54-40 or Fight!

This is a timeline that I am trying to work the kinks out of. The idea is that Polk doesn't budge on the Oregon issue, and doesn't pull back the demand to the 48 parrallel. I had the thought of America doing in Oregon what it would it did IOTL to Mexico. It would send troops up to the 54th Paralell(claiming it was theirs) and wait for the British to attack.

How would the British responsed to this situation. Would they just let the U.S. take that land, or would they contest it? If they contested it, could they win? How strong of a military presence did the British have in South Western Canada?

Would Polk try to wage war on both Britain and Mexico? Could America take both on at once? How much territory would America take if it were successfull against both, or vice versa? What about a mixed result of one end going good, and the other end going bad?

So as you can see I have quite a few kinks to get out of the way before I can make this timeline. Any help would be appreciated.
 
USA could take out Mexico pretty easily but the problem is that if they enter an alliance with the British, they would force America to occupy Mexico instead of making a grab for Canada and all of the Oregon territory. But Zach Taylor will be sent to Canada, Taylor was an excellent defensive general, to command US forces there while Winfield Scott finishes of Mexico.
 
The US would still defeat Mexico fairly easily but an Anglo-American War could result in disaster. Either the Americans are succesful and they take Oregon Territory and possibly Canada at a bloody cost or the Americans loss horribly and they don't get any of Oregon Territory and lose northern Maine and other parts of the northern US.
 
US Wins in Canada and Mexico, loses on the seas. The Yankees are going to be very ticked off about fighting either war, especially as it will mostly be their ships that are being sunk while the Southerners don't particularly mind.

I don't think you'd wind up with no Canada by the end of the war, just a lot of territory out west taken. In Mexico you'd either have a "Lets not prolong the conflict, take what we can get" scenario where Mexico retains some more of its territory, or a "We just took on Mexico and the UK at the same time *Evil laughter*" scenario where the US takes a little extra away.

Politically, this could be a technical win for the South who would have more territory in which to expand slavery, but a strategic loss since the North would be far less willing to hand a prize to the folks who recklessly ticked off our greatest trading partner and engaged in rampant imperialism. You'd probably see a much stronger effort to squelch the admittance of new slave states and possibly an earlier civil war.
 
This is a timeline that I am trying to work the kinks out of. The idea is that Polk doesn't budge on the Oregon issue, and doesn't pull back the demand to the 48 parrallel. I had the thought of America doing in Oregon what it would it did IOTL to Mexico. It would send troops up to the 54th Paralell(claiming it was theirs) and wait for the British to attack.

How would the British responsed to this situation. Would they just let the U.S. take that land, or would they contest it? If they contested it, could they win? How strong of a military presence did the British have in South Western Canada?

Would Polk try to wage war on both Britain and Mexico? Could America take both on at once? How much territory would America take if it were successfull against both, or vice versa? What about a mixed result of one end going good, and the other end going bad?

So as you can see I have quite a few kinks to get out of the way before I can make this timeline. Any help would be appreciated.

You'd have to change Polk's character. He was bluffing so he could get into power and because he saw the 49th as a preferable border. Its the typical bartering position. You don't start with what you want, you start off asking for more. The only thing he lost out on at the bargaining table was Vancouver Island, where he wanted the southern tip that goes south of the 49th as well.
 
He'd have to pick his battles: sacrifice expansion into Mexico in favor of more land in Oregon. A great way to anger the South, a very unwise move politically... but I guess that's what a POD is. Stranger things have happened, less explicable decisions have been made. Who needs all that worthless desert anyway, when you can get some of the finest timberland in the world.

No provocation of Mexico. Texas's border stops at the Nueces River in the east, then along a latitudinal line to the Pecos River in the west. It was a compromise border reached at the Treaty of Veracruz (1846).

The US loses its war with Britain. I can't imagine 1848-era America being able to conquer territory in the Pacific. The British could use their sea power to keep Americans from ever even getting there. (I'm assuming that the months needed to send troops overland to Oregon would make that plan of action utterly unfeasible.)

So the fighting happens in the east. This time, it's a reverse of 1812: all the British/Canadians have to do is prevent the Americans from seizing any territory, and they'll be fine. Probably they'll end up better than before, since their Navy can now prevent the US from making good on any claims to the Pacific. Is there any point where the US could realistically capture and hold Canadian land in 1848? The Great Lakes, Quebec, the Maritimes?

Say the war ends with a stalemate, with the British in control of Oregon and the US in control of a few minor patches of Canadian dirt. The treaty is unkind to the US, who after all tried to invade a stronger power. The States have to forfeit all claims to Oregon in exchange for a rather small chunk of New Brunswick and some money.

I think the result is a US that extends from the Atlantic to the Rockies and stays there. Now the North is mad because Southerners have Texas and they have almost no new territory to balance it.

To balance the two new slave states of Florida and Texas, Iowa and Sunbury (OTL New Brunswick) are admitted to the Union in 1846 and 1849, respectively. Wisconsin and Minnesota are blocked from achieving statehood by Southern opposition.

Since the Missouri Compromise is holding, the burst in sectional relations leading to civil war is delayed. Can it be avoided? Will the spread of northern industry doom slavery as an institution by the 1870s? Certainly by then abolitionism will have coalesced into something resembling, but not quite the same as, the Republican Party.

Gosh, that's a lot of ideas. Maybe I'll make a map.
 
I can't imagine the US would take on both Mexico and Britain at the same time... and taking on Britain would be an utter disaster for the US... the Brits can blockade the US into submission, even without landing a single troop... but they would land more than enough troops to wipe out the tiny US professional army. To put it bluntly, the US doesn't have the technology or the large number of experienced troops to take on Britain on land until after the ACW... and can't take on the RN until the 20th century...
 
I can't imagine the US would take on both Mexico and Britain at the same time... and taking on Britain would be an utter disaster for the US... the Brits can blockade the US into submission, even without landing a single troop... but they would land more than enough troops to wipe out the tiny US professional army. To put it bluntly, the US doesn't have the technology or the large number of experienced troops to take on Britain on land until after the ACW... and can't take on the RN until the 20th century...

Yeah - this is still way too early for the US to beat the UK. Britain could make one hell of a fight of it in the Trent War, when the US had a much larger industrial capacity and an enormously larger army; a war in 1848 would have been an utter disaster for the States.
 
Whats all this defeating Mexico easily stuff ?

It took TWO invasions to knock Mexico out of the war - the first was fine, advancing, fighting and winning, advancing but Mexico never gave up. Only when Winfield Scott with his genius of outwitting all of Santa Anna's plans marched overland from Vera Cruz was Mexico beaten

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Grey, well, the US never lost a battle and seized vast amounts of territory in northern Mexico. Scott's genius was in landing near Mexico City and going for the kill, otherwise the US might have achieved a de facto territorial increase never formally recognized by Mexico.

Hmmm...how might Mexican intervention have played out in the ACW?


More practically, what if the British took advantage of the Mexican War to squeeze harder terms on the US, keeping what is now Washington State?
 
Grey, well, the US never lost a battle and seized vast amounts of territory in northern Mexico. Scott's genius was in landing near Mexico City and going for the kill, otherwise the US might have achieved a de facto territorial increase never formally recognized by Mexico.

Hmmm...how might Mexican intervention have played out in the ACW?


More practically, what if the British took advantage of the Mexican War to squeeze harder terms on the US, keeping what is now Washington State?

Trivial maybe. But if I recall correctly we lost a few battles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Mexican-American_War
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
US Wins in Canada and Mexico, loses on the seas. The Yankees are going to be very ticked off about fighting either war, especially as it will mostly be their ships that are being sunk while the Southerners don't particularly mind.

The Southerns will begin to mind when they realize they can't sell any of their cash crops and are rapidly going bankrupt.
 
He'd have to pick his battles: sacrifice expansion into Mexico in favor of more land in Oregon. A great way to anger the South, a very unwise move politically... but I guess that's what a POD is. Stranger things have happened, less explicable decisions have been made. Who needs all that worthless desert anyway, when you can get some of the finest timberland in the world.

No provocation of Mexico. Texas's border stops at the Nueces River in the east, then along a latitudinal line to the Pecos River in the west. It was a compromise border reached at the Treaty of Veracruz (1846).

The US loses its war with Britain. I can't imagine 1848-era America being able to conquer territory in the Pacific. The British could use their sea power to keep Americans from ever even getting there. (I'm assuming that the months needed to send troops overland to Oregon would make that plan of action utterly unfeasible.)

So the fighting happens in the east. This time, it's a reverse of 1812: all the British/Canadians have to do is prevent the Americans from seizing any territory, and they'll be fine. Probably they'll end up better than before, since their Navy can now prevent the US from making good on any claims to the Pacific. Is there any point where the US could realistically capture and hold Canadian land in 1848? The Great Lakes, Quebec, the Maritimes?

Say the war ends with a stalemate, with the British in control of Oregon and the US in control of a few minor patches of Canadian dirt. The treaty is unkind to the US, who after all tried to invade a stronger power. The States have to forfeit all claims to Oregon in exchange for a rather small chunk of New Brunswick and some money.

I think the result is a US that extends from the Atlantic to the Rockies and stays there. Now the North is mad because Southerners have Texas and they have almost no new territory to balance it.

To balance the two new slave states of Florida and Texas, Iowa and Sunbury (OTL New Brunswick) are admitted to the Union in 1846 and 1849, respectively. Wisconsin and Minnesota are blocked from achieving statehood by Southern opposition.

Since the Missouri Compromise is holding, the burst in sectional relations leading to civil war is delayed. Can it be avoided? Will the spread of northern industry doom slavery as an institution by the 1870s? Certainly by then abolitionism will have coalesced into something resembling, but not quite the same as, the Republican Party.

Gosh, that's a lot of ideas. Maybe I'll make a map.

Even if the US loses an Anglo-American War won't they go for Mexico sooner or later?

Trivial maybe. But if I recall correctly we lost a few battles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Mexican-American_War

Most of them as you say were minor battles in California which had no effect on the main front in Mexico.
 
Grey, well, the US never lost a battle and seized vast amounts of territory in northern Mexico. Scott's genius was in landing near Mexico City and going for the kill, otherwise the US might have achieved a de facto territorial increase never formally recognized by Mexico.

Politics would have come into it, very probably. The election was coming up, the volunteer regiments were all going home, certain powerful elements were wondering what the Hell the USA was doing in a widespread war it had started for its own aggrandizement.

I'd have to reread some of the stuff I read a couple of months ago, but I got the opinion that the USA was teetering on the brink of having to compromise badly

Also, separate to the above, there's the possibility of Santa Anna winning at Buena Vista if the US has had to divert forces to another theatre (it was possible even without this, if Santa Anna had chosen not to withdraw but to fight for a third day he MIGHT have won)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I agree with Grey Wolf.

The mexicans fight normally with bravery, I think in some cases the US victory was narrow in some battles, for example in the case of Buenavista indicated by Grey Wolf:

"
In January 1847, Santa Anna moved north with about 20,000 men to dislodge Taylor. Dispatches captured by the Mexicans had revealed that most of Taylor's forces were being withdrawn to take part in Gen. Winfield Scott's proposed landing at Veracruz. Word of Santa Anna's approach reached Taylor on February 21, and although outnumbered almost three-to-one, he took up a position at the hacienda of Buena Vista, a few miles from Saltillo. The Mexican attack began on February 22, when troops led by Ampudia gained an advantage and forced the Americans to abandon important defensive positions. The next morning the main Mexican force nearly overcame the U.S. defense. However, a dramatic charge led by Col. Jefferson Davis about noon and a determined artillery advance under Capt. Braxton Bragg finally saved the day for the Americans. Their casualties numbered about 700, but the Mexican losses were about 1,800. Santa Anna withdrew that night and moved south to intercept Scott's invasionary force. No further fighting occurred in northern Mexico, but Taylor remained in command of a small force there until he returned to the United States in November 1847. "

from: http://www.lnstar.com/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm

I think so that I am in the opinion of Grey Wolf that we should not underestimate the mexican capacity to turn the Mexican War of an ATL in a long, hard and dangerous affair for the US army.

Also we should not forget the problems with guerrillas in the Mexican War.

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Occupation/Occupation.htm
 
Mexican courage I do not deny but when you confront an enemy deep in your own territory with the advantage of surprise and a nearly three to one edge in troops and still lose...:eek:
 
Mexican courage I do not deny but when you confront an enemy deep in your own territory with the advantage of surprise and a nearly three to one edge in troops and still lose...:eek:

I like how everyone has turned this into a "how easily can the US defeat Mexico" discussion, totally forgettign that you're at war with the British Empire, you poor doomed idiots. :rolleyes:
 
Top