Three Heads (NB) vs One Head (NS)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Some people might wonder that "if the rationale for building the capital inland, away from American attack, was that important, wouldn't building it in Woodstock paradoxically place it at increased risk since it is so close to the border" The answer is yes and no.

Back before good roads (plus motorized vehicles) and railways it was also vastly easier to travel along waterways. It would have been easier for Americans to attack Saint John than to move an army a couple hundred kilometres over land along a primitive road or through hilly forest. This is why nearly all pre-railway-era major cities have water access.

In retrospect it was actually Maine that was attacked and occupied during the War of 1812 and the British navy was so much more powerful than the American navy for so long that naval attack probably wasn't much of a real concern.

[JHikka]

The Webster-Ashburton Treaty borders can be handily seen in this map courtesy of wikimedia:



It would have been great for NB and the Maritimes had the British claim to Maine territory gone through rather than what was eventually settled on. Would have made Quebec City and Sherbrooke much closer for Maritime interests for when we would be eventually building railways and highways. In fantasy world that would mean the TCH would have been able to cut west from Perth-Andover, between present-day Caribou and Presque-Isle, and onto Quebec City. This would have opened up the Eastern Townships more to Maritime traffic at the expense of Gaspesie.

This likely would have benefited Fredericton most as it would have made it much closer and direct to Quebec and ROC business and traffic as a whole, but I imagine NB would have benefited as a whole from opening up Northern Maine to Canadian transport. As of now it's essentially deadspace for Maine.