WI: 54-40 Fought and won?

[Tsochar]

Suppose that, during the Oregon Dispute, the British are suddenly occupied elsewhere. For example, maybe the Opium War goes south or there's an Indian uprising or perhaps the Boers attack, or maybe the Revolutions of 1848 come early and Britain needs troops closer to home. Maybe some combination of those four. The war hawks in Polk's administration get the idea that Oregon is vulnerable and war breaks out. They turn out to be right and Britain decides that Oregon just isn't worth the manpower that they need elsewhere. Despite being successful militarily, they negotiate a settlement after a very brief war where they sell the territory for a decent sum.

Here's the thing: 54'40" still gives Britain some pacific coast- Nass Bay- though it measures only 20 km wide. As Asia becomes more and more prominent to Britain, that tiny spot would be increasingly important. Since OTL Vancouver hadn't been founded at the time, they might end up giving it the same name, since George Vancouver was the first to explore the area.

Is this plausible at all?
How big could this *Vancouver grow, considering its colder climate?
How would the gain affect American politics?
How would the loss affect Canadian politics?
How would this affect the Alaska boundary dispute? Would Britain seek to acquire Alaska, if for no other reason than to keep the Americans from having it?
If Russia keeps Alaska, that would mean *Vancouver would border two Great Powers. how might this affect its development?

 

[Nephi]

I think Britain does acquire Alaska, not sure if they pay for it or conquer it however.

Alternate "Vancouver" will certainly grow.

This could lead to some bitter feelings later though, perhaps it means Britain is more active in Texas. Or California.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I think Britain does acquire Alaska, not sure if they pay for it or conquer it however.

Russia and Britain don't exactly have good relations in the mid-19th century by any means, and unless some big butterflies change that they'd find the idea of effectively denying the British a Pacific side jumping off point into influencing East Asia a lovely one and would prefer to sell to the Americans, who given the now land connection will hardly be less willing than historical to buy the region. Plus, if the US "won"" against Britain once they're less liable to feel like they need to tiptoe around British interests in North America in terms of boundery disputes (assuming this dosent come to a head during the Civil War and the US agrees to aknowledge a border in the UKs favor, but given Russia still owns the region at the time that's unlikely).

 

[Deleted member 92195]

War was possible but only through a mishap of military escalation and tension. Publicly Polk wanted 54-40 but privately he knew 49 was realistically all he was going to get without war. Lord Aberdeen, in the end, realised that he was not going to war over an unimportant area that had "diminishing economic value". Thus this drove the British to Polk's 49th Parallel line position.

However the British were war planning:

"Due to his extensive travels throughout the western stations of the HBC, Governor Pelly instructed George Simpson to draft a plan for the British Government if hostilities were to arise with the Americans. Finalizing the proposal on 29 March 1845, Simpson called for two areas to launch offensives. The Red River Colony would be the base of operations for forays into the Great Plains, an expansive region then only lightly colonized by Americans. A militia composed of Métis riflemen and neighbouring First Nations like the Ojibwe would be created, along with a garrison of Regular Army infantry. To secure the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia River, Simpson felt Cape Disappointment was of critical importance. A naval force of two steamboats and two ships of the line would bring a detachment of Royal Marines to create a coastal battery there. Recruitment was hoped by Simpson to gain a force led by Regular Army officers of 2,000 Métis and indigenous peoples in the region. His proposal quickly earned the interest of the British Government as he met with Prime Minister Peel and Foreign Secretary Aberdeen on 2 April. £1,000 were awarded to lay the groundwork for defensive operations in the Pacific Northwest. Secretary of State for War and the Colonies Lord Stanley favoured the plan, declaring that the HBC had to finance military operations west of Sault Ste. Marie."

If an incident occurs it will not take long for it to escalate into a full war, because the negotiation relay time takes so long neither side would be able to react to the incident. This is basically the Pig War in 1845-6 at the height of military tension regarding the Oregon dispute. Through this war is likely, if not most definitely plausible. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859))

 

[Deleted member 92195]

Lord Aberdeen's view that everything above the 49th Parallel was unimportant, is only because one requires all of Oregon to benefit from it. The Columbia River and the area it sits within is a smaller version of the Mississippi River/basin. The vastness of the rivers across the plain allows for a huge amount of trading across the basin and also shipping it overseas via New Orleans. It was unimportant to Aberdeen because, at the 49th Parallel, the Columbia River is cut off via a border, this hinders and prevents economic development because those in British America cannot use the main part of the Columbia River to trade goods within this network of rivers and trade internationally through the Pacific Ocean which the river allows. In the image of claims, (second image) it shows the rivers of Frazer and Thompson which are not connected to the Columbia River but still, any river can be used for trading. This all concludes the difference between Seattle, Portland and Vancouver in image 3. Seattle and Portland simply dwarf Vancouver.

In conclusion, it was simply a game of risk for Polk and he refused to take it; because it would encompass the entire British American-US border. If you going fight over the Oregon territory, have skirmishes across both borders then your going have British invasions into Northen Eastern US and the US invade Upper Canada. 1812 anyone? If the US can do what they did in 1812 then they should be able to fight with the British in 1846. The war was a military cockup for both sides and would be classed as 'round 2'.

 

[The Gunslinger]

In conclusion, it was simply a game of risk for Polk and he refused to take it; because it would encompass the entire British American-US border. If you going fight over the Oregon territory, have skirmishes across both borders then your going have British invasions into Northen Eastern US and the US invade Upper Canada. 1812 anyone? If the US can do what they did in 1812 then they should be able to fight with the British in 1846. The war was a military cockup for both sides and would be classed as 'round 2'.

That will go much worse for the Americans than the British though. When 1812 ended the American merchant marine was swept from the seas and the whole country was under blockade and collapsing financially. With a better canal system Britain can place warships on the Great Lakes easier now too.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

That will go much worse for the Americans than the British though. When 1812 ended the American merchant marine was swept from the seas and the whole country was under blockade and collapsing financially. With a better canal system Britain can place warships on the Great Lakes easier now too.

He probably would have known that. I personally would not have gone for 54-40 line, to extreme. I would have drawn a border along the Columbia River in British American in an attempt to include the whole of the Columbia river. Otherwise I would settle for the 49th Parallel as well.

 

[Dave Howery]

in OTL, the distance between WA and AK never meant all that much, mainly because the relations between Canada and the US became so benign after the ACW. Plus, AK didn't really become a place to go to until after the gold strikes and later oil. In this TL, if the US gets both 54-40 and AK... the distance between the two is tiny... and tempting. Might the US try to buy a corridor between them? Also... how will relations between the US and UK be with such a big POD? And will the land between the 49th and 54-40 be another state? What might it be named?

 

[Deleted member 92195]

in OTL, the distance between WA and AK never meant all that much, mainly because the relations between Canada and the US became so benign after the ACW. Plus, AK didn't really become a place to go to until after the gold strikes and later oil. In this TL, if the US gets both 54-40 and AK... the distance between the two is tiny... and tempting. Might the US try to buy a corridor between them? Also... how will relations between the US and UK be with such a big POD? And will the land between the 49th and 54-40 be another state? What might it be named?

I could imagine the US buying lands for a corridor, such as the Gadsen purchase. If the land was not going to be a part of the Washington state I always thought 'American Columbia' sounded cool.

 

[wtw]

The Brits I feel would have had the power to do it

 

[Deleted member 92195]

In retrospect of all this drama with Polk, it was the war of 1812 which set the path forward and determined Polk's negotiating strategy. The war of 1812 was a draw and settled none of the boundary disputes between British America and the US. Therefore instead of fighting it out, both sides decided to negotiate through diplomacy which resulted in the Treaty of 1818. This started the border at the 49th Parallel at the Great Lakes, therefore you're more than likely going to end it at the 49th Parallel on the Pacific side. Had the US taken upper Canada, 54-40 is definite but there is also a good chance all of British America gets admitted as US states, if not, questions of this territory being admitted into the US will continue to this day because of its sparse population and the USA's complete cultural domination.

 

[marathag]

That will go much worse for the Americans than the British though. When 1812 ended the American merchant marine was swept from the seas and the whole country was under blockade and collapsing financially. With a better canal system Britain can place warships on the Great Lakes easier now too.

United States of 1840s wasn't the pipsqueak of 1812, either

 

[historyfelon]

Just for the sake of the argument..how about a reverse San Patricio's...instead of Irish immigrant soldiers deserting the US Army to fight for Mexico, the US sends Irish units to Ireland to ferment rebellion and create havoc in the Brit's backyard? Now they're just glad to end the war under any conditions. Does the US still go to war with Mexico before the end of the decade?

 

[The Gunslinger]

United States of 1840s wasn't the pipsqueak of 1812, either

They aren't. But saying it goes like 1812 all over again isn't in America's best interest, it's the antithesis of their best interest. America's best interest is the opposite of having its foreign trade trade destroyed, its merchant marine swept from the seas and its coastal cities burned. I doubt America is getting Montreal and its for sure not getting Halifax. That just means that while the American economy is tanking Britain is preparing to retake Upper Canada.

 

[Alstein]

How do those units get past the Royal Navy?


Any US-UK war ends in an effective draw, as the UK won't go total war on the Americans out of fear of something happening in Europe , and the US Navy can't dislodge the Royal Navy (can give them a bloody nose, that's about it)

It's very likely the UK recognizes the CSA during the Civil War if that isn't butterflied.

 

[thekingsguard]

So, the lucky thing for the Americans is, war is unlikely, even if they push for bigger claims, Britain can't afford a war on the far side of the world - there was chaos in Europe at the time, simmering discontent in India, and the Russians were eying the Balkans with alarming intent.

The downside to being a global empire is that your attention is divided along many fronts, while the USA, only has two: north and south.

That said, the whole 54 may not be attainable, not at this time - 52 is about the Northern limit I think the Americans can push for, and that's likely with a cash payment to the British.

Now where do things go from here with a USA-British North America border set farther north west of the rockies?

For one, it likely cripples any hopes of a Canada that spans to the Pacific - what's left of British Columbia offers poor harbors, and especially if the Americans buy Alaska, it becomes utterly indivisible. Likely, we see the Brits sell America everything west of the Continental Divide ala the Gadsden Purchase.

Thus, we get a USA that controls the entire Pacific coast, which may result in a much bigger focus on the Pacific for the USA.

Conversely, any Canadian confederation is going to develop radically different with a cut off at Alberta. Hell, does a united Canadian identity even develop as we would know it?

 

[PuffyClouds]

Lord Aberdeen's view that everything above the 49th Parallel was unimportant, is only because one requires all of Oregon to benefit from it. The Columbia River and the area it sits within is a smaller version of the Mississippi River/basin. The vastness of the rivers across the plain allows for a huge amount of trading across the basin and also shipping it overseas via New Orleans. It was unimportant to Aberdeen because, at the 49th Parallel, the Columbia River is cut off via a border, this hinders and prevents economic development because those in British America cannot use the main part of the Columbia River to trade goods within this network of rivers and trade internationally through the Pacific Ocean which the river allows. In the image of claims, (second image) it shows the rivers of Frazer and Thompson which are not connected to the Columbia River but still, any river can be used for trading. This all concludes the difference between Seattle, Portland and Vancouver in image 3. Seattle and Portland simply dwarf Vancouver.
View attachment 450394

The Columbia Drainage Basin east of the Cascades could be made into its own state - American Columbia. The Snake Drainage Basin could be separated from American Columbia into its own state. Perhaps, it could be the Snake Drainage Basin upstream of the confluence of the Snake River and the Clearwater River. Make sure Idaho still gets Lewiston. I also petition to rename Idaho to Snake, or failing that Great Pocatello.

If having Golden, BC, Missoula, MT, and Bend, OR all in one state is too much another state could be carved out of the Columbia Drainage basin between the Cascades and the Yakima River Watershed. I don't think this is necessary.

The land west of the Cascade Divide, north of the Umpqua Drainage Basin, and south of the middle of the Columbia River is ideal for Oregon, though it is a rump version of the OTL state. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add the the Cowlitz/Lower Columbia Drainage Basin, and the Southwest Washington Drainage Basin to rump Oregon. The southern boundary of the Fraser Drainage Basin should be the the northern border of Washington state.
Fraser River Basin Map

The remainder of southwestern OTL Oregon can be divided between Jefferson, Sacramento/Northern California, or Nevada as appropriate.

I could draw this in mspaint if anyone is interested.

If you going fight over the Oregon territory, have skirmishes across both borders then your going have British invasions into Northen Eastern US and the US invade Upper Canada. 1812 anyone? If the US can do what they did in 1812 then they should be able to fight with the British in 1846. The war was a military cockup for both sides and would be classed as 'round 2'.

In this time frame the USA has the potential to come out on top. It would be a stupid, pointless war, I think we (Americans) would screw up the prosecution and aftermath of it.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

The Columbia Drainage Basin east of the Cascades could be made into its own state - American Columbia. The Snake Drainage Basin could be separated from American Columbia into its own state. Perhaps, it could be the Snake Drainage Basin upstream of the confluence of the Snake River and the Clearwater River. Make sure Idaho still gets Lewiston. I also petition to rename Idaho to Snake, or failing that Great Pocatello.

If having Golden, BC, Missoula, MT, and Bend, OR all in one state is too much another state could be carved out of the Columbia Drainage basin between the Cascades and the Yakima River Watershed. I don't think this is necessary.

The land west of the Cascade Divide, north of the Umpqua Drainage Basin, and south of the middle of the Columbia River is ideal for Oregon, though it is a rump version of the OTL state. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add the the Cowlitz/Lower Columbia Drainage Basin, and the Southwest Washington Drainage Basin to rump Oregon. The southern boundary of the Fraser Drainage Basin should be the the northern border of Washington state.
Fraser River Basin Map

The remainder of southwestern OTL Oregon can be divided between Jefferson, Sacramento/Northern California, or Nevada as appropriate.

I could draw this in mspaint if anyone is interested.


In this time frame the USA has the potential to come out on top. It would be a stupid, pointless war, I think we (Americans) would screw up the prosecution and aftermath of it.

That would be great, by all means, draw it in MSPaint.

So, the lucky thing for the Americans is, war is unlikely, even if they push for bigger claims, Britain can't afford a war on the far side of the world - there was chaos in Europe at the time, simmering discontent in India, and the Russians were eying the Balkans with alarming intent.

The downside to being a global empire is that your attention is divided along many fronts, while the USA, only has two: north and south.

That said, the whole 54 may not be attainable, not at this time - 52 is about the Northern limit I think the Americans can push for, and that's likely with a cash payment to the British.

Now where do things go from here with a USA-British North America border set farther north west of the rockies?

For one, it likely cripples any hopes of a Canada that spans to the Pacific - what's left of British Columbia offers poor harbors, and especially if the Americans buy Alaska, it becomes utterly indivisible. Likely, we see the Brits sell America everything west of the Continental Divide ala the Gadsden Purchase.

Thus, we get a USA that controls the entire Pacific coast, which may result in a much bigger focus on the Pacific for the USA.

Conversely, any Canadian confederation is going to develop radically different with a cut off at Alberta. Hell, does a united Canadian identity even develop as we would know it?

All of this speaking has made me go implement it on Victoria II. I know it’s only a game but the AI got distracted, (intentionally or unintentionally) Britain got into a war with Russia and this allowed me to colonise British Columbia and also a good portion of central British America.

Playing this has prompted me to think that if the Americas did get 54-40 they may have gone onto claim other territories. However, it is interesting how the Americans and the UK entered diplomatic dialogue to resolve this contentious issue and that the British must have known that if they did give the Americans 54-40, this would have shattered any future nation emerging. As you can see from the image above, the US just utterly dominates.

I must admit, of all the reading, I did not see what Polk did in the American-Mexican war, which was offer money in an attempt to gain territory. Thinking of it now, I think it is the only possible solution to gain 54-40 without war. This is a fantastic source. It shows all the concession lines drawn in the American-Mexican war.

Polk informed Trist to acquire New Mexico and Upper California and, if possible, Lower California. For the three states he was to pay not more than $25,000,000 and for the two not more than $20,000,000. (Dated April 15, 1847) - Source: http://dsl.richmond.edu/historicalatlas/94/a/?sidebar=text&legend=hidden&view=plate

We can extrapolate the following from what he offered in negations with Mexico:

One has to consider California, New Mexico and Lower California were derelict at this point. Therefore Polk was buying the land based on its actual size. The table below shows a list of regional districts areas in British Columbia. The red columns indicate districts that overlap the 54-40 parallel whilst the green boxes are a ballpark figure for those districts that were apart of this districts but south of the 54-40 parallel.

Estimating the area south of the 54-40 parallel to be about 707,295 square miles, you can estimate the amount of money he would have offered. For Lower California, New Mexico and California he offered $25,000,000 for 341,522 square miles. Therefore 341,522 x 2 = 683044, this is $50,000,000. The 24,251 square miles value could be anything between 1 and 3 million. In conclusion, he would pay anything between $50-$53,000,000 million dollars for 54-40. Offering this money would hopefully appeal to the chaos in Europe, discontent in India, and Russian Balkan annexation. If he had got 54-40 his presidency would have far-reaching consequences.

 

[Dave Howery]

Estimating the area south of the 54-40 parallel to be about 707,295 square miles, you can estimate the amount of money he would have offered. For Lower California, New Mexico and California he offered $25,000,000 for 341,522 square miles. Therefore 341,522 x 2 = 683044, this is $50,000,000. The 24,251 square miles value could be anything between 1 and 3 million. In conclusion, he would pay anything between $50-$53,000,000 million dollars for 54-40. Offering this money would hopefully appeal to the chaos in Europe, discontent in India, and Russian Balkan annexation. If he had got 54-40 his presidency would have far-reaching consequences.

if they paid that much for the BC territory though... would the US have any cash left to offer Mexico for the other territories they wanted? The US wasn't as dominantly wealthy as it is today. Plus, there is the question of 'just what did the US want more... BC or CA?"

 

[FillyofDelphi]

if they paid that much for the BC territory though... would the US have any cash left to offer Mexico for the other territories they wanted? The US wasn't as dominantly wealthy as it is today. Plus, there is the question of 'just what did the US want more... BC or CA?"

The US was in talks with Mexico over rather large debts the nation owed to Americans that they were refusing to pay. If the US is short on cash, they could in theory offer to accept land in leu of payment and take on the burden themselves, which would be paid for by a bond issue to spread the cost over the decades rather than plopping down a lump sum. Weather Mexico accepts or not is up in the air, but if the US just stared down London and London blinked I think Santa Anna might be a little less keen on upsetting his northern neighbor by turning them down.