American Oregon Country?

Back when the Oregon Country was cut in half what if instead America got the whole Oregon country how would American/Canadian/British history change how would it happen?
 
If we even see a Canada as we know it, it would lack a West Coast, perhaps anything west of the rockies.

The Pacific Coast would be much more important and likely more developed - TTL Seattle could be as big as New York, with Vancouver as its Brooklyn.
 
If we even see a Canada as we know it, it would lack a West Coast, perhaps anything west of the rockies.

The Pacific Coast would be much more important and likely more developed - TTL Seattle could be as big as New York, with Vancouver as its Brooklyn.

In all likelihood youd still see a Canada; indeed, without the oppritunuty for West coast commerce there's even more reason for the prarie territories to seek a quick political-economic connection to the east coast as an outlet for their produce. That is, unless the Hudson Bay company can somehow spin it's namesake feature into an alternative trade hub, but given how unavigable it is I highly doubt that.
 
If we even see a Canada as we know it, it would lack a West Coast, perhaps anything west of the rockies.

The Pacific Coast would be much more important and likely more developed - TTL Seattle could be as big as New York, with Vancouver as its Brooklyn.

Seattle and Vancouver are not neighbors - they are like 200 km apart.

I don’t see why the west coast would be more developed than OTL. Both the US and Britain/Canada encouraged mass settlement OTL. Actually, if the whole coast is American, then one of Seattle/Vancouver probably won’t be as big as OTL, I would think. OTL they are each the main port for their country in that region. TTL one is sufficient.
 
Back when the Oregon Country was cut in half what if instead America got the whole Oregon country how would American/Canadian/British history change how would it happen?

It's hard for me to see this happening without a war that neither side wanted (especially given the US conflict with Mexico...) The British could agree to compromises but not to British North America being totally cut off from the Pacific. As I wrote here some months ago, "Britain was ultimately willing to compromise and accept the extension of the 49th parallel to the Pacific (instead of only to the Columbia River and following the river to the Pacific). But it did so only after decades. And 54-40 is not a compromise but a total surrender. Why assume that the British were any more willing to accept that than the Americans would have been to, say, Britain's maximum proposals in the Webster-Ashburton negotiations? ("One curious footnote: in the Webster-Ashburton negotiations, the British permanent under-secretary of the Foreign Office, Henry Unwin Addington, made the most extreme proposal that Britain ever made on the Oregon Question: "That proposal was to draw a line starting where the crest of the Rocky Mountains is intersected by the forty-ninth parallel, dropping southwardly along the crest to the Snake, and thence following the channel of the Snake and the Columbia to the sea." Merk, p. 198. This would have left to Britain nearly all of the present states of Washington and Idaho. Addington evidently realized that this proposal was sure to be rejected, so as a fallback position Ashburton was authorized to propose the old "49th parallel to the Columbia and thence along the channel of the river to the sea" offer that the Americans had already rejected three times....") https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-accept-54’40”-or-fight.438651/#post-16657148
 
Well Alaska will be connected t
t of the US. Perhaps earlier Alaskan statehood at most?
Your assuming of course that Britain hasn't annexed Alaska during the Crimean war. Argueably they now have more reason to do so instead of waiting for low hanging fruit to fall into their lap.
 
Your assuming of course that Britain hasn't annexed Alaska during the Crimean war. Argueably they now have more reason to do so instead of waiting for low hanging fruit to fall into their lap.
Britain would still be a global empire and Alaska wouldn't be it's #1 priority. Also if Britain didn't want it enough to take it in the Crimean War then they probably still wouldn't have taken it.
 
Yeah I have to agree why take it if it's going to be a long distance from anywhere else in the Empire?
 
Britain would still be a global empire and Alaska wouldn't be it's #1 priority. Also if Britain didn't want it enough to take it in the Crimean War then they probably still wouldn't have taken it.
This is a nonsensical arguement. The HBC was the principle supplier of goods for the RAC. Their increasinfg dependence of the RAC led them to believe that the company and its assets would in time by and large would be acquired by them. Hence the gentlemen's agreement between the two not to extend overt hostilities to their corporate territories. That would not be the case here. The company did also try to establish direct access to the Stikine territory during the thirties. But did not push the issue at that time. Here direct access would be more desirable.
 
The problem with American Oregon is that Vancouver is just about the northernmost port for transcontinental shipping through Canada. Britain would be basically giving up Pacific access entirely. If for some reason America gets all of Oregon, it's probably because America had already secured the "Canadian" prairie in previous negotiations or wars. By 1848, America didn't want to go to war with Britain and Britain didn't want to go to war with America. You have to either change things much farther back, like 1820 or earlier, or later, like America winning a Trent Affair war.

The effects of an American Oregon are fairly large for Canada and fairly small for America. Seattle is probably bigger and Vancouver much smaller. Probably more West Indian immigration and much less Asian immigration to Canada. The economy of Canada is severely affected as exporting to Asia has to go through American ports. Canada is probably slightly less rich and slightly less populated. Probably much more reliant on NAFTA and the American economy.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Maybe in a world where Napoleon won but other than that this is as realistic of a scenario as Britain conquering all of USA in 1812 war.

The US was not able to project power that far west to wrestle BC from Britain. To have that happen you need a different US with different leaders. Plus a navy that could challenge British navy.

The most important ports for the US were in California with San Francisco Bay being vitally important to American ambitions of America in the Pacific.

What would the USA of done if Britain had decided that Columbia river border was their final position. Would we of had a war in the 130s-1850s?
 
As far as why Britain would allow it, easy: just have some massive European War distract them ala the Crimean War at an inopertune moment, so that when the Americans come knocking, the British are less able and willing to fight, and much more willing to negotiate.

In an event like this, the British are probably able to make the Americans pay for these gains, and gain some substantiantial trade consessions... plus, lets say American backing of British gains elsewhere, say the Carribean or Venezuela, to name a couple.

This does cripple Canada... which is why the Canooks on the board always get huffy when this comes.up.
 
Maybe in a world where Napoleon won but other than that this is as realistic of a scenario as Britain conquering all of USA in 1812 war.

The US was not able to project power that far west to wrestle BC from Britain. To have that happen you need a different US with different leaders. Plus a navy that could challenge British navy.

The most important ports for the US were in California with San Francisco Bay being vitally important to American ambitions of America in the Pacific.

What would the USA of done if Britain had decided that Columbia river border was their final position. Would we of had a war in the 130s-1850s?

America was able to project power to Oregon much more easily than Britain after the annexation of California and the gold rush. It was good for Canada that the British negotiated the border before San Francisco became a major port. But when the only way to fight over Oregon was to send troops around South America Britain had the advantage.
 

Lusitania

Donor
America was able to project power to Oregon much more easily than Britain after the annexation of California and the gold rush. It was good for Canada that the British negotiated the border before San Francisco became a major port. But when the only way to fight over Oregon was to send troops around South America Britain had the advantage.
Britain also had the ability to send troops from British India if needed.

But we forget that any war would not just be limited to the Pacific Northwest and would soon encompass both British and American forces in the Atlantic.

That was reason neither country wanted to fight a war.
 
Top