Canada/US Border Video

Quote: AZDuffman

If the British had won the Battle of New Orleans they would have kept it, probably made it into a Western version of Honk Kong or Singapore. But the message would have clearly been, "we control your access to world markets." In return for that access the USA would have been limited in the armed forces we would have been allowed to have, and Texas may have been independent. It would have been in the British interest to have several western countries.

As the Battle of New Orleans was post the treaty being signed, I'm not so sure. Though the Brits being the Brits they may have claimed it was there's now, no takesy backesies. It certainly would have been helpful for the British aspirations in the Pacific for there to be a variety of lesser powers in the West.

Quote:

Canada and the Brits had less use for AK than the USA did. The USA bought it in large part to protect maritime access to our west coast. HI completed the package. As long as Canada and Mexico could be kept as minor naval and land powers safety was assured. Enough land was annexed from Mexico to keep them minor for 200 years. After the Great Lakes border was settled Canada had less reason to be aggressive.

BC/Canada was just too poor post integration to consider the Alaska purchase (not knowing the resources available). There was certainly a desire for it to be part of the Western Canada sphere, but not the financial desires. I think it would have been useful for the British and definitely for Canada. The British I think by this point were less interested in the Western access (though still important... Victoria and Vancouver Island owes its existence to the British wanting a home for the Pacific fleet, and it's still true today for the Canadian armed forces).

Quote: TheCesspit

As the Battle of New Orleans was post the treaty being signed, I'm not so sure. Though the Brits being the Brits they may have claimed it was there's now, no takesy backesies. It certainly would have been helpful for the British aspirations in the Pacific for there to be a variety of lesser powers in the West.

I don't doubt they would have kept it, saying the treaty didn't matter and claim we started it so treaty was void. Hong Kong, Aden, Singapore, Gibraltar--to have a small colony at a strategic seaport was the British MO for hundreds of years. Who knows the price the Brits would have charged for Gulf access but it would have made the USA Southwest harder to gain and keep. Mexico would probably have lost TX and CA anyways. The Brits would have driven a much harder bargain in Oregon.

Quote:

BC/Canada was just too poor post integration to consider the Alaska purchase (not knowing the resources available). There was certainly a desire for it to be part of the Western Canada sphere, but not the financial desires. I think it would have been useful for the British and definitely for Canada. The British I think by this point were less interested in the Western access (though still important... Victoria and Vancouver Island owes its existence to the British wanting a home for the Pacific fleet, and it's still true today for the Canadian armed forces).

What was probably missed, as many in the USA did, was that after the 1800s there would be no more purchases of land between countries. None large enough to matter anyways. The fixed national borders post-1900 are unique in history. I think borders will fall in many places post-2100, but Canada lost a lot by passing on AK.