American Oregon Country?

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.

Sending troops across the entire Pacific Ocean isn't easy or cheap. And don't forget that the Indian Rebellion happened in 1857, before that the Indian troops were EIC, not British army. And even after that, troops sent from India are troops that aren't being used keeping India down. The real theater would of course be the Great Lakes and over the American coasts. And Britain would have to send a force easily as large as the Crimean expedition. This would be a wildly unpopular war for both sides, too, so it would most likely be undersized forces clumsily capturing undefended stretches of wilderness with the occasional field battle around fortifications that handily defeat the attacking force. There would be a naval battle(my money is on the British) around Vancouver Island or San Francisco and the winner would occupy Oregon Country and a settlement would happen.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Sending troops across the entire Pacific Ocean isn't easy or cheap. And don't forget that the Indian Rebellion happened in 1857, before that the Indian troops were EIC, not British army. And even after that, troops sent from India are troops that aren't being used keeping India down. The real theater would of course be the Great Lakes and over the American coasts. And Britain would have to send a force easily as large as the Crimean expedition. This would be a wildly unpopular war for both sides, too, so it would most likely be undersized forces clumsily capturing undefended stretches of wilderness with the occasional field battle around fortifications that handily defeat the attacking force. There would be a naval battle(my money is on the British) around Vancouver Island or San Francisco and the winner would occupy Oregon Country and a settlement would happen.
Correct neither the British or American were in favor of war since both countries greatly benefited from trade and commerce between the two countries. At same time while Britain recognized that it would need to acknowledge American control over part of te Pacific North West it was not about to throw in the towel and walk away from the area. It had strategic interests in maintaining control over part of the land there. It was also the one country that USA respected and was not about to attack.

So the premise not feasible. Unless a POD at the turn of the century had resulted in a more anti-British nation but any such nation would also be one that was poorer since great part of the capital for the USA industrialization and ship building had come from Britain. So in becoming anti-British and belligerent would of resulted in poorer USA and increased British military presence in North America guarding its territory against American aggression.
 
Correct neither the British or American were in favor of war since both countries greatly benefited from trade and commerce between the two countries. At same time while Britain recognized that it would need to acknowledge American control over part of te Pacific North West it was not about to throw in the towel and walk away from the area. It had strategic interests in maintaining control over part of the land there. It was also the one country that USA respected and was not about to attack.

So the premise not feasible. Unless a POD at the turn of the century had resulted in a more anti-British nation but any such nation would also be one that was poorer since great part of the capital for the USA industrialization and ship building had come from Britain. So in becoming anti-British and belligerent would of resulted in poorer USA and increased British military presence in North America guarding its territory against American aggression.


A more anti-British America would not necessarily be poorer. And it might not even result in an increased British military presence in NA. Imagine a Napoleonic victory where Nelson dies before Trafalgar. Combine the non-devastated French and Spanish navies and keep the Peninsular war from breaking out and you can have an economically devastated Britain that can barely keep Canada. America could receive French investment instead of British. If a war breaks out in a post-Napoleonic victory or during the Napoleonic wars, then America might have the advantage.
 

Lusitania

Donor
A more anti-British America would not necessarily be poorer. And it might not even result in an increased British military presence in NA. Imagine a Napoleonic victory where Nelson dies before Trafalgar. Combine the non-devastated French and Spanish navies and keep the Peninsular war from breaking out and you can have an economically devastated Britain that can barely keep Canada. America could receive French investment instead of British. If a war breaks out in a post-Napoleonic victory or during the Napoleonic wars, then America might have the advantage.

But the French did not have the entrepreneur and $$ available to substitute the British $. Sorry but during the early 19th century the industrialization was concentrated in Britain. So a defeat in Europe against France would not change that. As for British navy being defeated by France, sorry but unless we talking during the ARW then there was no way for french to accomplish that. We also remember that Spain was invaded and occupied by France destroying their navy and country. For a Spain that can challenge the British then that means a Spain that will defend Florida and not loose new Spain and Texas.

So a weaker British is possible but that not translate better for USA. A stronger France means they want to keep French Louisiana and the Oregon question is mute. We cannot have a stronger USA and weaker Britain in a vacuum. So for USA sake a strong Britain was beneficial because it allowed it to move west. A strong France and Spain means USA westward movement is checked.
 
Top