American 54-40 and British California, plausibility?

Napoleonrules

Banned
The British had designs on California, is it possible that a president other than Polk, perhaps a Whig or less pro-southern Democrat make a deal in 1846 that the US recognizes British right to seize Alto California and the US gets all the way to 54-40, of course with provisions of respecting HBC property and trading rights. Throw in that Britain in their purchasing of California (by way of their classic bullying, but being happy with San Francisco they don't demand San Diego as the US did OTL) also gets Mexico to agree to a US payment for Texas border at Rio Grande to a certain latitude (excluding Sante Fe and New Mexico) Perhaps people like Wilmot find this as a way of preventing too much US expansion for slavery. Of course New Mexico being sparsely populated, dealing with a nominally independent Comancheria and the Apache Wars, with trade routes favoring Kansas and Missouri leads to future problems. Mormons had still come to the area, and so we could see US annexation later on or the British support a massive Deseret.

At all plausible? Or how to make it plausible.
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
Napoleonrules,
(preamble: I know you and I have occasional tension, so I don't want you to think this is a personal attack).

didn't Britain covet California when they thought the Oregon territory was theirs, and when New Spain/Mexico claim to northern California was tenuous? (in other words, in colonial days - mid late 1700s- when there was still a shot at having all of the west coast and they could expand east) Once they recognize the Oregon territory as part of the US, and most of Alto California is recognized as belonging to NS/M, not only does California become a sparsely populated and isolated colony (at a time when Britain has no need of a settler colony), but they have to brazenly take it from Mexico.

I think once Britain gives up on Oregon, they also give up on California. Makes much more sense for them to stand firm on limiting US northern expansion.

in '46, no one knew of the riches to be had, and I think Britain's coveting days were realistically over.
 

Napoleonrules

Banned
unprincipled peter said:
Napoleonrules,
(preamble: I know you and I have occasional tension, so I don't want you to think this is a personal attack).

didn't Britain covet California when they thought the Oregon territory was theirs, and when New Spain/Mexico claim to northern California was tenuous? (in other words, in colonial days - mid late 1700s- when there was still a shot at having all of the west coast and they could expand east) Once they recognize the Oregon territory as part of the US, and most of Alto California is recognized as belonging to NS/M, not only does California become a sparsely populated and isolated colony (at a time when Britain has no need of a settler colony), but they have to brazenly take it from Mexico.

I think once Britain gives up on Oregon, they also give up on California. Makes much more sense for them to stand firm on limiting US northern expansion.

in '46, no one knew of the riches to be had, and I think Britain's coveting days were realistically over.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia-
The British minister in Mexico, Richard Pakenham, wrote in 1841 to Lord Palmerstonurging "to establish an English population in the magnificent Territory of Upper California", saying that "no part of the World offering greater natural advantages for the establishment of an English colony ... by all means desirable ... that California, once ceasing to belong to Mexico, should not fall into the hands of any power but England ... daring and adventurous speculators in the United States have already turned their thoughts in this direction." But by the time the letter reached London, Sir Robert Peel's Tory government with a Little England policy had come to power and rejected the proposal as expensive and a potential source of conflict.[17][18]

A significant number of influential Californioswere in favor of annexation, either by theUnited States or by the United Kingdom. Pío de Jesús Pico IV, the last governor of Alta California, was in favor of British annexation.[19]
Click to expand...
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
not the timeframe you're looking for, but escalate the Nootka Crisis (1790's), giving Britain northern California and then have them vigorously populate the region. Of course, this probably butterflies the Oregon Territory being in dispute.

One of the aims of the Lewis and Clark expedition was to search a route to a portion of the coast basically uninhabited (by whites). Occupy it, and beat the US to the region, and the US is forced to look south to push Mexico out of the way if they want to go coast to coast.

then again, during this time frame, Britain was just a little preoccupied first with a revolution, and then a European conflict.
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
Napoleonrules said:
From Wikipedia-
Click to expand...
could you post the URL of that wiki entry so I can judge the context?

(edit: not that I don't believe you, but sometimes too much can be made of a letter - ie Prince Henry of Prussia was recommended as a candidate for king of US, but that doesn't mean there was any real movement to achieve it)
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
also from that wiki article:
"US President John Tyler's administration suggested a tripartite pact that would settle the Oregon boundary dispute and provide for the cession of the port of San Francisco from Mexico; Lord Aberdeen declined to participate but said Britain had no objection to U.S. territorial acquisition there."

Pakenham may have coveted it, but Britain didn't deem it worth the conflict.

but still, to be fair, there was still interest at that late date.

However, the article did remind me that '46 was the start of the Mex-Am war. Does the war get butterflied? Seems a little implausible that the US would give up rights to a land they're fighting for. But if they do, they'd flat out trade northern Cali to Britain in exchange for Vancouver. somewhat implausible they'd give a rival territory in the middle of US coastal territory.

might I inquire why you want a British Northern California.
 

Napoleonrules

Banned
unprincipled peter said:
also from that wiki article:
"US President John Tyler's administration suggested a tripartite pact that would settle the Oregon boundary dispute and provide for the cession of the port of San Francisco from Mexico; Lord Aberdeen declined to participate but said Britain had no objection to U.S. territorial acquisition there."

Pakenham may have coveted it, but Britain didn't deem it worth the conflict.

but still, to be fair, there was still interest at that late date.

However, the article did remind me that '46 was the start of the Mex-Am war. Does the war get butterflied? Seems a little implausible that the US would give up rights to a land they're fighting for. But if they do, they'd flat out trade northern Cali to Britain in exchange for Vancouver. somewhat implausible they'd give a rival territory in the middle of US coastal territory.

might I inquire why you want a British Northern California.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to create a way where roughly OTL California (minus San Diego) is British, the US has British Columbia instead. And a British supported Deseret has everything between Texas and California. Trying to see if it is at all plausible to get there. If it isn't that's fine, I'll find a different project.
 

The Gunslinger

The British in California hinges pretty strongly on an HBC presence, which means that they need to have a port on the west coast to get it.

If the factor at Fort Vancouver sends his son to Yerba Buena instead of Sitka there's an excellent chance he gets embroiled with the same troubles that caused McLoughlin's son-in-law to kill himself (he backed the wrong horse in some intercene California infighting by selling some lances and guns and was afraid the winners would come and kill him and his family), because in OTL the son pissed someone off bad enough that he got himself murdered. If the son/son-in-law gets killed it might cause enough of a ruckus that McLaughlin begs Britain to intervene and the whole thing snowballs with Britain grabbing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top