AHC:Anglo-American War in 1840's over Oregon

samcster94

Banned
So, what if 54 40 was taken more seriously??? This implies the Mex/Am War and Texas stuff went differently. Bonus points if the U.S. annexes modern day BC.
 
I can see this thread turning into a UK vs US pissing contest.

But I don't think the US would be able to annex BC as easily as you think.
 
More likely a limited conflict with some local militia going at it, maybe a naval exchange to show the flag but not fought to the finish. Honestly I imagine a lot of conflicts would be on the line of showing the flag instead of a full blown war or a war fought to the finish.
 
This is not going to happen under Polk. But maybe if Cass wins in 1844?--a possibility I discuss at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/72fJkCTvRco/jwl0XeGpOEcJ

(Though I think that even Cass, despite his anglophobic reputation, would take a more realistic view as president than he did as senator from Michigan, and would realize that you couldn't fight both Great Britain and Mexico, and that there was much more sentiment in the Democratic Party, especially its southern wing, for fighting Mexico.)
 
The big question what happens with Mexico, because other than Oregon going to Britain the changes in the wider war would be very minor ( possibly northern Maine, the south bank of the St. Lawrence, northwestern shore of Lake Superior, the Red River watershed) after the American navy gets smashed and a few raids and border battles take place.

Does America still go after Mexico after a loss to the UK?
 
The big question what happens with Mexico, because other than Oregon going to Britain the changes in the wider war would be very minor ( possibly northern Maine, the south bank of the St. Lawrence, northwestern shore of Lake Superior, the Red River watershed) after the American navy gets smashed and a few raids and border battles take place.

Does America still go after Mexico after a loss to the UK?

Very likely.... while valuable long term Oregon does not match the already known value of Texas (cotton exports and land for suitable for more) and California (already being described as paradise and that is before gold is found). A lot of immigrants are already pouring into both already.

As to Oregon, its 14,000 miles to Britain and 2,000 miles to Saint Louis, so just supplying any kind of significant force in what is still overwhelmingly wilderness is going to be a challenge for either side. The logistics for the British in Canada are no picnic either, as there are no significant railroads on the Canadian side, while the Americans at least have some and of course they already have a lot of steamboats in Hudson River, have the Erie Canal, and of course there are already ports on the American side of the Great Lakes.

Nobody has ironclads yet, but explosive shells have already made life more difficult for wooden ships, and the USN is probably at its peak strength compared to the RN in this period (between 1815-1860). Instead of trying to blockade a few ports in the Northeast (Trent War scenario), the British have even a larger coast to blockade then they did in 1812. Assume lots of privateers.

We can assume the British would field a force similar in size to their Crimean War army, while the Americans can field what they fielded for the Mexican War.

Not an easy British victory by any means, more likely a draw results as what are they fighting for? Territory that is about as far from Britain as it is possible to be in the pre Canadian Transcontinental Railroad age and not exactly down the street for the Americans either.
 
I can see this thread turning into a UK vs US pissing contest.

But I don't think the US would be able to annex BC as easily as you think.

Probably not but then hardly any non Native Americans live in BC at this point (or modern day Washington State either) and the American population (and is concentrated in modern day Oregon too) outnumbers the British population, neither are particularly large.
 
Last edited:
More likely a limited conflict with some local militia going at it, maybe a naval exchange to show the flag but not fought to the finish. Honestly I imagine a lot of conflicts would be on the line of showing the flag instead of a full blown war or a war fought to the finish.

That seems pretty likely actually, although my understanding is that the White locals in Oregon saw themselves more as collaborators then competitors. The Native Americans of course had their own views one would think.
 

Greenville

Banned
America would lose this war. Both sides send an expeditionary force to reclaim territory taken or claimed by the other, the British and Canadians defeat that sent by the Americans and probably claim it as their own. They will probably try to occupy much of the Louisiana Territory simply for leverage in getting a favorable peace accord.

To retaliate, the British navy blockaded the American eastern coast for the effect of economic damage causing naval battles in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes again like in the War of 1812. The United States also loses this battle.

I can see Britain helping an independent Texas obtain sovereignty in exchange for allowing it to place bases on its territory for use in the southern United States and Mississippi. Britain might even invade and take this right by force if necessary overwhelming Texan resistance.

The British don't really want American territory that much but will want to get back and punish the U.S. for such a conflict, however, which will probably end in some sort of mediate peace anyway.

In the longer term, America is so financially damaged by a war with the British Empire that the war with Mexico is probably long delayed by ten of twenty years simply because of the previous drain has taken which also postpones the end of slavery and ultimately Civil War. The drawbacks will last decades.
 
America would lose this war. Both sides send an expeditionary force to reclaim territory taken or claimed by the other, the British and Canadians defeat that sent by the Americans and probably claim it as their own. They will probably try to occupy much of the Louisiana Territory simply for leverage in getting a favorable peace accord.

To retaliate, the British navy blockaded the American eastern coast for the effect of economic damage causing naval battles in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes again like in the War of 1812. The United States also loses this battle.

I can see Britain helping an independent Texas obtain sovereignty in exchange for allowing it to place bases on its territory for use in the southern United States and Mississippi. Britain might even invade and take this right by force if necessary overwhelming Texan resistance.

The British don't really want American territory that much but will want to get back and punish the U.S. for such a conflict, however, which will probably end in some sort of mediate peace anyway.

In the longer term, America is so financially damaged by a war with the British Empire that the war with Mexico is probably long delayed by ten of twenty years simply because of the previous drain has taken which also postpones the end of slavery and ultimately Civil War. The drawbacks will last decades.

What are you basing this on? The US was weaker in 1815 and the British mobilized and nothing like this happened. Taking Oregon is probably within British capability without too much trouble, seeing as the inhabited (by White Settlers) portion is pretty small and after a few months the British can get an expeditionary force there while it would take much longer for an American force to assemble and get there.

The US fielded roughly 75,000 troops for the War with Mexico, the British sent around 100,000 to fight the Russians in Crimea (including sailors of course for both) so the disparity in armies is not very large, while see above for some issues with the naval war.

As to financial damage? For a decade? The British smashed the American merchant marine in 1812 but no such financial damage occurred in spite of the American government being essentially broke by the end of the war.
 
From my understanding it would depend on how large scale the war got. If it remained in the Oregon territory, America would win but if it came to the Eastern Seaboard, Britain would probably win. It might change the relationship between the Americans, the British and some of the bigger tribes like the Salish. If either side had to recruit them as allies they might have more room to maneuver post-war.
 
Have you tried making a POD as early as the Napoleonic Wars? Maybe if the Americans were more pro-French, the war of 1812 would be a precursor of things to come as the British get more suspicious of American intentions. Or how about treating the population of Quebec as brothel workers (when they are most defiantly of... other occupations) during the sack of Quebec to inflame them more? You guys are not being imaginative enough by PODs in the 1830s (unless the OP wanted that, but I don't think he said so)
 
Have you tried making a POD as early as the Napoleonic Wars? Maybe if the Americans were more pro-French, the war of 1812 would be a precursor of things to come as the British get more suspicious of American intentions. Or how about treating the population of Quebec as brothel workers (when they are most defiantly of... other occupations) during the sack of Quebec to inflame them more? You guys are not being imaginative enough by PODs in the 1830s (unless the OP wanted that, but I don't think he said so)

"Sack of Quebec"?
 
Ummm... wrong war. War of 1812, and was Montreal the capital?

The Americans never got close to either one of them in that war, so that would require a rather huge POD (better prewar US Army, more British mistakes) which would have to go back at least a couple of decades.
 
Ummm... wrong war. War of 1812, and was Montreal the capital?

Montreal wasn't the capital of Upper or Lower Canada, but it was the political, economic and military heart of British North America. In a war with America, it must be protected at all costs to the exclusion of everything else (except for perhaps Halifax). If Montreal falls, the war is probably over.
 
Top