The United States claimed the entire Oregon Territory as US territory,along with the British Empire(essentially Canada in this case).A major campaign talking point for Polk was that the USA ought to have the entire Oregon Territory and that the English should back off,or the USA would declare war.They didn,in fact,and the USA settled for about three-fifths of it.What might have happened if the USA pushed more forcefully for the territory?Would Britian eventually back down and the Oregon Territory is all American?(The USA had a bigger interest in it)Would they realistically go to war over it?If so,how does the war go?
54-40 or fight! is taken seriously
- Thread starter nunya
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
I'd guess the Americans could win the war and conquer Canada (yawn), but the Brits would destroy their whole navy, and thus the European trade.
Polk is considered by many historians to be an extremely successful president, second only to the greatest figures such as Washington, Lincoln or FDR, because he actually achieved all of his major campaign goals in a single term of office. It seems doubtful that such success was achieved by anyone foolish enough to stumble into, or provoke, a war with the British Empire.
The US is involved in a problem with Mexico at this same time. Had the British stalled, no treaty would have been signed before fighting broke out in Texas. While the fight in northern Mexico might not have been affected, could the US have sent its navy to take Vera Cruz in the face of a potentially beligerent British Navy? I think Britian could have gotten better terms by waiting a little longer. 54/40 - no way. The 49th would be lucky by then.
I was under the impression that the British did get a better deal in terms of Vancouver Island and some waterways.
The British had the most to lose here, and could have easily been provoked into war. Without a Pacific coast, (54'40" would have claimed all of it) the Canadian interior would have been of significantly diminished value. Without a western outlet, Alberta and Saskachewan might have never developed. Consider how important railroads would prove to be just 20 years later when Canada confederated.
Alcuin
Banned
You don't really need a map. 54 degrees 40 minutes north is the southern border of Alaska. Basically, Polk was saying he did not want Canada to be anywhere on the West Coast.
from what I've read, Polk was never serious about '54-40'... he wanted the border on the 49th the whole time, mainly because it was a natural extension of the existing border further east. In a rare case of political misfire for them, it was the Brits who got sticky about wanting the whole territory. Polk basically bluffed... the Brits got distracted by some crisis somewhere else, and Polk got the boundary where he wanted it all along...
Hmm.That makes sense,I didnt realize it went up that far.That way Alaska is contigous.
Yeah,thats what I read on his wiki article too.What could have compelled him to seek no comprimise on this issue?(as a POD)
So,if Canada has no access to the Pacific,does this open the possibility that the USA may eventually settle and annex a good chunk of western Canada,since far fewer Canadians do,and the US already took a big bite out of what we today call Canada?Or,how does a less valuable west Canada impact Canada?
I think,at the time,the USA might actually win,they came pretty close in 1812,and are a lot stronger in numbers and economic size at this time,compared to then.If war actually breaks out,I think it will be a small,quick shootout mainly in the Oregon Territory,and more a sort of civil war in the Pacific Northwest.There won't be US forces invading Canada,and any naval action is probably focused in Pacific,and hardly any.No US forces in the British Carribean,and no amphibous assault up the Potomac.Neither side ever surrenders,and both sue for peace after about 2-3 months and three-thousand dead.The Americans either win everything to the 54th parellel,or it ends with the 49th.I dont think it is possible for the Brits to win all of Oregon,though.
Nunya
How are the US going to get troops there? Without railways or handy rivers it is a very long way. Furthermore the US, because of its position and lack of any real enemies was able for most of its early years to maintain virtually no army. Britain has a world wide empire and hence needs to maintain forces all over the world. The US does have the advantage over the much discussed Trent War scenario that it’s not fighting in the south at the same time but what power it has it is virtually impossible to apply. Difficult enough to attack eastern Canada given the forces available. No way the US can compete in Oregon region. Britain can send troops and supplies from India a lot easier and in much greater numbers than the US can support overland.
If Polk was actually serious and pressed the point then it is likely to be the US that lacks a Pacific coast. Very likely the 'natural' border of the Snake River but if Britain was angered enough they could go all the way. This would make a later war with Mexico that sees the annexation of California a lot less likely [for the US]. Without a Pacific coast to pull across a railway and develop the central region US economic development could be drastically affected. [That's why the 54 40 border was attractive to the US imperialists. It would effectively doom Canada to increasing economic backwardness and domination by the US].
I would also disagree with your interpretation of the 1812 war. The US never really threatened to conquer Canada despite virtually no assistance from Britain because we were overwhelmingly concerned about the French conflict. The US is a lot stronger in the 1840's but Britain is probably at its industrial height and not occupied by another major conflict.
Steve
