54 40 and fight
- Thread starter NapoleonXIV
- Start date
same as always with a POD in this time frame... the RN blockades the US into submission... and that's if their bigger and more professional armies don't just smash the tiny US army all by itself... any time before the ACW is a bad time for the US to tangle with the Brits... in this particular POD, I suppose that the UK would end up with the entire OR region that was disputed....
If they're feeling in a particularly generous and magnanimous disposition on the matter, most definitely...
It should be noted the the RN never blockaded the US into submission. Mainly because the US can't be blockaded into submission. The US is not the UK, America is not dependent on foreign trade. It should also be stated that the conquest of Canada is well with in the means of the US. Its only a matter of politics.
In the ARW Quebec would've fallen had the Continental Congress decided to send more than 3,000 soldiers(and pin their hopes on Canadian support). In the War of 1812 pre-war politics neutered America's military capability, and even at that had internal politics not divided the army the bulk of Canada would've fallen in 1813. In 1840 the US Army has a capable officer core.
British pre-war strategy also dictated the withdrawal from the interior of Canada as it was deemed undefendable(there is more than one reason the US-Canada border is the longest undefended border in the world). The US also has superior ship building abilities on the great lakes(population being a big factor).
In the ARW Quebec would've fallen had the Continental Congress decided to send more than 3,000 soldiers(and pin their hopes on Canadian support). In the War of 1812 pre-war politics neutered America's military capability, and even at that had internal politics not divided the army the bulk of Canada would've fallen in 1813. In 1840 the US Army has a capable officer core.
British pre-war strategy also dictated the withdrawal from the interior of Canada as it was deemed undefendable(there is more than one reason the US-Canada border is the longest undefended border in the world). The US also has superior ship building abilities on the great lakes(population being a big factor).
if the RN blockaded the US, the US wouldn't starve or go broke... except for the Federal government, who was almost entirely reliant on customs receipts for income (or so I read somewhere once). Thus, no pay for the US army or navy. Tough as it is for any patriotic American to accept it, the US just couldn't stand up to the Brits until late in the ACW (and even then, the USN wasn't up to par with the RN)...
which begs the question of just why the Brits never did make another attempt at a major war with the US. They had to know their navy was superior to anything the US had... were they in doubts about their army? Or did the Brits just basically get distracted by all their other problems across the world? I've read at various times about the UK desire for parts of Maine, the whole OR territory, and Indian buffer states in the midwest... why didn't they ever force their demands on the US at gunpoint?
which begs the question of just why the Brits never did make another attempt at a major war with the US. They had to know their navy was superior to anything the US had... were they in doubts about their army? Or did the Brits just basically get distracted by all their other problems across the world? I've read at various times about the UK desire for parts of Maine, the whole OR territory, and Indian buffer states in the midwest... why didn't they ever force their demands on the US at gunpoint?
You are entitled to your opinion of course and I to mine... but that is not the way it would go down...
personally I don't think it even likely War would have resulted because neither side really wanted war...Polk was Politiking and the Brits were looking for the best way to save face and preserve the profitable trade that had developed. However if it stretched to the fall of Peel's government then negotiation would have to start again from scratch. Any push for the entire region would have no doubt about it led to war. In which case...The Brits Squash the Americans like Bugs....and dictate a peace that may not be favourable.
They won't start it but they will finish it on their terms and there is very little the US can do about it. the Brits will mostdefinitely concentrate on the defense and on those areas that need to be defended..the West (plains) yes could very well be lost in the interim but both the East and the West coast will hold with very little problem. Britain then simply inflicts damage on the US Economy and the economic interests of the North until the will to continue is lost. The lost plains regions will be regained at the peace and Britain will dictate where the border runs. thats why I said if they were feeling particularly generous and magnanimous in victory. An to be sure if the Americans did feel compelled to to be intransigient over giving back the Western plains then raids can most assuredly be mounted with the aid of the Natives ( to whom they have little luv of the Yanks)which will lose the Americans the entire Northern plains if they are not careful.
Dave Howery said:
True however their is no reason the US can't institute a internal tax(es) to fund the war. Its all a matter of politics is America willing to make the sacrifices necessary to take Canada. That is are Americans willing to bear the financial cost of a major war with Britain. In the War of 1812 New England didn't want any more western states diluting their influence in Congress. In this case the question is are the southern states willing to accept the addition of more free states into the union.
Dave Howery said:
Maybe because past experience has taught the British that a war in/with America isn't a like their colony jaunts throughout Africa or Asia. Their Navy can blockade the US ports to the extent of economic impairment but not to the extent that US raiders can't leave and wreck havoc on British shipping. As far as British territorial demands Britain eventually realized they were unrealistic. That is American westward settlement was unstoppable and inevitable. Eastern Maine does nothing except for Britain except her influence in America and make the acquisition of Canada more likely.
the shortest answer to the first of your question is Economics and trade...both an Englishman's ( or better yet..Scotsman's) and American's driving motivation. The latter more culturally in common than divergent at this point. The US was a valuable trade partner, not worth going to war with unless pushed because of the Economic and cultural damage it would do to both.
As to Oregon, the only claim was a border along the Columbia River to the 49th so that they could keep more direct control of the lucrative trade that had developed...This of course would keep the Americans from a deep water port in the NW on the Pacific If this were to drag out until after the Mex- American war..that American desire is less prevalent and they may be more amenable to British desires in respect to a boundary on the Columbia River. should they prevail they will of course have San Francisco and San Diego. Of course this could change the Br. disposition during that war as well if the dispute has dragged out that long. "Dispute" really overstates the seriousness of this agreement to disagree shall we say...after all both parties let it go on from 1818. If Britain were serious about it they could have simply hardened their position then or in 1827. Of course there is also Webster-ashburton...another opportunity where if it was within the British will to do so, they could have imposed their own border in the region, in the end they decided not to link it to the Maine boundary. It simply wasn't worth the trouble of opening that can of worms and the issue was well not yet pressing shall we say.
Last edited:
The problem is that this means the US can't possibly wage war successfully against Mexico. The US Army was barely 50,000 including volunteers so it wouldn't take much for the British to win a defensive war, not to mention Winfield Scott's brilliant amphibious landing becomes an instant non-starter.
AuroraBorealis said:
Of course as am I.
AuroraBorealis said:
In all honesty the British couldn't squash the Americas like bugs in 1776 or 1814 nonetheless in 1840. Yes Polk was politicking and the British were looking for a way out. The British weren't interested in war but the Americans were very expansionist. Britain was also intriguing in Texas and California. Americans were rapped up in Manifest Destiny. Canada on the other hand was often neglected by the British. This is also during a period of high Anti-British feeling in Canada both in Upper and Lower Canada as well as by the Metis people in the western lands.
AuroraBorealis said:
I'd have to disagree. I think the US would hold a lot of territory in BNA. The best the British could hope for IMO would be the Status quo Ante Bellum. With a US occupation of the Niagara peninsula most likely the US could gain a territorial concession in the Oregon territory.
AuroraBorealis said:
Well the British plan included withdrawal from the Niagara peninsula, choosing too concentrate their defenses on the St. Lawrence river and in the Maritimes.
AuroraBorealis said:
Well the northern economy isn't as dependent on shipping in 1840 as it was in 1812. In fact Northern manufacturing will boom during the war. As far as border modification the US holds all the cards.
AuroraBorealis said:
The US also has allies. The Metis could tip the balance in favor of the US.
I'd have to disagree. The US would probably hold a lot of territory in Canada. The best the British could hope for IMO would be the Status quo Ante Bellum.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
For the same reason they backed the Monroe Doctrine; the US was the British catspaw in the Western Hemisphere enforcing British interests on the whole area for double cheap. Read The Birth of the Modern by Paul Johnson, which starts off with the 'special relationship' between the US and UK that was worked out at Vienna
Napoleon, you've got it reversed. The US loudly announced a doctrine which just happened to fit perfectly with British morals AND trade interests, thus getting London to enforce the policy.
Alll right now you done it... As a matter of fact I would agree except that the Status quo would mean 1) Not abandoning joint occupancy and 2 Britain not not renouncing its claim on the Columbia River. Britain will still establish the Crown Colony in BC and it will include that claim.
Well the British plan included withdrawal from the Niagara peninsula, choosing too concentrate their defenses on the St. Lawrence river and in the Maritimes.
Well that is the first I have heard of that in this time period. I thought there were actually plans for a large fortress along the lines of the Halifax citadel Ft. Mississauga I think in the vicinity of Thorold/Welland. The Niagara River perhaps, but not the penininsula.
Well the northern economy isn't as dependent on shipping in 1840 as it was in 1812. In fact Northern manufacturing will boom during the war. As far as border modification the US holds all the cards.
Totally disagree...this is 1846 thae comparison with 1776 and 1812 are totally inappropriate and compare apples and oranges. The Brits are at this time not distracted by any major external threat and the full force of the Empire can if need be, brought to bare...and it will if you have the Americans go to war over this and prove themselves to be war mongering expansionists bent on conquest when they don't get their way ( which is how you would have us believe them to be based on your posts) Personally this is not my view. There is the matter of the Annexation of Texas you know which has to be considered... Given a choice the US Will turn its attention on Mexico rather than Britain. If it chooses Britain...then Polk is the biggest loser of all time and the US will not have even a hope against the reigning superpower of the day AND its biggest neighbour to the south. Mexico will take a much more aggressive stance if it can, and even Texas could be lost in a two front war.
The US also has allies. The Metis could tip the balance in favor of the US.
Why is this....? The Metis did not come decidely hostile until the 1860's when the HBC lands were acquired without their consultation.
As to the Rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada they have been dealt with already and the Durham Report's recommendations will keep things tight there for some time. Its a flawed document, but those flaws will not be evident until the next decade.
I'd have to disagree. The US would probably hold a lot of territory in Canada. The best the British could hope for IMO would be the Status quo Ante Bellum.
Never in the early part of the century is this even remotely possible without far better luck, planning and manpower. and of course the will to see it through.
AuroraBorealis said:
Yeah the best the British could do. But if they get anything less than their best. Possibilities are extension of the border to include partition of Vancouver Island. Should things really go wrong for the British loss of the Oregon territory completely and eventual sale of Rupert's Land to the US.
Yeah planned a fortress. There are undoubtedly a number of reasons why it wasn't built. They didn't rebuild Fort Malden either or Fort Erie. There is no point in building a fortress that you can't supply.
They weren't distracted in 1776 for either. Its only after the Americans inflicted some nasty defeats on the British that the French joined the war. You should know that the US defeated those massive British reinforcements in 1814. Britain not being distracted by continental affairs doesn't guarantee British victory. You should also know that US regulars at this time are just as well trained and led as British regulars are.
No matter which way it is the Americans aren't just going to be trounced. Its not going to be one-sided either way.
Of course there is no way America will fight both Mexico and Britain simultaneously. This is an either or thing.
Thats when things blew up its not like everything was alright then all hell broke loose.
But the flaws are still there.
Had the US strategic objective been Kingston instead of Montreal for the 1813 campaigning season everything from the entrance to the St. Lawrence westward would've been under American occupation.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Wasn't that what I said? The US announces the policy and the RN enforces it. Metternich sends his famous letter about the "upstart" Americans and US diplomats get passed over in ball invites while the rest of Europe is spared another messy war with the British. Everybody's happy.
67th Tigers
Banned
Perhaps it's worth noting that the Patriotes consisted of 3,500 French Canadians, 600 US Immigrants to Canada West, and 40,000 US Filibustering militia. The Patriote Rebellions and the Aroostook Crisis that followed were very much an undeclared war which the Canadians won.
The Metis are really a problem for another generation, and it took a single British battalion and a few hundred Canadian Militiamen to squash.
How are the US going to occupy the Niagara Peninsula? The Canadians can actually put more men for the defence of it than the US, nevermind the fact that control of the Lakes is almost certainly going to be British.
Not at this time. The British only considered trading space for time in the Niagara Peninsula when the US already had a 300,000 man army in the field.
It's actually more dependent on shipping. The US continues to be essentially coastal (and will until the major railroads are built about a decade after our POD). The trade patterns are quite different to the 1860's. In fact, was straining itself to maintain 20,000 men for the Mexican War, and in terms of logistic pipelines, Ohio is further from New England than Texas.
Hardly, and if they became combatants it would give the British they need to seize the Red River territories which were disputed.
Again, how? They'll have trouble sustaining more than a few thousand men anywhere other than the Hudson River Valley.
Again we have to come back to the Trent Affair and the effect that had on the US economy. Britain could ruin the US without firing a shot.
This discussion is done to death and we're mostly agreed what would happen. Why not discuss something where there is room for discussion like a US-UK war in 1900 or something?
This discussion is done to death and we're mostly agreed what would happen. Why not discuss something where there is room for discussion like a US-UK war in 1900 or something?