British California 1841

From Wikipedia
The British minister in Mexico, Richard Pakenham, wrote in 1841 to Lord Palmerston urging "to establish an English population in the magnificent Territory of Upper California", saying that "no part of the World offering greater natural advantages for the establishment of an English colony ... by all means desirable ... that California, once ceasing to belong to Mexico, should not fall into the hands of any power but England ... daring and adventurous speculators in the United States have already turned their thoughts in this direction." But by the time the letter reached London, Sir Robert Peel's Tory government with a Little England policy had come to power and rejected the proposal as expensive and a potential source of conflict.[14][15]

Surprisingly, a significant number of influential Californios were in favor of annexation, either by the United States or by Great Britain. Pío de Jesús Pico IV, the last governor of Alta California, was in favor of British annexation. [16]

So what if the British did in the early 1840s take California? How does that affect the US when the War of 1848 comes around? Does it affect the negotiations over Columbia/Oregon?
 
If you had an earlier POD it might be easier.

John McLoughlin was very keen on expanding the HBC in the Pacific Northwest, when doing this he expanded against his superiors will and set up smaller posts in both Alaska at Sitka and California at Yerba Buena.

Disaster would befall both posts, the son he sent to run the Sitka establishment became embroiled in controversy with an employee and he was murdered. His son in law (James Douglas) in California would err and support a faction of Mexican forces who wanted to secede from Californian authority (this part is a little hazy on exactly what happened), the rebels evidently lost and Douglas was so convinced of his own guilt committed suicide in front of his wife and newborn son.

Since McLoughlin's superior, George Simpson, was keen on stymieing McLoughlin's efforts at expansion I would suggest that having him die sometime in the mid 1830s and having McLoughlin accede to his position would be fairly easy. Then have McLoughlin send his son to Yerba Buena instead of Sitka, he becomes embroiled in the controversy there and IS killed and much of the HBC are seized. This causes a large controversy in the UK. Maybe war is declared, or maybe the flag is merely shown, but you have British interests in the region threatened and maybe you can Mexico to surrender northern/central California as restitution for wounding British pride.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
California is a long way from anywhere before steam

From Wikipedia

So what if the British did in the early 1840s take California? How does that affect the US when the War of 1848 comes around? Does it affect the negotiations over Columbia/Oregon?

California is a long way from anywhere before steam; during the Spanish Empire, in terms of travel time, it was farther away from Madrid than the Philippines or Chile. Even after Mexican independence, there were periods when the overland trail from Mexico was closed by the Yuma and Yaqui, and the only movement in or out was by sea frm the southeast Pacific or overland across the Rockies and Sierra Nevada

It's also poor, with an economy based on stock-raising, whose only export was hides, whose only market was in New England for the leather goods industries there (largely shoes).

And its not like Britain didn't have enough places to run stock in the 1840s.;)

In the 1840s, in terms of staking out territorial claims, Britain was still establishing such to parts of Australia, New Zealand, the Cape-Natal, and the west coast element of BNA; in terms of military affairs, Britain had (just) put down the Upper and Lower Canada rebellions (1837-38), was fighting the First Afghan War (not particularly well), the first Opium War in China, various and sundry other little wars from Syria to Natal to India, and had to deal with the Rebecca riots in Wales and various disturbances in the UK, including in Leeds.

One can understand why Palmerston - not the most realistic of individuals even on his good days - didn't think much of the idea.

Best,
 
It is true that for the United Kingdom to take California would obviously have antagonised the United States, and, to put it mildly, I do not think that would be an advisable course of action. However, at risk of assuming the role of Captain Obvious, the (correct) comment that the United Kingdom, especially when under Palmerston, proved itself both able and willing to simultaneously project power to acquire influence in lots of diverse, remote and faraway places, in an often ill-considered manner for the sake of nationalist chest-thumping and painting the map red rather than for any particular economic benefit, is not the most convincing argument to suggest that the United Kingdom wouldn't have projected power to acquire a remote, faraway place at risk of antagonising another power for little economic benefit.

For that argument to stand up to scrutiny, one would have to speak of what assets the United Kingdom had available to it at the time, what assets it had available to it at multiple other times when it diverted its efforts to the establishment of colonies (those intended to displace the native people à la British America and those intended to merely rule the native people à la British India alike) or to costly wars against faraway powers, and demonstrate that the former were sufficiently inferior to the latter that an intervention would not have been plausible. One would also have to consider the vastly lesser resources required to take California than to, for instance, wage a decisively victorious war against the most populous country in the world.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There was money to be made in China, however

It is true that for the United Kingdom to take California would obviously have antagonised the United States, and, to put it mildly, I do not think that would be an advisable course of action. However, at risk of assuming the role of Captain Obvious, the (correct) comment that the United Kingdom, especially when under Palmerston, proved itself both able and willing to simultaneously project power to acquire influence in lots of diverse, remote and faraway places, in an often ill-considered manner for the sake of nationalist chest-thumping and painting the map red rather than for any particular economic benefit, is not the most convincing argument to suggest that the United Kingdom wouldn't have projected power to acquire a remote, faraway place at risk of antagonising another power for little economic benefit.

For that argument to stand up to scrutiny, one would have to speak of what assets the United Kingdom had available to it at the time, what assets it had available to it at multiple other times when it diverted its efforts to the establishment of colonies (those intended to displace the native people à la British America and those intended to merely rule the native people à la British India alike) or to costly wars against faraway powers, and demonstrate that the former were sufficiently inferior to the latter that an intervention would not have been plausible. One would also have to consider the vastly lesser resources required to take California than to, for instance, wage a decisively victorious war against the most populous country in the world.

There was money to be made in China, however; unless there's a sudden shortage of cowhide in the British Empire in 1841, there's not much ROI in an invasion and occupation of Mexican territory for the British.;)

If there is a payoff to be made in cornering the shoe market, presumably Australia or Argentina or even Chile is a more likely place to invest blood and treasure than the far side of the world...

It also speaks to the pointlessness of it from London's POV when even Mr. Temple can come up with better places to spend the resources; there's something of the "even the IJA thought invading Australia was a dumb idea" meme...

A man has got to know his limitations, after all.

Best,
 
There was money to be made in China, however; unless there's a sudden shortage of cowhide in the British Empire in 1841, there's not much ROI in an invasion and occupation of Mexican territory for the British.;)

If I'm not mistaken, the idea was buying it, not conquering it; and yes there was money to be made from the opium trade in China, but Palmerston's era was characterised by invasions to spread British control for the sake of national prestige rather than anything to do with economics. Even in China one can argue that it would have made more economic sense to not be so puffed-up and arrogant about it and at least attempt to give a few token concessions to Chinese pride while maintaining the opium trade; a war against by far the most populous of the world's nations on the other side of the planet is, after all, expensive.

It also speaks to the pointlessness of it from London's POV when even Mr. Temple can come up with better places to spend the resources; there's something of the "even the IJA thought invading Australia was a dumb idea" meme...

A man has got to know his limitations, after all.

Best,

It's one thing to argue that something is a bad idea, and on that, in this case, I don't disagree with you. It's quite another thing to argue that it couldn't possibly have happened. I don't think British California was a particularly high-probability outcome and I don't think the United States would have permitted it to last more than a few decades before waging war to get it (unless there are earlier changes) if it did happen, but nor do I think that it couldn't have happened.

I'm reminded of our previous conversation about Napoleon III when you argued that intervening in the American Civil War (were circumstances more favourable to it) was something too stupid and reckless for even him to do, largely because of the Prussian and Mexican distractions and the logistical difficulties, whereas I argued that, regarding the man who had the spectacular degree of ill-judgement to make the Mainz threat in the first place in the circumstances where it was made, and to send an army into Italy and only then, after he heard reports of his soldiers begging for food and clothes from the locals, thought to send some supplies, something that stupid and reckless was entirely possible. Where you and I differ in this case, as in that case, is whether decision-makers can be modelled as game-theory-esque rational actors; and my contention is that they often cannot.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Buying it is interesting...

If I'm not mistaken, the idea was buying it, not conquering it; and yes there was money to be made from the opium trade in China, but Palmerston's era was characterised by invasions to spread British control for the sake of national prestige rather than anything to do with economics. Even in China one can argue that it would have made more economic sense to not be so puffed-up and arrogant about it and at least attempt to give a few token concessions to Chinese pride while maintaining the opium trade; a war against by far the most populous of the world's nations on the other side of the planet is, after all, expensive.

It's one thing to argue that something is a bad idea, and on that, in this case, I don't disagree with you. It's quite another thing to argue that it couldn't possibly have happened. I don't think British California was a particularly high-probability outcome and I don't think the United States would have permitted it to last more than a few decades before waging war to get it (unless there are earlier changes) if it did happen, but nor do I think that it couldn't have happened.

I'm reminded of our previous conversation about Napoleon III when you argued that intervening in the American Civil War (were circumstances more favourable to it) was something too stupid and reckless for even him to do, largely because of the Prussian and Mexican distractions and the logistical difficulties, whereas I argued that, regarding the man who had the spectacular degree of ill-judgement to make the Mainz threat in the first place in the circumstances where it was made, and to send an army into Italy and only then, after he heard reports of his soldiers begging for food and clothes from the locals, thought to send some supplies, something that stupid and reckless was entirely possible. Where you and I differ in this case, as in that case, is whether decision-makers can be modelled as game-theory-esque rational actors; and my contention is that they often cannot.

Buying it is interesting; if Santa Anna is around, it's certainly possible. Presumably if the goal is something with an ROI, however, it's hard to see why, would be my point.

The westward expansion made strategic (and by extension, economic and political sense); I don't see it making much strategic sense for the British, however.

The rational actor question is fair; my counter is simply that in any human organization/institution, a given elite can go so far, but at some point, there's always a reaction - and Nineteenth Century nation states, however puzzling some decisions are, generally corrected internally.

Could Britain have acquired California, either when it was Soanish or Mexican? Yes, presumably, but the opportunity costs seem extremely high for what would have been, at the time, a territory of less importance than New Zealand or Natal.

Best,
 
Could Britain have acquired California, either when it was Soanish or Mexican? Yes, presumably, but the opportunity costs seem extremely high for what would have been, at the time, a territory of less importance than New Zealand or Natal.

If this is your opinion I think a mountain is being made of a molehill, since I don't think we actually disagree. It is my contention that it wouldn't have been a very good idea but it is plausible, albeit not a high-probability outcome, that the United Kingdom would have done it anyway; if the above means what I think it means we have no further disagreement on this issue.
 
Top