54 40 and fight

Yeah, I really don't get this whole 'America will get revenge!!!!' thing that always pops up...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Yeah, I really don't get this whole 'America will get revenge!!!!' thing that always pops up...

Yeah, people seem to assume that the alliance system will suddenly stagnate. Personally I see no reason why the US and CS won't necessarily ally (in the same manner as Prussia and Austria eventually did).

As to WW1, the Americans had very little impact, their commitment to the front was minimal (before 1919, then it could have gotten large)...
 
hmmm... if the US lost a war to the UK and didn't get the OR territory, and also didn't get the western territories from Mexico, then the US will be a middling power at best... without the gold and silver from the west and the oil in TX, I don't see how the US would ever become either an economic or military power... nobody would want to ally with us in any world war...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
hmmm... if the US lost a war to the UK and didn't get the OR territory, and also didn't get the western territories from Mexico, then the US will be a middling power at best... without the gold and silver from the west and the oil in TX, I don't see how the US would ever become either an economic or military power... nobody would want to ally with us in any world war...

It still has some good coal (in PA), and if the Brits don't push down the Red River they'll shortly find one of the richest Iron Ore seems in the world.

The rise of US manufacturing isn't as rapid as some believe (it's the late 1880's before the US provides its own needs, further expansion is via export), but the US manufacturing plants built on Minnesota iron and access to the Great Lakes (Detroit and Chicago) will be formidable.
 
hmmm... if the US lost a war to the UK and didn't get the OR territory, and also didn't get the western territories from Mexico, then the US will be a middling power at best... without the gold and silver from the west and the oil in TX, I don't see how the US would ever become either an economic or military power... nobody would want to ally with us in any world war...

Well we are not talking the complete Oregon terr. here. the most likely option would be that the US simply is forced to accept the British positon regarding the border at the Columbia River...That leaves eastern Washington and all of Oregon state with the US and simply adds the entirety of Puget Sound to BC ( an area that is sparsely settled at best at this point) the entirety of what would be Washington is only a bit over 1000 I think.

This would hardly be punative to the US. Even if Britain decided to redraw the Maine border in their favour that too is hardly punative to the US and has only recently been settled in US favour. Think of this as a fight between relatives as you will...one side comes out ahead and the relationship will be decidedly frosty for a number of years...but the fundamentals for the Transatlantic relationship between Britain and the US are still there. The US may lose but even with the above border modifications of what were disputed terr. to begin with they will get off quite lightly and there is no reason to think that the two will after an appropriate period of cooled relations will move back on a path of convergence of interests once again.

If Britain were to feel a need for punative measures...then it will depend on the course of the War of course and its length. the most probably punative measure would be some form of reparations...or to lower the western border to the 46th parallel. Essentially for a parrallel border that extends from the mouth of the Columbia across the continent to the UP of Michigan.

Other than a few US Army forts and a whole lot of Natives there are also few if any settlers in the region. This would be in lieu of reparations most likely.
Even if the Brits felt a need for some symbolic punative measure this would not be a hardship for the US at that time as the potential of the Mesabi has not even been discovered yet. All it really does is put the entirelty of the Red River valley within the British sphere ( a historical claim but surrendered in 1818) so really they are only getting back lost terr that they initially claimed.

This is highly unlikely and really depends on the course of the War and wether the Brits would feel that a punative measure was indeed required...
It would depend on who started the shooting and under what circumstances, and how well the Brits are able to rally the Natives to their position.

Even at this, the relationship might remain frosty for a somewhat longer period..but by the 1890's I suspect that they would once again be seeing themselves on a path to convergence of interests once again.
 
True, economic realities will bring the two sides into reasonable relations after a while... but several people here have linked a loss in this war to also mean that we don't take the western lands from Mexico... and if that's true (something by no means sure), then the US will a middling economic power only, and probably never a military power... the US will scarcely be worth allying with.

Now, Mexico, OTOH....
 
True, economic realities will bring the two sides into reasonable relations after a while... but several people here have linked a loss in this war to also mean that we don't take the western lands from Mexico... and if that's true (something by no means sure), then the US will a middling economic power only, and probably never a military power... the US will scarcely be worth allying with.

Now, Mexico, OTOH....

Well that is entirely possible I suppose...I doubt that any American administration would consider fighting both Mexico and the Brits in Oregon at the same time....thats just a recipe for disaster...

Got to remember its at this time that the US has annexed Texas souring relations with Mexico and Mexico will respond in 1846 by trying to enforce the Nueces- Medina as the Texas boundary. If the negotiation over Oregon has failed to produce a treaty an the Peel gov't has fallen bringing in Palmerston as Foreign secretary...then the Mexican War could take on a different complexion yes.

then yes the US could indeed lose the entire Mexican cession and perhaps even Texas ( though more probably the mexicans simply retain the Nueces-Medina as the Texas boundary and Santa Fe del Nueva Mexico remains as Mexican terr. As long as Mexico encourages immigration from sources other than the US to California...say Italy or South Germany and and perhaps other parts of Latin America ( say Guatemala, El Salvador or perhaps Ecuador) say then they may be able to keep California within the United Mexican States.

That still leaves the US as a major regional power on par with Mexico at least.
 
Well that is entirely possible I suppose...I doubt that any American administration would consider fighting both Mexico and the Brits in Oregon at the same time....thats just a recipe for disaster...

Got to remember its at this time that the US has annexed Texas souring relations with Mexico and Mexico will respond in 1846 by trying to enforce the Nueces- Medina as the Texas boundary. If the negotiation over Oregon has failed to produce a treaty an the Peel gov't has fallen bringing in Palmerston as Foreign secretary...then the Mexican War could take on a different complexion yes.

then yes the US could indeed lose the entire Mexican cession and perhaps even Texas ( though more probably the mexicans simply retain the Nueces-Medina as the Texas boundary and Santa Fe del Nueva Mexico remains as Mexican terr. As long as Mexico encourages immigration from sources other than the US to California...say Italy or South Germany and and perhaps other parts of Latin America ( say Guatemala, El Salvador or perhaps Ecuador) say then they may be able to keep California within the United Mexican States.

That still leaves the US as a major regional power on par with Mexico at least.

I would agree. Even if you presume the longer conflict and more punitive border suggested by AuroraBorealis and twin this with a continued Mexican control of California the US will still have a considerable potential. Not as great as OTL but some very rich lands and a well-educated population. Unless some other factor send it into total meltdown, say a very bad civil war leading to a collapse of civil society, which even then is unlikely to be permanent, it will by early-mid 20thC be on a power with the greater of the European great powers in population and industry and hence of military potential. Provided that either the greater Mexico hasn't taken off and become very hostile or relations with Britain/Canada deteriorated long time it will also have the big advantage of virtual total security. How it would use that potential power and what sort of society would develop would depend on the various butterflies.

Steve
 
if we assume an ACW split along the same lines, then the north is in for a tough time, because here, it doesn't have the CA gold and NV silver to pay for it.... the war might not destroy the country, but it'd sure leave it destitute for a while...
 
if we assume an ACW split along the same lines, then the north is in for a tough time, because here, it doesn't have the CA gold and NV silver to pay for it.... the war might not destroy the country, but it'd sure leave it destitute for a while...

Dave

If that still occurs then at the very least as you say the north will struggle a lot more to win and debts would be larger and longer lasting, presuming it is fought out to the end. Alternatively it might mean a shorter and far less costly war as the north [population or leadership] decides its better to let the south go.

The big question with this is that the US is going to be a lot less certain and self-confident. Both the defeat by Britain and the lack of a Pacific coastline will impact on this and also economic well-being. This might mean that the two sides feel the need to stay together so avoiding the conflict. Although this could mean slavery lasting longer and will affect the social history of the country. [Without a CW you may also see a weaker central government and markedly greater states rights for instance].

If something like OTL CW does occur the other question would be how the various powers, especially Britain responds. If there is still concern about the US and its developing strength after the Oregon conflict you might see more support for the south to weaken the US as a potential threat. Or a more diplomatic north might win more than historical British support due to a desire to improve relations between the two nations.

The other thing would be what has happened in Mexico. Is it stronger or facing serious unrest in California for instance? Would there still be a French imperial intervention? If Mexico is fairly well off could it try and intervene to regain Texas - although I think that would be very risky for it.

Steve
 
if we assume an ACW split along the same lines, then the north is in for a tough time, because here, it doesn't have the CA gold and NV silver to pay for it.... the war might not destroy the country, but it'd sure leave it destitute for a while...

Well if you assume worst case scenario and Mexico keeps the Cession and Britain Washington State and the northern tier this still leaves a short coast ont the Pacific...Portland is not nearly as good a Seattle or Tacoma of course but there is also Astoria and some smaller potential ports on the Oregon Coast that could be developed if needed....

Mind you perhaps Mexico is convinced to give up attempts to retake Texas by receiving Oregon South of the 46th in lieu. The Nueces - Medina gets accepted as border and Mexico recognizes the US annexation of Texas. This is the only way the US is truly cut off from the Pacific.

Mind you which would the American's want more...pacific coast or Texas at this juncture. Maybe they keep the southern portion of Oregon and Texas retains independence with a joint guarantee by all three parties. Texas is not very viable at this point, not until further settlement comes along but if they can survive then they will be another gulf coast oil state eventually. Or they could simply be annexed later once relations with Mexico have settled down.
If Mexico is able to stave off defeat it will go a long way to making sure relations are a little more cordial eventually.

That said twin defeats against Mexico and Britain... or more likely against Mexico that has British Support that spills over to Oregon and BNA then the fear of being inundated by free states is not as great and the chances of Civil War are probably less and the US will evolve away from slavery in the later part of the Century.
 
I would agree. Even if you presume the longer conflict and more punitive border suggested by AuroraBorealis and twin this with a continued Mexican control of California the US will still have a considerable potential. Not as great as OTL but some very rich lands and a well-educated population. Unless some other factor send it into total meltdown, say a very bad civil war leading to a collapse of civil society, which even then is unlikely to be permanent, it will by early-mid 20thC be on a power with the greater of the European great powers in population and industry and hence of military potential. Provided that either the greater Mexico hasn't taken off and become very hostile or relations with Britain/Canada deteriorated long time it will also have the big advantage of virtual total security. How it would use that potential power and what sort of society would develop would depend on the various butterflies.

Steve

Well actually that would be worse case. I thought the more likely scenario would be that the US fights the mexican War as Otl negotiaons restart with Palmerston and Britain sets up the VI colony same as Otl to counter the American influx. by the time the Mexican War is over and the US can do anything Britain's colony on the Pacific is a fait accompli and there is nothing that can be done. Instead of VI (1848/49 I think) It will probably be on the mainland New Caledonia with the extension southward along the Columbia (or perhaps encompassing both). It was already recognized that Britain would have to establish its own colony lest they lose the region through encroachment. By this point the US is consumed with digesting its Mexican acquisitions and removing its expeditonary forces from Mexico. This of course assumes no Br. intervention to help Mexico and bolster its own position.

In short no war over Oregon occurs..

Of course if it does occur it would either occur in conjunction with the Mexican confrontation ( a major disaster waiting to happen for the US ) or hard on its heels. In this case the US would still lose in Oregon and having already seen what happens to the vanquished when confronted by the US the Brits would have better reason to resort to a mildly punative border adjustment ( After all the US willhave already set the example). Fighting Mexico is one thing but fighting the Brits at this juncture is quite another. The US of couse will still acquire the vast Mexican cession but if they tackle the Brits over Oregon in the aftermath..they loose some of the north. It will give a little perspective about fighting within your own weight class.
 
If America is beat bt Britain, events in Texas will take a radical departure. Opponents to Texan annexation were fairly numerous to begin with, and that was a burgeoning USA. A United States that is perceived as weaker might tip Texas towards a more independant standpoint. Britain might even give Texas a loan that Lamar tried to secure as President, which might make the independant faction a lot more powerful.

Without an American prescence in the Southwest, what happens with the Californian gold? Is it discovered at the same time, or later? And a bigger question, what will America do so soon after a failed war with Britain?
 
Top