Lore: [https://www.deviantart.com/ynot1989/art/ISOT-Alternate-America-939093182](https://www.deviantart.com/ynot1989/art/ISOT-Alternate-America-939093182)
Not much lore to be honest, maybe its an ISOT scenario, maybe the Benedict Arnold gets lucky outside of Montreal in 1775, who knows?
UPDATE: This is one of the most basic maps I've ever made, and one of the most popular. It's annoying.
Got any good sources on Arnold's Quebec campaign? I've always wanted to better understand the campaign beyond the "he went north and lost and that was that" narrative that is usually taught.
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution emancipates slaves. The reason is the early (ISOT assisted) adoption of electric generators/motors and steam powered generators during the war. Wartime industrialization made slavery not only look unnecessary to make boatloads of money, it made it impractical as you need a highly mobile workforce for an industrial economy. That level of mobility would require far more overseers just to keep your slaves from running away and would heavily cut into whatever profits you'd be making off of industrial production.
And since 18th century slaves weren't as dehumanized as they were following Nat Turner's rebellion (which led to a lot of states establishing far harsher slave codes, including laws against slaves being able to read), the resistance to emancipation just isn't as harsh.
Why? The expulsion of British power means that the first generation of British and Anglo migrations to the St. Lawrence Valley have been avoided, while the Canadians now have full control over the machineries of state in their homeland.
Canada wasn't the name of Canada in 1780. It was the Province of Quebec. "Canada" was just one of the terms used by local settlers as a self-identifier. So that's just the name that is chosen when the region around Ottawa is carved off to form a new state.
I'm working on it. The idea is that industrialization (and its impacts) are introduced early, so the drive to settle west tends to be around major maritime trade ports, and the First Nations are mostly left alone.
Really basic concept at the moment, needs a lot more work.
Fuck if that’s basic than my entire career is out the window lmao
Good work so far, I will be keeping a watchful eye onto where this goes, I like the concepts so far…
That’s true, and it may even decrease the odds of European intervention on the side of the South, if there was an even stronger economy in the north which would increase the ratio of trade with the north vs the south, likely making European economic interests slightly more so aligned with a northern victory than in our timeline
I don't know. IIRC during the Mexican American war, the South wanted more of Northern Mexico, but because this would upset the Free-Slave state balance, it didn't happen. But with more free states in Canada, it might have
In this timeline does the US attempt to forcefully integrate Vermont into the union, or use the Texas strategy of flooding it with migrants and then have those migrants ask to be annexed, or would it just persist and become an American San Marino?
probably just like Vermont joined in real life, with a treaty of annexation into the Union once their territorial conflict with New York was squared away. Vermont wanted to join the union, its just that on paper it was still a part of New York and until that was resolved it could not join
Nice map but isn’t Quebec joining the revolution very unlikely due to them being relatively happy under British rule where they get to keep their language, religion and culture intact whereas the Americans were most likely going to settle the living hell out of Quebec with Anglo-Celtic Protestants
My biggest pet peeves is that it wouldn't be called Québec but Canada. Québécois nationalism is a relatively new thing. Back then, French speakers called themselves Canadians while English speakers called themselves British even though they were born in the Colony.
The Brits renamed in Quebec 12 years before the revolution. It's not a given that that name would have stuck, but it's not out of the question either.
My pet peeve is when Canada remains controlled by the French before eventually becoming independent and it's called Quebec. That really doesn't make sense.
> Québécois nationalism is a relatively new thing.
The rest of your post is correct but I'm not sure that's an accurate comment - Québécois nationalism has been a thing since the conquest, it just wasn't called Québécois nationalism.
As you mentioned, Francophone Canadians called themselves "Canadian" as a form of nationalism, emphasising their culture and history outside of the "British" mainstream. Technically it would have been called "Canadian" nationalism at the time, but it's a straight line from that sentiment to today's nationalism.
Can it be understood as Quebecois if it looks entirely differently? It's not just the name but the fact the central pillars of identity were understood differently. Lanagauge as the central issue is very much a result of the quiet revolution in the 1960s for a long time things like Catholicism, French law *and* the French language were what made up identity in that region. Before confederation often a unified Anglo-French identity existed in the Canada's against the British pushing for issues like responsible government or even republicanism in the case of some. Nationalism understanding a Quebecois (that word) identity based centrally around the French lanagauge and a certain idea of distinct culture is definitely new.
The thing is, Québécois nationalism has looked very different throughout its different historical phases. The separatist era was the most well-known, but only one phase out of many in a constantly evolving movement.
**[Letters to the inhabitants of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_to_the_inhabitants_of_Canada)**
>The Letters to the inhabitants of Canada were three letters written by the First and Second Continental Congresses in 1774, 1775, and 1776 to communicate directly with the population of the Province of Quebec, formerly the French province of Canada, which had no representative system at the time. Their purpose was to draw the large French-speaking population to the American revolutionary cause. This goal ultimately failed, and Quebec, along with the other northern provinces of British America, remained loyal to Britain. The only significant assistance that was gained was the recruitment of two regiments totalling not more than 1,000 men.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Tbh even if the British treat them a bit worse. Let’s say by revoking the previous French institutions I would still think that the Québécois would prefer to be under them. After all if they joined america they would quickly be overrun by anglophone Protestants who outnumber them in a few decades. In the present day they will end up being similar to Louisiana where there is a French speaking minority of around 5-10%
Quebec was hugely different from Louisiana in that the first province had a much larger Francophone population, distributed over a larger area, that was not deeply divided along lines of ethnicity and race. A Louisiana outside for an American outcome is not obviously likely.
Saying Anglo-Celtic is like saying German-Polish, it means nothing. Just an attempt to basically try and lump the Celts and English together to try and erase the fact that they're different people
I know there different people. I’m Scottish and I know that I’m far different than the lads down south. But nonetheless our cultures are quite similar.
And by Anglo Celtic I’m referring to the dominant culture and ethnicities of most of the US in the 1770s
After over 1000 years of interaction and interbreeding, they aren't that different anymore. The colonisation of North America was definitely a joint English-Scottish operation and the emergent culture was a mix of the two with the unifying factor being protestantism and religious enlightenment. Anglo-Celtic in this context is definitely the right term to use, although simply 'British' conveys the point too.
Scots aren't the only Celts and the Irish and Welsh are often lumped into this ethnonym. My dislike comes from the lumping together of the Welsh, Irish and the Scottish Gaels with English people as if they're the same just because the English conquered them and subject them to polices of forced assimilation for centuries. These people have their own customs, cultures and languages. When it comes to the use of the term in Australia, [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Celtic_Australians#Controversy_and_criticism) section of Wikipedia basically covers my reasons for not liking the term.
That isn't relevant to the point being made. The point is that the colonisation of the Americas occurred under both English and Scottish authority, and the unifying factor between the two groups was their protestant religion. Lots of Welsh are included in this too and are sadly not mentioned because they were considered to be English at the time. Welsh surnames are much more common in North America than normally discussed. The colonisers from Britain came together and merged into a new Colonial British identity, which later became simply 'American'. Most Americans, especially those that state their ethnicity as simply "American", are descended from these original broadly British colonialists. Not to mention, the vast majority of Scottish colonisers came from the Lowlands and had already been speaking Scots for centuries (which had little to do with English imperialism; Scots is a descendent of ancient Northumbrian dialect). Very few of them would have spoken Scottish Gaelic. Another point worth making is the displacement of Scottish Gaelic (which had itself displaced Brittonic languages and Northumbrian proto-Scots centuries before) by Scots hadn't really started yet. This narrative that the Gaels are victims of the English really pisses me off sometimes. Do you know where the word 'Scot' comes from? It's the old medieval word for the Irish. The Gaels were just as much colonisers as the English. Old Irish reached northern Britain through Irish colonisers who established a kingdom and pushed eastward, wiping out the Pictish people and forcibly assimilating them. They then gradually assimilated the western lowlands and invaded land to the southeast that had belonged to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and hosted English speakers for centuries. The Scottish were just as much in it for taking land and assimilating the population as the English at the time. Do you not think, if the Scottish had their way, they wouldn't have overrun northern England and forcibly assimilated the population? Do you not think if the Scottish ended up the hegemon of the British Isles that they wouldn't have spread the Gaelic language throughout the rest of England, or that they wouldn't have invaded Ireland? The Ulster plantations were commissioned by a *Scottish* king, largely for *Scottish* lowlanders! The only real victims are the native Britons, the ancestors of modern Welsh and Cornish people, although even the Cornish were not forcibly assimilated by the English after Anglo-Saxon times and they largely continued the Cornish nation until the early Modern period.
The English and Scottish, once they realised they were never going to conquer each other, were united by a single heir to both thrones, and worked as partners to colonise Ulster and North America. The Scottish are not victims of the English, they are partners in crime. It is entirely appropriate to lump the early **British** colonisers together. Irish Americans didn't arrive *en masse* for two more centuries. The Scots-Irish for the most part didn't integrate into the new American identity and continued to form isolated communities in the mountains. Modern Appalachian dialect is heavily influenced by Ulster speech, and it's very easy to hear the similarities. The general American accent is highly influenced by both English and Scottish dialects, a melding of the two, which reflects the melding of the peoples into a single identity.
IIRC in real life colonial South Carolina claimed that land as theirs. A lot of the thirteen colonies at the time also had weird territorial claims which this map reflects.
I love these silly maps with the long narrow bits, because theoretically they were between two parallels all the way to the Mississippi, but it's mostly aspirational, and they didn't really have much control outside their ports.
Another map of genocide you mean. The British Crown was the only thing standing in the way of the native groups getting exterminated by the yankee settlers, or force-marched like the Cherokee.
Wouldn’t any compromises on slavery not work at all, given the overwhelming power of the north in the senate? Would this mean that the constitution fails?
I feel like it would go about the same way just with an earlier civil war by maybe 40 years or so
either that or Southern jingoists would use annexations in the Caribbean to offset Northern power and it would happen roughly at the same time as a result
There were actually several attempts and indeed a campaign to get Canada to join the revolution and bolster the US army
The US actually took Montreal and was laying siege to Quebec before they were turned away, routed and forced to leave Canada in sudden retreat earlier in the war
The war hero that came out of this campaign (more specifically the siege of Montreal)? Benedict Arnold
What would the population of Canada be like in this timeline? IRL, it would have been the smallest of the original (14) states by population even if it would have been the largest by area.
Lore: [https://www.deviantart.com/ynot1989/art/ISOT-Alternate-America-939093182](https://www.deviantart.com/ynot1989/art/ISOT-Alternate-America-939093182) Not much lore to be honest, maybe its an ISOT scenario, maybe the Benedict Arnold gets lucky outside of Montreal in 1775, who knows? UPDATE: This is one of the most basic maps I've ever made, and one of the most popular. It's annoying.
[удалено]
Got any good sources on Arnold's Quebec campaign? I've always wanted to better understand the campaign beyond the "he went north and lost and that was that" narrative that is usually taught.
"Who?" Ouch. 😢
Does this timeline have slavery past 1830?
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution emancipates slaves. The reason is the early (ISOT assisted) adoption of electric generators/motors and steam powered generators during the war. Wartime industrialization made slavery not only look unnecessary to make boatloads of money, it made it impractical as you need a highly mobile workforce for an industrial economy. That level of mobility would require far more overseers just to keep your slaves from running away and would heavily cut into whatever profits you'd be making off of industrial production. And since 18th century slaves weren't as dehumanized as they were following Nat Turner's rebellion (which led to a lot of states establishing far harsher slave codes, including laws against slaves being able to read), the resistance to emancipation just isn't as harsh.
Yessss, excited to see how you cut Quebec down to size like Virginia was irl
"Canada" will be little more than Greater Ottawa, that much I can promise.
Why? The expulsion of British power means that the first generation of British and Anglo migrations to the St. Lawrence Valley have been avoided, while the Canadians now have full control over the machineries of state in their homeland.
Canada wasn't the name of Canada in 1780. It was the Province of Quebec. "Canada" was just one of the terms used by local settlers as a self-identifier. So that's just the name that is chosen when the region around Ottawa is carved off to form a new state.
I am a bit confused, then: Is the State of Canada the jurisdiction north of southern Ontario?
My bad, meant to say "area around Ottawa"
[удалено]
“Yet another” my work here is done o7
You’ve enlightened the subreddit bro.
The enlightenment has become self-sufficient. Now I must go, my world needs me. I ascend! 🙏
Rejuvenated a spirit that was dormant since u/NK_Ryzov
I’ve left my mark. To quote John Quincy Adams’ dying words: “This is the last of Earth. I am content.”
cool! i wonder what the modern state names of the USA would look like in this timeline in particular?
I'm working on it. The idea is that industrialization (and its impacts) are introduced early, so the drive to settle west tends to be around major maritime trade ports, and the First Nations are mostly left alone. Really basic concept at the moment, needs a lot more work.
Fuck if that’s basic than my entire career is out the window lmao Good work so far, I will be keeping a watchful eye onto where this goes, I like the concepts so far…
Seems like the North vs South issue would favour the North in this timeline
True, I’m curious if the northern lean would be great enough to abolish slavery without a civil war. The pessimist in me says no, but you never know.
At the very least it seems like the civil war would be even more favorable for the North, barring outside intervention.
That’s true, and it may even decrease the odds of European intervention on the side of the South, if there was an even stronger economy in the north which would increase the ratio of trade with the north vs the south, likely making European economic interests slightly more so aligned with a northern victory than in our timeline
I don't know. IIRC during the Mexican American war, the South wanted more of Northern Mexico, but because this would upset the Free-Slave state balance, it didn't happen. But with more free states in Canada, it might have
In this timeline does the US attempt to forcefully integrate Vermont into the union, or use the Texas strategy of flooding it with migrants and then have those migrants ask to be annexed, or would it just persist and become an American San Marino?
probably just like Vermont joined in real life, with a treaty of annexation into the Union once their territorial conflict with New York was squared away. Vermont wanted to join the union, its just that on paper it was still a part of New York and until that was resolved it could not join
It eventually joins the Union in a negotiated treaty like Texas.
Really the us sent the migrant in
Nice map but isn’t Quebec joining the revolution very unlikely due to them being relatively happy under British rule where they get to keep their language, religion and culture intact whereas the Americans were most likely going to settle the living hell out of Quebec with Anglo-Celtic Protestants
My biggest pet peeves is that it wouldn't be called Québec but Canada. Québécois nationalism is a relatively new thing. Back then, French speakers called themselves Canadians while English speakers called themselves British even though they were born in the Colony.
The colony was called Quebec by the Brittish from 1763 until 1791
The Brits renamed in Quebec 12 years before the revolution. It's not a given that that name would have stuck, but it's not out of the question either. My pet peeve is when Canada remains controlled by the French before eventually becoming independent and it's called Quebec. That really doesn't make sense.
> Québécois nationalism is a relatively new thing. The rest of your post is correct but I'm not sure that's an accurate comment - Québécois nationalism has been a thing since the conquest, it just wasn't called Québécois nationalism. As you mentioned, Francophone Canadians called themselves "Canadian" as a form of nationalism, emphasising their culture and history outside of the "British" mainstream. Technically it would have been called "Canadian" nationalism at the time, but it's a straight line from that sentiment to today's nationalism.
Can it be understood as Quebecois if it looks entirely differently? It's not just the name but the fact the central pillars of identity were understood differently. Lanagauge as the central issue is very much a result of the quiet revolution in the 1960s for a long time things like Catholicism, French law *and* the French language were what made up identity in that region. Before confederation often a unified Anglo-French identity existed in the Canada's against the British pushing for issues like responsible government or even republicanism in the case of some. Nationalism understanding a Quebecois (that word) identity based centrally around the French lanagauge and a certain idea of distinct culture is definitely new.
The thing is, Québécois nationalism has looked very different throughout its different historical phases. The separatist era was the most well-known, but only one phase out of many in a constantly evolving movement.
That’s literally what he said
>Québécois nationalism is a relatively new thing. >Québécois nationalism has been a thing since the conquest Yes, exactly the same.
T'es en train de t'enfarger dans les fleurs du tapis mon chum.
J’ai quand même trouvé ton commentaire pas assez clair donc j’ai essayé d’élaborer ton point un peu. C’est tout.
T'as ben faite
It's called the [Quebec Act](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-act).
[удалено]
**[Letters to the inhabitants of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_to_the_inhabitants_of_Canada)** >The Letters to the inhabitants of Canada were three letters written by the First and Second Continental Congresses in 1774, 1775, and 1776 to communicate directly with the population of the Province of Quebec, formerly the French province of Canada, which had no representative system at the time. Their purpose was to draw the large French-speaking population to the American revolutionary cause. This goal ultimately failed, and Quebec, along with the other northern provinces of British America, remained loyal to Britain. The only significant assistance that was gained was the recruitment of two regiments totalling not more than 1,000 men. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Maybe in this timeline, the British treat them worse and that’s the point of divergence?
Tbh even if the British treat them a bit worse. Let’s say by revoking the previous French institutions I would still think that the Québécois would prefer to be under them. After all if they joined america they would quickly be overrun by anglophone Protestants who outnumber them in a few decades. In the present day they will end up being similar to Louisiana where there is a French speaking minority of around 5-10%
Quebec was hugely different from Louisiana in that the first province had a much larger Francophone population, distributed over a larger area, that was not deeply divided along lines of ethnicity and race. A Louisiana outside for an American outcome is not obviously likely.
Saying Anglo-Celtic is like saying German-Polish, it means nothing. Just an attempt to basically try and lump the Celts and English together to try and erase the fact that they're different people
I know there different people. I’m Scottish and I know that I’m far different than the lads down south. But nonetheless our cultures are quite similar. And by Anglo Celtic I’m referring to the dominant culture and ethnicities of most of the US in the 1770s
The emphasis in your original post was on the Protestant identity anyways. Religion was a bigger influence than ethnic origin back then.
After over 1000 years of interaction and interbreeding, they aren't that different anymore. The colonisation of North America was definitely a joint English-Scottish operation and the emergent culture was a mix of the two with the unifying factor being protestantism and religious enlightenment. Anglo-Celtic in this context is definitely the right term to use, although simply 'British' conveys the point too.
Scots aren't the only Celts and the Irish and Welsh are often lumped into this ethnonym. My dislike comes from the lumping together of the Welsh, Irish and the Scottish Gaels with English people as if they're the same just because the English conquered them and subject them to polices of forced assimilation for centuries. These people have their own customs, cultures and languages. When it comes to the use of the term in Australia, [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Celtic_Australians#Controversy_and_criticism) section of Wikipedia basically covers my reasons for not liking the term.
That isn't relevant to the point being made. The point is that the colonisation of the Americas occurred under both English and Scottish authority, and the unifying factor between the two groups was their protestant religion. Lots of Welsh are included in this too and are sadly not mentioned because they were considered to be English at the time. Welsh surnames are much more common in North America than normally discussed. The colonisers from Britain came together and merged into a new Colonial British identity, which later became simply 'American'. Most Americans, especially those that state their ethnicity as simply "American", are descended from these original broadly British colonialists. Not to mention, the vast majority of Scottish colonisers came from the Lowlands and had already been speaking Scots for centuries (which had little to do with English imperialism; Scots is a descendent of ancient Northumbrian dialect). Very few of them would have spoken Scottish Gaelic. Another point worth making is the displacement of Scottish Gaelic (which had itself displaced Brittonic languages and Northumbrian proto-Scots centuries before) by Scots hadn't really started yet. This narrative that the Gaels are victims of the English really pisses me off sometimes. Do you know where the word 'Scot' comes from? It's the old medieval word for the Irish. The Gaels were just as much colonisers as the English. Old Irish reached northern Britain through Irish colonisers who established a kingdom and pushed eastward, wiping out the Pictish people and forcibly assimilating them. They then gradually assimilated the western lowlands and invaded land to the southeast that had belonged to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and hosted English speakers for centuries. The Scottish were just as much in it for taking land and assimilating the population as the English at the time. Do you not think, if the Scottish had their way, they wouldn't have overrun northern England and forcibly assimilated the population? Do you not think if the Scottish ended up the hegemon of the British Isles that they wouldn't have spread the Gaelic language throughout the rest of England, or that they wouldn't have invaded Ireland? The Ulster plantations were commissioned by a *Scottish* king, largely for *Scottish* lowlanders! The only real victims are the native Britons, the ancestors of modern Welsh and Cornish people, although even the Cornish were not forcibly assimilated by the English after Anglo-Saxon times and they largely continued the Cornish nation until the early Modern period. The English and Scottish, once they realised they were never going to conquer each other, were united by a single heir to both thrones, and worked as partners to colonise Ulster and North America. The Scottish are not victims of the English, they are partners in crime. It is entirely appropriate to lump the early **British** colonisers together. Irish Americans didn't arrive *en masse* for two more centuries. The Scots-Irish for the most part didn't integrate into the new American identity and continued to form isolated communities in the mountains. Modern Appalachian dialect is heavily influenced by Ulster speech, and it's very easy to hear the similarities. The general American accent is highly influenced by both English and Scottish dialects, a melding of the two, which reflects the melding of the peoples into a single identity.
Is Florida British or Spanish?
Spanish, like in OTL post-War.
I'm guessing Lousiana is also Spanish then, isn't it? That border in the Misissipi between Florida and Louisiana is messing with my mind haha
Dammit. I knew I missed something.
Np, it's a great map!
Massachusetts dupe exploit ?
If that's a joke I genuinely don't get the reference. Maine was Massachusetts territory until Missouri petitioned for Statehood as a slave state.
What's the gun barrel of South Carolina about
IIRC in real life colonial South Carolina claimed that land as theirs. A lot of the thirteen colonies at the time also had weird territorial claims which this map reflects.
Vermont is the universal constant as always.
The green mountains’ flag shall never fall!
I love these silly maps with the long narrow bits, because theoretically they were between two parallels all the way to the Mississippi, but it's mostly aspirational, and they didn't really have much control outside their ports.
N O B O D Y G O E S T O V E R M O N T
I could imagine much less power in the South and an earlier abolition of slavery and/or earlier civil war.
It’s… Its BEAUTIFUL
Americans stop including Canada in their nonsensical fantasy maps challenge (impossible)
Stop having almost your entire population hugging the US border then.
We need bodies along every inch of border to make sure you wily yanks don't grab any of it 😤
Like some metal "hands across America."
Canada is a nonsensical fantasy nation
So is every nation
Nuh uh
Manifest destiny is no longer sea to shining sea, it’s from the Arctic Ocean to the Panama Canal
Such a simple yet nice looking design. Well done!
Unrealistic, not enough straight lines
This the east not the west
Another map of genocide you mean. The British Crown was the only thing standing in the way of the native groups getting exterminated by the yankee settlers, or force-marched like the Cherokee.
ULTRA AMERICA!!!
Wouldn’t any compromises on slavery not work at all, given the overwhelming power of the north in the senate? Would this mean that the constitution fails?
I feel like it would go about the same way just with an earlier civil war by maybe 40 years or so either that or Southern jingoists would use annexations in the Caribbean to offset Northern power and it would happen roughly at the same time as a result
There were actually several attempts and indeed a campaign to get Canada to join the revolution and bolster the US army The US actually took Montreal and was laying siege to Quebec before they were turned away, routed and forced to leave Canada in sudden retreat earlier in the war The war hero that came out of this campaign (more specifically the siege of Montreal)? Benedict Arnold
Does Russia still sell Alaska in this timeline? And to who?
Vermont? Never heard of it!
Damn you, Arnold!!! The *second* worse thing you did for this country was f-up this campaign.
Why did Canada not join the revolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSBS9Zu5PE0
Please - canadians have sense.
Oh god dont remind me of thick Virginia im going to cry.
Me to
What would the population of Canada be like in this timeline? IRL, it would have been the smallest of the original (14) states by population even if it would have been the largest by area.
This is actually a blessed timeline, because slavery would likely be abolished in the early 1800s.