AHC/PC: An independent state in the Pacific Northwest

[Meshakhad]

First of all, we'll set aside the modern-day Cascadia movement. Short of a collapse of central authority in the US and Canada, that isn't going to happen. But what would it take to have an independent state in the PNW?

The best idea I can come up with is for it to be a former British colony. So first, we need Britain to gain the whole of Oregon Country (as it was known in the 1800s). Either the Louisiana Purchase never happens (possibly because Britain snagged it first) or Britain is firmer in treaty negotiations.

We also need it to be separate from Canada. I don't know if British Oregon would be organized as a single colony or multiple. The trick is to get some kind of Oregonian identity to emerge, enough for British Oregon to reject Confederation. Given the size of the region and its larger population, I could see that happening, especially if you throw in some American immigrants who might want Oregon to join the US. They wouldn't get their way, but they might push Oregon into becoming a separate dominion. The US would also favor a separate Oregon, in the hopes of at least bringing it into the American sphere. A stronger presence on the Pacific might also induce Britain to buy Alaska, probably giving it to Oregon eventually.

 

[Tabs]

Spain had their claims on the Pacific NW. Maybe if their empire lasts longer, they can establish some settlements there, and an independent nation could be borne from that.

 

[cloistered scholar]

Didnt the Mormans consider colonizing Vancouver?

 

[Wendell]

William Henry Harrison wears a coat. Texas annexation is delayed if it happens at all, and the Mormons end up migrating to the Anglo-American condominium known as the Oregon Country that eventually evolves into an independent republic.

 

[Alternator]

Hmm. My first thought is a three way claim between Mexico, the United States, and Great Britain that is resolved with independence, but the United States isn't about to accept lacking a Pacific port, and getting it from California cuts off the Mexican claims.

How about better relations between the United States and Great Britain, dating all the way back to avoiding the War of 1812? If the two nations are steady friends, there's less need for Canadian Confederation, and British Columbia could remain outside modern Canada as its own nation.

 

[Meshakhad]

Didnt the Mormans consider colonizing Vancouver?

William Henry Harrison wears a coat. Texas annexation is delayed if it happens at all, and the Mormons end up migrating to the Anglo-American condominium known as the Oregon Country that eventually evolves into an independent republic.

This would be an interesting variable. I doubt that the Mormons would completely dominate the PNW as they did Oregon, but they could certainly help push the culture away from Canada.

 

[Titanium49]

An independent state in the NW consisting of the whole Oregon territory, I'm not so sure. I think if you had a POD in the early 1840s that meant the US went to war with Mexico earlier, they might have conceded the Columbia River border to Britain, and grabbed a larger chunk of Mexico. Thus, there could be a BC that includes most of Washington state. Maybe a larger entity would have avoided federation to Canada.

 

[Wendell]

Structurally, I could see such a polity operating similarly to Australia in its politics.

 

[Titanium49]

Structurally, I could see such a polity operating similarly to Australia in its politics.

Perhaps New Zealand would be a better example, or the Newfoundland that existed before 1946.

 

[durante]

The Americans called it Oregon; to the British it was the Columbia District.

Confederation with Canada was anything but majority opinion, and was most common (perhaps unsurprisingly) amongst immigrants from Canada.

They didn't really have an option when Britain amalgamated the colonies of BC and Vancouver Island in 1866; they were both in massive debt and opposed the merger.

When Canada offered to take on BC's debt and build a railway to the Pacific, BC couldnt really say no.

Earlier/larger settlement could make the colonies more profitable earlier, and not incur as much debt -

The "Wakefield Scheme" the British chose as the basis for settlement was poorly suited to the area (it's tough to sell land for £1 an acre when the Americans are selling land further south for $1 an acre at a time where the exchange rate is $4.80 to £1).

An earlier settlement could help the Brits keep the Puget Sound area (north/west of the Columbia River) as it was widely assumed to be split at the time.

Especially given the distance from Eastern Canada before the railway, earlier settlement will help develop a distinct culture.

Others have mentioned the Spanish were there; when they dismantled Fort San Miguel they offered the Juan de Fuca strait as the border to the British; the British wanted the border at San Francisco Bay and so declined to settle the matter.

The Americans obtained Spain's claim to the area by treaty in 1819.

The British ended up with a border at the Juan de Fuca anyway. If they had agreed with Spain in the Nootka Crisis, OTL BC would have been officially British in the 1790s. (And the rest of the PNW officially Spanish, but unlikely to attract significant settlement before independence as part of Mexico).

The British could also attempt to drive a harder bargain, but not go for San Francisco, or later negotiate for the whole area with Mexico.

There had been early talks about establishing a Loyalist Colony in Australia. A loyalist colony in the PNW established in the 1790s would develop culturally quite distinct. Trade with Asia and travel to Australia would be easier than with the Eastern part of the Americas at the time.

Lord Selkirk seemed an interesting one to me. He became aware of the highland clearances and sympathetic to the crofters at university. He inherited a buttload of money and at one point was travelling around North America looking for a suitable place to help the poor dispossessed of Ireland and Scotland emigrate too.

He eventually ended up with about 250,000 sq km of southern Manitoba and northern Minnesota. It didnt quite live up to expectations and in any event most of the area ended up in the USA.

His story was particularly interesting because when reading about him, I came across a part where he described how Scottish Highlanders had developed agricultural land on barren rocky islands. Annually they would dredge up sand a seaweed from the ocean; they'd dry it to remove the saline; then mix the sand and seaweed with compost and add a foot or two to their agricultural plots every year; creating a sort of loam where otherwise had been almost barren rock.

This method would be very well suited to basically anything on the coast above the 50th parallel north.

Maybe Selkirk moves to the island and leaves the inhabitants his money after his death.

Theres also the Crimean war, which boosted British interest in the area when it realized the value of Esquimalt harbour. The British could have seized Alaska during the Crimean war; making the area less anxious of American annexation, and adding (a very small number) of Russian colonists, who could add another slightly different flavour?

Vancouver Island was indeed considered an option by the LDS Church; the Saints had a very low reputation at the time and the colonial Governor rejected the idea.

I agree that New Zealand is the best analog for politics. I think Newfoundland does have some analogies but this BC would be more profitable and therefore, although it could join Canada post war, it could also hold out permanently.

It specifically would be like an NZ to Canada's Australia; probably some sort of travel arrangements have been worked out between the two countries.

 

[Meshakhad]

Very interesting ideas, @durante . If I were to actually go with this as a TL, I'm leaning towards the following combination:

Britain establishes a small loyalist colony in Puget Sound. After Mexican independence, Britain negotiates with Mexico for claims to the PNW, gaining most of Oregon (I'm aiming for something close to the borders of the Cascadia bioregion). Lord Selkirk settles Highlanders and Irish in the area. The North West Company is able to avoid a forced merger with the Hudson Bay Company. The Mormons show up in the 1840s, possibly settling the Willamette Valley or east of the Cascades. Large numbers of Irish immigrants arrive in 1848-9. Britain also seizes Alaska during the Crimean War. So now we have a colony that is dominated by Catholics and Mormons, with a minority of (mostly Protestant) American fur traders and merchants. I don't think it's unreasonable that they reject confederation.

 

[durante]

Very interesting ideas, @durante . If I were to actually go with this as a TL, I'm leaning towards the following combination:

Britain establishes a small loyalist colony in Puget Sound. After Mexican independence, Britain negotiates with Mexico for claims to the PNW, gaining most of Oregon (I'm aiming for something close to the borders of the Cascadia bioregion). Lord Selkirk settles Highlanders and Irish in the area. The North West Company is able to avoid a forced merger with the Hudson Bay Company. The Mormons show up in the 1840s, possibly settling the Willamette Valley or east of the Cascades. Large numbers of Irish immigrants arrive in 1848-9. Britain also seizes Alaska during the Crimean War. So now we have a colony that is dominated by Catholics and Mormons, with a minority of (mostly Protestant) American fur traders and merchants. I don't think it's unreasonable that they reject confederation.

Not merging the HBC and the Northwest Company is a great trick for these purposes as well.

Governor Douglas may still end up Governor (his career began with the NWC pre-merger), he was what today would be called Mixed-race and specifically allowed the settlement of free blacks from the USA; as late as the 1820s IOTL the primary settlers may have been Hawai'ian.

With earlier settlement it's also likely to see Chinese immigration, as that was the destination of the furs from the area. Check out the bio of John Meares on wikipedia, who illegally settled 25 Chinese labourers on VI in the 1790s.

If you're going to have the Mormons settle, you'll probably want to check out the bio of Amor de Cosmos (shockingly not his birth name), second Governor of BC post-Confederation, and an LDS member!

 

[Flashman]

This would be an interesting variable. I doubt that the Mormons would completely dominate the PNW as they did Oregon, but they could certainly help push the culture away from Canada.

I could see it going the other way though - fear of the Mormons pushing other Oregonians to hold closer to Canada and Britain out of fear of domination by Mormon minority.

 

[durante]

I could see it going the other way though - fear of the Mormons pushing other Oregonians to hold closer to Canada and Britain out of fear of domination by Mormon minority.

There were also 15,000 Saints in Britain by 1845 who were looking for a colony in the Americas. The PNW was considered a place where the American and British factions could join up.

 

[durante]

Spain had their claims on the Pacific NW. Maybe if their empire lasts longer, they can establish some settlements there, and an independent nation could be borne from that.

This is the subject of the TL in my signature.

 

[Tabs]

This is the subject of the TL in my signature.

Is this TL gonna be updated again? It’s fine if not but, it looks very interesting so I have to ask

 

[durante]

Is this TL gonna be updated again? It’s fine if not but, it looks very interesting so I have to ask

Thanks! And yes, eventually. I'm working again so less time to write.

 

[durante]

In 1793, George Vancouver explored the area. Alexander Mackenzie reached the pacific overland the same year. They missed each other by 48 days (same location). I always thought this would be a good POD; as it would confirm the location vis a vis the Northwest Company's Peace River district. Maybe this is the POD that leads to an early settlement?

 

[Wendell]

Perhaps New Zealand would be a better example, or the Newfoundland that existed before 1946.

Why?

 

[durante]

Why?

Lots of superficial similarities between BC and NZ. One major city, a smaller one that's the capital, 5 million people, forestry, fishing and farming the middle basis of the economy after an initial gold rush. I reflexively agreed this morning.

The more I thought about it, the more (first of all) we're splitting hairs - and also, BC/Cascadia/Oregon would likely be wealthier, more resource-extraction based; and more "Americanized" than OTL NZ.

So Australia maybe the correct pick, after all.