non-native claimant to the land, a theoretical or practical sense? Spain, or the British Hudson Bay Company?

I would imagine the first practical claimants would be British, probably HBC. And they'd be the last, with Canada most likely inheriting the claim. And this could all be decades later than the Russians acted in OTL.

Does Russian absence from the North American coast abort entirely Spanish missions and presidios in Alta California, or delay them by one or two or three decades? To what effect?

 

[PsihoKekec]

My guess is there would be a push by North West Company to expand into Alaska in the aftermath of 1812 war, in order to stave off takeover by Hudson Company.

 

[raharris1973]

My guess is there would be a push by North West Company to expand into Alaska in the aftermath of 1812 war, in order to stave off takeover by Hudson Company.

Was the North West Company HBC’s rival, and Montreal based?

 

[Skallagrim]

This could have some interesting ramifications. The Spanish claimed "all shores watered by the Pacific" in the Americas, so all the way up North to the Alaskan isles. But they did nothing with that claim until the Russians started moving in. This is what led them to star establihing missions in Alta California, starting in 1769.

No Russians means no Spanish interest in the region-- at least not until Cook starts nosing around the Pacific North-West on Britain's behalf. Tht's in 1778. And by then, it's probably too late. Spanish reaction to Russian intervention was delayed by several years. Even if Spain starts establishing Missions in Alta California as of the early 1780s, the revolutionary turmoil is just around the corner.

This means that there's no real possibility of a serious Nootka Sound crisis in the ATL late 1780s. Spain claims California, but has practically no influence there. Britain can just claim everything down to the Columbia river, and there's fuck-all that Spain can realistically do about it.

Which means the entire Pacific North-West ends up in British hands.

 

[Buba]

Britain can just claim everything down to the Colorado river, and there's fuck-all that Spain can realistically do about it.

Fixed it for you

 

[raharris1973]

Hmm, you think this works out then with Britain governing the OTL USA west of the Rockies or Continental Divide?

In this TL, is British North America still united into a Confederation of Canada, stretching from Alta California/New Albion Drake's Bay to Nova Scotia, or is it instead a medley of separate colonies? Canada being one thing, British Columbia or Pacifica being another?

 

[Buba]

IMO the British "could" - but not "would".
The Pacific Coast was an absolute afterthought for the British Gov't - ranking behind Maripura, Saravak or Sikkim, I'd wager. Unless the HBC has the ear (or pocket) of somebody high up in the Gov't the British will demand only what they did in OTL, as there simply are no other drivers for this.
Besides Alaska which ITTL IMO is 99% certain to become British.

Canada being a single lump does not make sense, as there is a human habitation hole between the York Peninsula and Winnipeg, hence IF there was a larger/earlier British presence on the Pacific there should be a Canada (up to Lake in the Woods) and a Colombia (Manitoba and Everything To Its West).

 

[Skallagrim]

Hmm, you think this works out then with Britain governing the OTL USA west of the Rockies or Continental Divide?

IMO the British "could" - but not "would".
The Pacific Coast was an absolute afterthought for the British Gov't - ranking behind Maripura, Saravak or Sikkim, I'd wager. Unless the HBC has the ear (or pocket) or somebody consistently high up in the Gov't the British will ontain what they did in OTL, as there simply are no other drivers for this.
Besides Alaska which is IMO 99% certain to become British.

The British would want the region surroundintg Vancouver Island, and they'd claim all of Alaska. but I don't think they'd ve very interested in pressing any claims further South than the Columbia River. Conceivably, they might push their border further South later on-- particularly because Spain/Mexico never did much of anything further North than San Francisco. So Britain could conceivably gobble up the Northernmost portion of California c. 1820, as part of the process of settling on definitive borders.

This means the USA won't get a Pacific coast until and unless it takes California from Mexico. Which can plausibly be done, since settlement of California started a decade later, and the Hispanic population may be assumed to be correspondingly less expansive, compared to ATL. (Going by historical population development in the region: in OTL 1848, there were some 8500 Mexican citizens in Alta California. In this ATL, we might safely assume that there would be a mere 3500 or so.)

----------------------

In this TL, is British North America still united into a Confederation of Canada, stretching from Alta California/New Albion Drake's Bay to Nova Scotia, or is it instead a medley of separate colonies? Canada being one thing, British Columbia or Pacifica being another?

Canada being a single lump does not make sense, as there is a human habitation hole between the York Peninsula and Lake Winnipeg, hence IF there was a larger/earlier British presence on the Pacific there should be a Canada (up to Lake in the Woods) and a Colombia (Manitoba and Everything To Its West).

The obvious divide will be the one that already existed: Prince Rupert's Land extends to cover the drainage basin of the Hudson Bay. This will go with alt-Canada, so that alt-Canada will extend quite a bit further West than Lake of the Woods. But it won't extent past the continental divide, and you instead get an alt-BC that extends to include the whole Pacific North-West as well as Alaska. Basically, you get Big Cascadia:

Although I'm not sure how the "Great White North" would get divided. I mean the Northern area of central (OTL) Canada that drains into the Arctic Sea, and which is therefore neither part of the "Pacific" or the "Atlantic" countries that we are discussing here. My own solution to this would be to award the area marked '8' on this map to Alt-Canada, while the Mackenzie basin ('6' and '7') would go to "British Pacifica" (or whatever it ends up getting called):

...An additional thought is that, if California is (even) easier to annex than it was in OTL, it might plausibly be the British doing it, rather than the Americans. After all, they already have a colony right to the North, and once gold is discovered, it become worth the effort. It may be a bit of a Brit-wank, but you could realistically see "British Pacifica" extend from Alaska to Baja California, utterly denying the USA a Pacific coastline.

In this event, "Pacifica" would be a major power. It would get rich off the Californian gold rush, then later the Alaska-Yukon gold rush, and then be able to profit from Alaskan oil and gas. (It would even have the uranium-rich parts of OTL Canada, if we go with my proposed division. But that's frankly just a potential bonus.)

 

[Buba]

The obvious divide will be the one that already existed: Prince Rupert's Land extends to cover the drainage basin of the Hudson Bay. This will go with alt-Canada,

I still see the same obvious divide differently - Prince Rupert's Land - sans "18" and most of "17" on the lovely map you posted - goes with "Queensland".
There is no direct communication link between the Nelson Basin and the Great Lakes. The obvious - about as long and much, much cheaper to build - railroad route between Toronto and Winnipeg is by way of Detroit and Chicago.

 

[Skallagrim]

I still see the same obvious divide differently - Prince Rupert's Land - sans "18" and most of "17" on the lovely map you posted - goes with "Queensland".
There is no direct communication link between the Nelson Basin and the Great Lakes. The obvious - about as long and much, much cheaper to build - railroad route between Toronto and Winnipeg is by way of Detroit and Chicago.

The issue with this (and the reason I called the proposed division 'obvious') is that Prince Rupert's Land existed as a cohesive and very clearly defined geographical entity. It continued to exist up to 1870, at which point it was abolished as a distinct entity because the Hudson Bay Company's charter was dissolved... when the newly-federated Canada took over the territory.

We must note that at this time, British Columbia existed, but had not yet joined Canada. British Columbia was also divided from Prince Rupert's Land by a big honking mountain range. This was no less of an obstacle to any "firm ties" to the West than distance was an obstacle to firm ties to the East. So there was really no good reason to transfer the inland regions of Prince Rupert's Land to alt-BC. On the contrary: absent railways and roadways, the primary means of travel was via the rivers. Which all emptied into the Hudson Buy.

For this reason, I'm pretty confident that Prince Rupert's Land would go to Canada, as in OTL. The point of contention would be the "North-Western Territory". With all of Alaska in British hands from early on, its coastal strip would be tied to alt-BC by default. The inland borders of alt-BC would be poorly-defined for a long time, as in OTL. They'd presumably use the continental divide as a preliminary demarcation when defining the region. So the red line running North from Snow Dome on this map:

The area between the red and blue lines in the far North, then, would be the area actually "up for grabs". Canada got this region pretty much by default in OTL. BC joined in 1871, so who was there to dispute the claim, really?

But in this ATL, that's different. The rivers there empty into the arctic seas, and the region is equally unreachable from both sides. Its main river, the Mackenzie, does empty right across the pre-established border of alt-BC. For that reason, I think it's quite plausible that they'd claim the Mackenzie basin as theirs. Alt-Canada would claim the North-Eastern portion of the region, and the Arctic isles (as they did in OTL).

That strikes me as plausible enough. The most realistic alternative, I'd say, is not alt-BC getting all of the North-Western Territory and most of Prince Rupert's Land, but rather alt-Canada getting all of Prince Rupert's Land and almost all of the North-Western Territory (with alt-BC getting only the North Slope of Alaska). That scenario could unfold if Britain insists that the lands in question belong to Canada.

 

[ATP]

So,as a result,we would get british Alasca with bigger Canada including Oregon?
That would change History - weaker USA,stronger England.
Maybe USA would support germans during WW1?
Maybe there would be no USA at all?

 

[Buba]

British Canada with Alaska is almost a certainty. Washington or Oregon - maybe.

Without Alaska the USA does not lose anything up to the 1970s. The 200 hundred tons of gold between 1900 and 1920 is not that important. Its lack goes unnoticed.
Without the Northwest the USA is just as strong (or minimally less, so much less that you have to squint to notice) than in OTL.

Irrelevant to WWI.

The emergence of USA is unconnected to Alaska.

 

[Skallagrim]

British Canada with Alaska is almost a certainty. Washington or Oregon - maybe.

Without Alaska the USA does not lose anything up to the 1970s. The 200 hundred tons of gold between 1900 and 1920 is not that important. Its lack goes unnoticed.
Without the Northwest the USA is just as strong (or minimally less, so much less that you have to squint to notice) than in OTL.

Irrelevant to WWI.

The emergence of USA is unconnected to Alaska.

If Britain gets the Pacific North-West and Alaska, that's really no big deal for the USA for most of its history (although the obvious benefits of owning both will later become apparent).

An interesting side effect, though, is that the Treaty of 1818 probably doesn't get concluded the way it did in OTL. The idea of a 'straight line border (to the Pacific)' is something the USA was angling for. Britain didn't really have power over the Pacific North-West, but figured it could move to beat the USA to it. If Britain is already in possession of the Pacific North-West, and claiming the whole Columbia Watershed (whose extent is not yet properly defined), then Britain will be quite wary of the 'straight line border' plan. So the USA's North-Western border probably remains defined by the Mississippi watershed.



However... if we run with the quite plausible scenario that Britain, in 1848, decides to march into California before the USA can get boots on the ground there... that's another story altogether. As you said it yourself ('fixing' my post), it's possible that Britain might eventually claim everything up to the Colorado/Gila. This has far greater conserquences for the USA. As we can see on the map:

The idea, then, would be that the USA still gets all of Texas, but Britain swoops in from the North and takes California. This confines the USA to the Atlantic, and denies it access to the gold of California.

(Another alternative is that Britain finds it to be in its own interests to prop up Mexico, thus preventing the USA from executing any land-grabs at all. Thus keeping Mexico big... and nevertheless in Britain's pocket.)

 

[ATP]

If Britain gets the Pacific North-West and Alaska, that's really no big deal for the USA for most of its history (although the obvious benefits of owning both will later become apparent).

An interesting side effect, though, is that the Treaty of 1818 probably doesn't get concluded the way it did in OTL. The idea of a 'straight line border (to the Pacific)' is something the USA was angling for. Britain didn't really have power over the Pacific North-West, but figured it could move to beat the USA to it. If Britain is already in possession of the Pacific North-West, and claiming the whole Columbia Watershed (whose extent is not yet properly defined), then Britain will be quite wary of the 'straight line border' plan. So the USA's North-Western border probably remains defined by the Mississippi watershed.



However... if we run with the quite plausible scenario that Britain, in 1848, decides to march into California before the USA can get boots on the ground there... that's another story altogether. As you said it yourself ('fixing' my post), it's possible that Britain might eventually claim everything up to the Colorado/Gila. This has far greater conserquences for the USA. As we can see on the map:

The idea, then, would be that the USA still gets all of Texas, but Britain swoops in from the North and takes California. This confines the USA to the Atlantic, and denies it access to the gold of California.

(Another alternative is that Britain finds it to be in its own interests to prop up Mexico, thus preventing the USA from executing any land-grabs at all. Thus keeping Mexico big... and nevertheless in Britain's pocket.)

Very british thing to do.If it worked,we would have USA supporting germans during WW1.

British Canada with Alaska is almost a certainty. Washington or Oregon - maybe.

Without Alaska the USA does not lose anything up to the 1970s. The 200 hundred tons of gold between 1900 and 1920 is not that important. Its lack goes unnoticed.
Without the Northwest the USA is just as strong (or minimally less, so much less that you have to squint to notice) than in OTL.

Irrelevant to WWI.

The emergence of USA is unconnected to Alaska.

You have a point,in this scenario USA still exist and are slighty less powerpuff.

 

[Buba]

@Skallagrim - yup, no California hurts the USA a lot.
I was joking a bit about GB taking all the Provincias Internas Occidentales - in theory it could, ITTL this being more plausible, yet not likely.

USA support Germany in WWI is very unlikely to be shaped by ancient mid XIXth century events. In OTL the USA stance stemmed principally from the likes and dislikes of a certain Woodrow Wilson. A different President could had threatened the Entente with war in 1914 over trampling of Neutrals' Rights.

So, we seem to have a consensus that Alaska is more or less irrelevant.

Now, Pacific NW in British hands - down to 42nd parallel or to limit of Colombia R. basin - that IMO would be a driver for "no Canada from sea to shining sea". True that before a RR is built - which would be 1860-70 soonest - it is not exactly accessible in easy and fast manner. Still it should be apparent that the Wiliammette Valley (or whatever it called) and other hospitable parts of "Colombia" are conducive to create a population centre rivalling or exceeding that of the York Peninsula. With a big fuck all in between.

 

[stevep]

I think the key thing if Britain has a significantly larger Pacific colony on the west coast as to whether a unified Canada emerges or its split into two - or possibly more colonies would probably be relations with the US. Especially if Britain got to California 1st its going to clash directly with American desires for manifest destiny so tensions between the US and any future state/states would be markedly higher. A lot would depend on the outcome of those changes as well as other butterflies that that likely to occur as a result. A fairly clear US threat could incentivise the unification of the colonies but otherwise two confederations are more likely.

While the gulf coast and Mississippi/Missouri basin is more important to the US than the Pacific coastline in many ways, at least until very recent times its still going to be an issue. Also it could affect the rate of settlement of the rest of the western US. Without California and Oregon there is less incentive for the settlement of the less palatable lands and also for a trans-continental railway which helped in such development. Unless the US response is militaristic and such facilities and developments occur with at least a consideration of taking the west coast by force.

Of course if the Pacific coast goes red then what happens with issues like slavery and a civil war inside the US? Does Texas come into existence and if so does it still join the US and then a southern break-away? How much might not having free soil California and Oregon affect the internal balance inside the US and possibly delay a southern break-away or enable it to occur peacefully.

Its unlikely that a WWI very similar in dating and the powers on both sides would occur here but there is a good probability that the US would be less friendly to Britain and its allies in TTL.

Anyway initial thoughts on the issues of a wider British presence in western N America.

 

[Buba]

No Russians -> stronger HBC in Columbia River basin -> inflow of American settlers -> HBC can't cope -> HBC calls in Crown/is kicked out by Crown* -> USA grumbles in American, Britain flexes Major Armstrong style - > a few regiments of Redcoats keep the settlers in order -> the most uppity and boisterous settlers bugger off south to California, the rest zestfully bellow their lungs out singing "God Save the Queen!" -> the new crown colony grows into an entity which refuses to merge with Canada.

As not to escalate tension with USA GB - and being content with present possessions - and as in OTL - it does not care that USA annexes most of Mexico.

Plausible course of events?

* The EIC managed its (mostly accidental) transition from trading company into sovereign state, the HBC might not be capable of such a feat - smaller, without any military force of its own ...

 

[ATP]

No Russians -> stronger HBC in Columbia River basin -> inflow of American settlers -> HBC can't cope -> HBC calls in Crown/is kicked out by Crown* -> USA grumbles in American, Britain flexes Major Armstrong style - > a few regiments of Redcoats keep the settlers in order -> the most uppity and boisterous settlers bugger off south to California, the rest zestfully bellow their lungs out singing "God Save the Queen!" -> the new crown colony grows into an entity which refuses to merge with Canada.

As not to escalate tension with USA GB - and being content with present possessions - and as in OTL - it does not care that USA annexes most of Mexico.

Plausible course of events?

* The EIC managed its (mostly accidental) transition from trading company into sovereign state, the HBC might not be capable of such a feat - smaller, without any military force of its own ...

Yup.Now,we would have catholic USA president 50 years earlier.
I hope,that not such kind of catholic as Biden or JFK....

 

[stevep]

Yup.Now,we would have catholic USA president 50 years earlier.
I hope,that not such kind of catholic as Biden or JFK....

Possibly but possibly not. While not as extreme as you paint it there was a deep fear of Catholicism and Popery in the US and if there's a large subject population of Catholics as 'citizens' but with probably serious restrictions on their political and economic rights its likely to be worse. Unless the US can maintain a strong inflow of Protestants - which is possibly unlikely in the longer term then its going to face an increasing minority of Catholic Spanish speakers who have every reason to hate its guts. Which is likely to mean doubling down on restrictions.

Its possible that ultimately the Mexicans will be accepted as Americans and will be willing to accept such a role. Probably more likely that at some stage they regain their independence but with a lot of deaths on both sides before then and deep hostility between the resulting nations. What would happen with any blacks located in the resultant Mexico would be an interesting and possibly tragic thing. They might be seen as other suffers of a deeply oppressive and racist system but at the same time their likely to be Protestant and hence deeply mistrusted. Ditto with any Mexicans that convert to some branch of Protestantism.

If there isn't a split then a future Catholic President is likely to be very like a JFK or possibly a Biden, empahsising liberalism and tolerance rather than bigotry and their own religious extremism simply because that would both be a big barrier to their election and also probably result in a massive civil war.

 

[ATP]

Possibly but possibly not. While not as extreme as you paint it there was a deep fear of Catholicism and Popery in the US and if there's a large subject population of Catholics as 'citizens' but with probably serious restrictions on their political and economic rights its likely to be worse. Unless the US can maintain a strong inflow of Protestants - which is possibly unlikely in the longer term then its going to face an increasing minority of Catholic Spanish speakers who have every reason to hate its guts. Which is likely to mean doubling down on restrictions.

Its possible that ultimately the Mexicans will be accepted as Americans and will be willing to accept such a role. Probably more likely that at some stage they regain their independence but with a lot of deaths on both sides before then and deep hostility between the resulting nations. What would happen with any blacks located in the resultant Mexico would be an interesting and possibly tragic thing. They might be seen as other suffers of a deeply oppressive and racist system but at the same time their likely to be Protestant and hence deeply mistrusted. Ditto with any Mexicans that convert to some branch of Protestantism.

If there isn't a split then a future Catholic President is likely to be very like a JFK or possibly a Biden, empahsising liberalism and tolerance rather than bigotry and their own religious extremism simply because that would both be a big barrier to their election and also probably result in a massive civil war.

Possible catholic president would be Republican here,not Democrat.And,if it happen about 1920,he would be normal dude,not some kind of Bush.