54-40 is American, how does the Pacific Northwest develop?

Strategos' Risk

Let's say that 54 40 happens without a war. The Brits are hit with a crisis, and while preoccupied, they blink and Polk's bluff succeeds. The entire Oregon Country becomes American.

How would this greater Oregon Territory become administered? Either redraw the states, or have it so that Oregon, Washington, and "American Columbia" (suggest your own names) are the three resulting states.

How would Vancouver develop? Would it even be the major city in AC?
 

fox~ringo

Vancouver could be bigger in this TL, it is a good natural harbor and it might get more attention and development than OTL's Seattle.
 

Superman

fox~ringo said:
Vancouver could be bigger in this TL, it is a good natural harbor and it might get more attention and development than OTL's Seattle.
Click to expand...
I thought Vancouver only grew because it was Canada's least bad Pacific port. If that's true, than ITTL, Vancouver would probably be much smaller.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Strategos' Risk said:
Let's say that 54 40 happens without a war. The Brits are hit with a crisis, and while preoccupied, they blink and Polk's bluff succeeds. The entire Oregon Country becomes American.
Click to expand...

Err? What? While it's not ASB, it is remarkably improbable that Britain would be that distracted. It's not like the US had any decent logistics supply to the area if the Brits decided to fight.

Simply handwaving "Let's suppose it happens" is not very helpful.


----
Vancouver. Indeed, Vancouver is likely to be smaller rather than smaller.

---

I could say all sorts of odd adminstrative divisions. One obvious one would be 'Fraser' (say) north of the Columbia, Oregon south, and (Clarke?) to the east, making none of the 'states' look anything like OTLs.
 
Umbric Man

Umbric Man

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Err? What? While it's not ASB, it is remarkably improbable that Britain would be that distracted. It's not like the US had any decent logistics supply to the area if the Brits decided to fight.

Simply handwaving "Let's suppose it happens" is not very helpful.


----
Vancouver. Indeed, Vancouver is likely to be smaller rather than smaller.

---

I could say all sorts of odd adminstrative divisions. One obvious one would be 'Fraser' (say) north of the Columbia, Oregon south, and (Clarke?) to the east, making none of the 'states' look anything like OTLs.
Click to expand...

1) For the sake of the question itself focusing on that is just mean-spirited tho', and I actually agree with you somewhat (if that Americans would still make the effort to supply).

2) I thought Seattle was the worse port! Huh. :p

3) I actually agree with the American habit of naming states after rivers 'Fraser' may actually work, especially since Fraser wasn't really well-known compared to other explorers in the area.

Maybe a Stickeen Territory above 'Fraser' (the mainland area everyone lives in)?
 

SinghKing

Banned
Umbric Man said:
1) For the sake of the question itself focusing on that is just mean-spirited tho', and I actually agree with you somewhat (if that Americans would still make the effort to supply).

2) I thought Seattle was the worse port! Huh. :p
Click to expand...

In the long run, yes, Vancouver is better as a deep sea port. But IOTL, Vancouver wasn't even incorporated until 6 April 1886. The very first European settlers in Vancouver only arrived in 1862:

The settlement which came to be called Gastown grew up quickly around the original makeshift tavern established by "Gassy" Jack Deighton in 1867 on the edge of the Hastings Mill property. In 1870, the colonial government surveyed the settlement and laid out a townsite, renamed "Granville" in honour of the then-British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Granville. This site, with its natural harbour, was selected in 1884 as the terminus for the Canadian Pacific Railway, to the disappointment of Port Moody, New Westminster and Victoria, all of which had vied to be the railhead. A railway was among the inducements for British Columbia to join the Confederation in 1871, but the Pacific Scandal and arguments over the use of Chinese labour delayed construction until the 1880s.
Click to expand...

So, in such a TL, with this POD, the City of Vancouver wouldn't just be smaller- it wouldn't even be born.
 

Pearsonality

Vancouver is at the end of a river (the Frasier). Would there be some value in this for settlers - such as moving goods down the Frasier valley - that would draw people there over Seattle?
 

Corjomc

Possible State Names - Polk, Jefferson, Jackson, Adams, North & South Oregon, Astoria, or Cowichan
 

Tyr

ASB to happen.
But if it does I would imagine BC is less developed.
Not on account of the Americans being worse rulers or anything like that. But in this scenario it doesn't have the advantage of being Canada's point on the west coast, it is just yet another point on the American west coast, nothing special in itself.
Investment that went there IOTL will instead go to the better places further south.
 

606jae

Easy for the US to end up with what became British Columbia, but after the civil war simply have them take British Columbia instead of money for the Alabama.
 

hzn5pk

Oregon South of the Columbia River

Columbia North of the Columbia River to the 51st parallel including a line through Vancouver island

Washington from the 51st to the 54th. Alaska panhandle will be part of Washington (BC)

Alaska will receive Yukon territory when USA purchases that as well or perhaps not.

Canadian football will be without the BC Lions. NFL will still have the Seahawks.
 

Alt History Buff

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Err? What? While it's not ASB, it is remarkably improbable that Britain would be that distracted.
Click to expand...

true, but it was hardly central to british policy. There were only a few thousand brits there to man the fur trade. If the usa bought off the company, I doubt britain would care overly much. They had far more important things to do: india wars, opium wars, crimea, etc, etc in these decades. Picking a fight with the usa was a low item on the agenda.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

mrmandias said:
People abuse ASB on this board. They confuse the merely pretty improbable with the literally impossible.
Click to expand...

That's partly because the 'literally impossible' is so very, very limited. For instance, it is physically possible for every air molecule in your room to end up in a 1 inch cube in the upper northwest corner of the room. It's never going to happen, because the odds are astronomically tiny. But it is physically possible.

It's still ASB, because it would never happen in the lifetime of thousands of universes, but it's possible.
 

Lateknight

Banned
It would be more developed because Americans are more friendly towards immergration plus with the entire pacific coast America's probably going to be a bit more invested in the east so their would be immergration from that way.
 

West

This is not ASB.

All it requires is some european country to act up during the talks and for the british to decide thats its simply not worth the effort and that they have more important issues to deal with closer at home.


Their north american territories are useful but they have far more useful colonies elsewhere.
 

funnyhat

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
That's partly because the 'literally impossible' is so very, very limited. For instance, it is physically possible for every air molecule in your room to end up in a 1 inch cube in the upper northwest corner of the room. It's never going to happen, because the odds are astronomically tiny. But it is physically possible.

It's still ASB, because it would never happen in the lifetime of thousands of universes, but it's possible.
Click to expand...

This is a silly analogy. Britain could well have peacefully ceded the Oregon Territory given some kind of POD. We're not talking about India here. The Oregon Territory wasn't that important to them.
 

CaptainRex

Banned
The British were prepared to give it all to the Americans, but Polk quickly accepted OTL borders because he was getting ready to fight Mexico and didn't want to be distracted.

If anything, if the US is fighting a war then the British will hold any deal. Polk was under a time limit. Either get the Brits to give in earlier or hold off the Mexican war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top