Map: United States, Annexation Bill of 1866 passed

[lordroel]

In 1866 the Annexation Bill was a bill introduced on July 2nd 1866, but never passed in the United States House of Representatives. It called for the annexation of British North America and the admission of its provinces as states and territories in the Union. The bill was sent to committee but never came back, was never voted upon, and did not become law. The bill never came to the United States Senate.

Bill in its complete form can be read online: A Bill for the admission of the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and for the organization of the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia

Several financial incentives were offered to the British Colonies to help get them on board including:

Purchase of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s lands for $10,000,000.

Take over provincial debts which amounted to $85,700,000.

Give an annual subsidy of $1,646,000 to the new states.

Connect Canada with the Maritimes by rail and spend $50,000,000 to complete and improve the colonial canal system.

Map of the alternate United States if the Annexation Bill of 1866 had passed.

This map was made by Rubberduck3y6 from AH.com and a good article to read about is The United States If The Annexation Bill of 1866 Had Passed at Brilliant Maps website.

Proposed states and territories

States

New Brunswick: Modern-day New Brunswick

Nova Scotia: Modern-day Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island

Canada East: Modern-day Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and part of modern-day northern Ontario.

Canada West: Modern-day southern Ontario, and part of modern-day northern Ontario.

Territories:

Selkirk Territory: Modern-day Manitoba, and parts of modern-day northwestern Ontario, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories

Saskatchewan Territory: Modern-day Alberta, and parts of modern-day Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.

Columbia Territory: The part of modern-day British Columbia west of the Rocky Mountains.

[stevep]

Of course that requires also that Canada accepts being colonised by the US. Which is somewhat unlikely. Especially with Uncle John in the background to help out if the neighbour to the south gets unpleasant.

[futurist]

Jun 22, 2016 21:26:51 GMT stevep said:

Of course that requires also that Canada accepts being colonised by the US. Which is somewhat unlikely. Especially with Uncle John in the background to help out if the neighbour to the south gets unpleasant.

Would western Canadians have actually opposed this back in the 1860s, though?

[lordroel]

Jun 23, 2016 0:04:05 GMT futurist said:

Jun 22, 2016 21:26:51 GMT stevep said:

Of course that requires also that Canada accepts being colonised by the US. Which is somewhat unlikely. Especially with Uncle John in the background to help out if the neighbour to the south gets unpleasant.

Would western Canadians have actually opposed this back in the 1860s, though?

I do not know, but the Canadian might feel abandoned by the British who they most likely will blame that they only care about money.

[spanishspy]

Jun 23, 2016 3:06:41 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 23, 2016 0:04:05 GMT futurist said:

Would western Canadians have actually opposed this back in the 1860s, though?

I do not know, but the Canadian might feel abandoned by the British who they most likely will blame that they only care about money.

One of the main reasons that the Columbia Territory became Canadian was the promise of a transcontinental railway. If the US can promise that first they have a shot at it.

[lordroel]

Jun 23, 2016 13:10:28 GMT spanishspy said:

Jun 23, 2016 3:06:41 GMT lordroel said:

I do not know, but the Canadian might feel abandoned by the British who they most likely will blame that they only care about money.

One of the main reasons that the Columbia Territory became Canadian was the promise of a transcontinental railway. If the US can promise that first they have a shot at it.

I fear that the Alaska purchases will not happen for a while, the United States government will have little money left after they by Canada and also having to rebuild the South.

[stevep]

Jun 23, 2016 13:10:28 GMT spanishspy said:

Jun 23, 2016 3:06:41 GMT lordroel said:

I do not know, but the Canadian might feel abandoned by the British who they most likely will blame that they only care about money.

One of the main reasons that the Columbia Territory became Canadian was the promise of a transcontinental railway. If the US can promise that first they have a shot at it.

  There is the possibility that British Columbia might agree to being annexed by the US under those circumstances but I suspect that Britain and/or Ottawa would match any US bid and blood and cultural links would win out.  Anywhere else you can forget about it.  Its too early for the Reif rebellions to prompt unrest in the pararies and eastern Canada defines itself very much by not being part of the US. 

[spanishspy]

Jun 23, 2016 15:47:14 GMT stevep said:

Jun 23, 2016 13:10:28 GMT spanishspy said:

One of the main reasons that the Columbia Territory became Canadian was the promise of a transcontinental railway. If the US can promise that first they have a shot at it.

  There is the possibility that British Columbia might agree to being annexed by the US under those circumstances but I suspect that Britain and/or Ottawa would match any US bid and blood and cultural links would win out.  Anywhere else you can forget about it.  Its too early for the Reif rebellions to prompt unrest in the pararies and eastern Canada defines itself very much by not being part of the US. 

It all depends on the specifications of the deal. If the American industrialists, in alliance with the government, could get up there fast enough, they might accept.

[stevep]

Jun 23, 2016 16:09:18 GMT spanishspy said:

Jun 23, 2016 15:47:14 GMT stevep said:

  There is the possibility that British Columbia might agree to being annexed by the US under those circumstances but I suspect that Britain and/or Ottawa would match any US bid and blood and cultural links would win out.  Anywhere else you can forget about it.  Its too early for the Reif rebellions to prompt unrest in the pararies and eastern Canada defines itself very much by not being part of the US. 

It all depends on the specifications of the deal. If the American industrialists, in alliance with the government, could get up there fast enough, they might accept.

  Possibly but possibly the settlers use it to start a bidding war between London/Ottawa and Washington.

[spanishspy]

Jun 24, 2016 10:22:08 GMT stevep said:

Jun 23, 2016 16:09:18 GMT spanishspy said:

It all depends on the specifications of the deal. If the American industrialists, in alliance with the government, could get up there fast enough, they might accept.

  Possibly but possibly the settlers use it to start a bidding war between London/Ottawa and Washington.

That seems possible. Would American annexation of the territory lead to higher population due to settlement?

[stevep]

Jun 24, 2016 17:38:15 GMT spanishspy said:

Jun 24, 2016 10:22:08 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly but possibly the settlers use it to start a bidding war between London/Ottawa and Washington.

That seems possible. Would American annexation of the territory lead to higher population due to settlement?

  In the event of America gaining control of the region, the existing west coast US population and the fact in a few years the US will have a trans-continental railway in operation it would enable more people to reach British Columbia.

[lordroel]

Jun 24, 2016 19:05:21 GMT stevep said:

Jun 24, 2016 17:38:15 GMT spanishspy said:

That seems possible. Would American annexation of the territory lead to higher population due to settlement?

  In the event of America gaining control of the region, the existing west coast US population and the fact in a few years the US will have a trans-continental railway in operation it would enable more people to reach British Columbia.

So how many flags will the United States have in 2016, i would think some of the territories (minus Alaska if it is not bought) would become states.

[spanishspy]

Jun 24, 2016 19:57:13 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 24, 2016 19:05:21 GMT stevep said:

  In the event of America gaining control of the region, the existing west coast US population and the fact in a few years the US will have a trans-continental railway in operation it would enable more people to reach British Columbia.

So how many flags will the United States have in 2016, i would think some of the territories (minus Alaska if it is not bought) would become states.

I can't see this new territory being divided into more than two or three states. Maybe a few for electoral posturing, but no more than three.

[lordroel]

Jun 25, 2016 3:10:58 GMT spanishspy said:

Jun 24, 2016 19:57:13 GMT lordroel said:

So how many flags will the United States have in 2016, i would think some of the territories (minus Alaska if it is not bought) would become states.

I can't see this new territory being divided into more than two or three states. Maybe a few for electoral posturing, but no more than three.

But the some of the Canadian territory have smaller population than some of the smaller states in the United States, make that sense to divided them into more than two or three states.

[stevep]

Well the key factor would be if the US move was welcomed or not. If it was then by now the US might have say 60. If its not and the US was unwise enough to push its suite then the figure might be as low as say 24, assuming no major further conflicts.