WI Britain refuses arbitration in the 1895 Venezuela Crisis?

[Hugh Third of Five]

In OTL Britain's claims vis a vis the boundary dispute angered the American public, but for several months the British cabinet underestimated the depth of American opposition to their position, before finally agreeing to arbitration in January 1896. What if they had refused? The consensus in older threads seems to be that US-UK relations would sour but that a third Anglo-American war was unlikely to immediately break out, but would there be an Anglo-Venezuelan war, or would it just be a geopolitical sore spot?

 

[rob2001]

I believe their was a short story written about this particular scenario about twenty years ago, in one of those alternate history books that came out. In that story it did lead to another war between Britain and America. But I don't remember the name of the book.

 

[Lycaon pictus]

What Ifs? of American History, edited by Robert Cowley.
(As I recall, the war ended with Britain ceding Quebec to the U.S. while somehow keeping a straight face.)

 

[Evil Crusader]

There would be some minor conflict, as the UK asserts its claim and defends it, before eventually getting it all (as opposed to most as per OTL) in a settlement with the US.

 

[Citycat]

I'm not sure this would lead to war, a strip of land in Venezuela isn't important enough for either the UK or US to justify going to war. But it would lead to poorer diplomatic relations between London and Washington. This might have longer term implications.

 

[unprincipled peter]

There would be some minor conflict, as the UK asserts its claim and defends it, before eventually getting it all (as opposed to most as per OTL) in a settlement with the US.

There would be an attempt to keep it minor, but what settlement leaves Britain with everything and still saves face for the US? US has to claim it had an impact on the situation, otherwise it is humiliating, a little dog yapping while the big dog shoulders it to the side and takes up the whole path.

I'm not saying it would result in war, but this is how wars get started: push, expecting capitulation, or a compromise, and one side doesn't cooperate, making for an uh-oh moment.

OTL was the settlement. USA got to pretend it forced Britain to back down. Britain got most of what it wanted.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

There would be some minor conflict, as the UK asserts its claim and defends it, before eventually getting it all (as opposed to most as per OTL) in a settlement with the US.

If there is an Anglo-Venezuelan War, I can't see it leading to a settlement with the US, even if it doesn't lead to an Anglo-American War. What reason would Washington have fore signing it?

 

[Evil Crusader]

There would be an attempt to keep it minor, but what settlement leaves Britain with everything and still saves face for the US? US has to claim it had an impact on the situation, otherwise it is humiliating, a little dog yapping while the big dog shoulders it to the side and takes up the whole path.

I'm not saying it would result in war, but this is how wars get started: push, expecting capitulation, or a compromise, and one side doesn't cooperate, making for an uh-oh moment.

OTL was the settlement. USA got to pretend it forced Britain to back down. Britain got most of what it wanted.

If there is an Anglo-Venezuelan War, I can't see it leading to a settlement with the US, even if it doesn't lead to an Anglo-American War. What reason would Washington have fore signing it?

But the question is, let's say the UK really escalates, what is the USA going to do? They're not going to fare particularly well in a naval conflict, at least short-term, nor is the confict particularly in either nation's interest, so what's left is accepting the fait accompli while insisting on some superficial saving face measure.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

But the question is, let's say the UK really escalates, what is the USA going to do? They're not going to fare particularly well in a naval conflict, at least short-term, nor is the confict particularly in either nation's interest, so what's left is accepting the fait accompli while insisting on some superficial saving face measure.

I don't think there is a superficial face saving measure that could fit into a settlement if Britain goes to war against the Venezuela. Britain can try to pull a fait accomplit, but I don't see how they can get Washington to agree to/sign off on it rather than condemn it. The question is whether or not the Britain goes to war with Venezuela, and if so, what form of diplomatic retaliation there would be if there's no military response. If Cleveland gave his blessing to an Anglo-Venezuelan war, it would doom the Democrats in the upcoming election.