|
Thus your option of joining Canada will have no affect, what ever country you end up in (And I suspect the US will stay more or less one nation) it will be hurt.
AS to a break up, the most logical breakup would be California, the Colorado River Valley and the Rio Grand River valley (With a fourth potential being the Columbia/Snake River area). The rest of North America, south of the McKenzie River/Hudson bay AND North of Mexico consists of two drainage system that are interconnected and have been interconnected for trade purposes for at least 2000 years (Pre-columbian records are hard to find, but trade was being done for at least the last 2000 years maybe earlier). The present Canada-US border is artificial, it uses navigable lakes as a border. Such Navigable lakes like navigable Rivers unite people, it does NOT divide people (People can move on the water and along its flat edges, providing easy transportation between any area on or near such unnavigable rivers or lakes). Thus when France took over Central North America, France held from Quebec to Louisiana. Lack of Population cause it to lose out to the English Speaking population from the East Coast, and once across the Appalachian Mountains the Ohio, Mississippi and Great Lakes River and Lake System was settled within a biblical generation (i.e. 40 years 1780-1820). Britain managed to hold onto Canada in the Revolution, but could not and did not prohibit it from becoming economically part of the US by at the latest 1850 (When the Dollar was clearly the unit of transaction in Canada).
Given this tendency to trade and the ease of transportation, I expect most of the US to stay together. The East Coast will lose to much if it cuts itself off from the the above area (lets call New France for lack of a better term) and New France will lose to much opportunity for trade with Europe and the rest of the World if the East coast went it own way.
The Columbia/Snake River system is harder to get to from "New France", but once across it opens up trade with the rest of the US for the Columbia/Snake River system AND opens up the Far east to New France.
The questionable parts are California, Colorado River System and the Rio Grand River System. These areas have high Mexican populations and will be pulled in two directions, Mexico and New France. Northern California will want to be part of "New France", Mexico is to far away (People forget Sutter of Sutter's Mill frame obtain his property where he found gold on from the RUssians headquarters in Alaska NOT the Mexican in San Francisco, the Russians had a force not far from the creek he was on and considered it they territory, Spanish grants were to the South).
Unlike Northern California with its long history tied in with what was North of it and its later history tied in with the Railroad that connected it to "New France", Southern California will be more torn. Southern California will want to be part of Northern California (Do to the water concern) but also drawn to the Colorado River (Do to water concerns). The Colorado empties into the Gulf of Cortes which is part of Mexico, and control of the water flowing in that Gulf will be a concern to Mexico, and thus the Colorado River will be a concern to Mexico. Thus the Colorado River Valley will be divided between going with New France and Mexico. The Rio Grande River valley will have the same pulls, even today much of the water in the lower Rio Grande does NOT come from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains (Most of that water is pulled from it while before it hits El Paso Texas), but from Rivers that flow into the Rio Grande from Mexico. Thus control and say into those rivers will pull the Rio Grande Valley toward Mexico.
That is a fact we must accept, the above two river Valleys and Southern California is pulled to Mexico do to concerns about water (and water is the reason Mexico will be concerned about the same three areas). At the same time, the best Railroad link in the area is NOT north-south, but East-West, between New Orleans and the Mississippi river system and San Diego Harbor, which provided access not only to these areas to both New France, Europe via New Orleans but also Asia via San Diego. These areas have been in the US since 1848 legally and for commercial/trade purposes since the 1820s (With the exception of Southern California which flow to Mexico along the Pacific Ocean and the lower Rio Grande Valley which border Mexico and is closer to the Mexican valley then it is to New Orleans). Yes, we will NEVER see a return to the pre-1846 borders of the US and Mexico, to much of that area was and is part of "New France" (East Texas is clearly part of "New France" as is the whole Red River Valley). Colorado, Northern New Mexico and Northern Arizona has been under US economic Control since the 1820s, even then part of New France (The Spanish had kept the French out of the area, but required the use of force, a force that cease to exist in 1821 when Mexico became independent of Spain). The closet we will see as to those borders is efforts to hold both Rivers tributaries controlled by the same Government that controls the rest of each river (And given the water crisis on the area, might occur, leading to a division of the state of Colorado, and the Northern States of Mexico with most of New Mexico going to what Country controls the Rio Grande and Arizona going to whatever country that controls the Colorado River.
The big question mark in such a re-drawing of the border is that Mexico has its own problems, tied in with the drop in oil production in the Mexican oil fields (Covered over the last few years by the huge increase in price, but made even more clear by the recent drop in price). Mexico is about to explode, its central government has lost control of the money it has used to keep the country running since the 1930s and the Rich do not want to see their taxes increase. While the US may dissolve, Mexico may proceed the US into such dissolution. Mexico will come out of it, as did Russia and as will the US, but the issue is how. If Mexico goes first and recovers first then the above change in the border is possible, the people living in that area will want any form of stable government by then. If Mexico does NOT recover first (It is unimportant who goes first, the key will be who recovers first) then the border may see an extension to the south as both River Valley systems seek stability even if that means annexation into the US of land presently in Mexico (a third possibility exists, some sort of two new mini-states centered along those two rivers, as those areas stabilize before either the US or Mexico, thus become like Andorra between France and Spain, both and neither.
My point is Canada will see itself become part of the US no matter what happens, it exists as an independent nation do the the fact the British managed to hold onto it in 1783, as an independent country it has never, economically, really been independent of the US, even when Canada was under Direct British Rule. The reason Canada has not been economically independent is that it holds one half of the lesser half of the Great lakes- Mississippi River system I called "New France" above (I.e. the US controls ALL of the Mississippi, except for a small piece that enters and exits Canada, and Canada controls only the northern half of the Great Lakes, the lesser of these two LARGE transportation system, which have to be viewed together). The primary draw on Canada is this huge transportation system, and there is NOTHING to draw Canada away from it. Furthermore Canada is CLOSER to it then either the US East Coast or the Columbia/Snake River system (And both of those areas are drawn to "New France".
My point is Canada may join the lower 48, but the South will stay in the Union no matter what we do. Canada might get the US to adopt such universal health insurance, but as long as the South refuses to provide such service, there will be fear that people in the South will move to a state with such health care, thus no US States will adopt such health care unless all of the states do (The two exceptions is Alaska, which I believe is unlikely and California). Both States are fairly isolated from states with high populations (Alaska does NOT border another state and California borders Nevada and Arizona, states with low populations. California also borders Oregon, which has a sizable population but it is manageable if California adopted universal health insurance given the short border AND the much larger population of California compared even to Oregon. Thus annexation by Canada (Which may be how it happens but it will be all of the States of "New France" and the East Coast NOT just the American North) will not occur until either the US has Universal Health Insurance or Canada drops it. Geography trumps politics and the key piece of Geography in North America is what I called above "New France". The US may lose the Colorado and Rio Grande River, it might even lose Northern California and Columbia/Snake River valleys (The later two will only be temporary at best, quickly getting re-annexed or becoming like Canada is today). Don't look to such a disaster and dissolution to provide Universal Health Insurance, it will not happen do to any dissolution and redrawing the borders of the Nations of North America.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
