Fifty-Four Forty or Bite!

Thespitron 6000

I accept you're point but I think it's a damned stupid and dangerous one as it could easily backfire. Not only by backing the US into a corner where their got to fight. Also if the news leaks out their deliberately continuing a very costly war then the government would almost certainly fall. [I would say it's virtually ASB for any British government, or from any other 'democratic' state to take such an approach. Play hard-ball yes but they would be looking for a favourable end to the conflict].

If they really want to torpedo an agreement, since I would expect that they would have some knowledge of how illegal Polk's approach is, then play him along a bit and get some details and concessions out then have the news leaked.

How is Polk concluding any approaches? It needs to be done relatively secretly. Also there is no trans-altantic cable yet so unless there is a representative in the other's country trusted by both sides discussions are being passed via ships? Which would be slow and unreliable.

Steve

Blackadder, Gunslinger, stevep,

I suppose I haven't been clear; the British fully intend for these demands to be rejected. They don't genuinely believe the Americans would consent to such demands, and an American rejection would result in the war continuing, which is what Stanley's ministry wants.

stevep,

Gladstone was committed to peaceful foreign relations, it's true, but I think in this case his desire for long-term international peace would trump the short term desire for normalized relations with America. The United States is, from the British point of view, an extreme aggressor over the past six years--and beyond that, to the War of 1812 and before. If the United States can't be trusted not to attack its neighbors, then Britain will hold it down until it can.

As to ending the war now, that would be a bad idea from the British perspective, since it would give the North a free hand in crushing the South and reuniting, something Britain does not want.
 
Thespitron 6000

It has a form of logic, if you want to continue the war until you're confident the US will not pose a threat for quite a while. However I can't see a government in which Gladstone, with his idealist and economic views, was significant, supporting such a program.

Even with a Palmeston in charge, after such a long war I could see determination for gains to secure the borders and weaken the US, but terms wouldn't I think be as harsh and they would be for actual negotiation. [I.e. they might start high for bargaining but would have some give.

Steve

Here in America it's called "A Country Ass-Kicking". Three wars with the rebellious American colonies in 75 years might carry enough weight even with British "Doves" that a final solution to the United States Problem is definitely called for.

Hero of Canton
 
Last edited:
a weak Texas perhaps leads to joining the Empire? Something that was very definitely on the mind of Houston, perhaps California with the Mexican threat also takes that option leading to both eventually becoming dominions (maybe even a joint Dominion?) a la Australia and Canada....
 
I just don't see this as being at all plausible. If they wanted to derail a peace settlement, leak the fact of the negotiations with Polk. This seems ridiculously heavy handed and like something far more out of OTL's 1919 then a mid-nineteenth century conflict.

EDIT: Actually, what seems too harsh is this for a first post in the thread. I'm really enjoying the timeline, it's just that this last installment didn't ring true.
 
Last edited:
New Update!

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ain't Got Nothin': The Rise and Fall of James K. Polk (Part One)

The war between the United States and the United Kingdom is now about to enter its third year. President Lewis Cass has come to be seen as weak, vacillating, opportunistic--all due to his own actions. The United States and Britain have both been hampered by a lack of clear war aims. The threads of power have become tangled and confused. Leadership is lacking. In such situations, men of iron conviction and deep-set ruthlessness can quickly acquire the authority to act, regardless of their position. A strong man who knows his own mind can accomplish much, can assert much in the way of policy. For the American government, that man is James K. Polk, the Vice-President.

It has been a bitter two years for Polk. An ambitious man, who feels the touch of God’s favor upon him, he has seen his nation divided at home and defeated abroad, and perhaps more hurtful, his own electoral hopes dashed by way of association with the increasingly unpopular Lewis Cass. Polk knows he will never be President now. He regrets accepting Cass’s offer of the vice-presidency, and so casts caution to the wind. Someone must lead, must save the Union, and that someone must be him.

To Polk, the path forward is clear. If America is to achieve its “manifest destiny” to control the whole of the North American continent, then it must be one nation. The Confederacy must be brought back into the fold, either by diplomacy or by force. This cannot be done while the British occupy New England and America’s armies are tied down in Canada. A peace must be made with Britain.

Polk’s people quietly extend feelers to the British ambassador John Bloomfield, to sound him out about a possible ceasefire and settlement. These actions are blatantly unconstitutional; the powers of diplomacy reside in the office of the President, not the Vice-President. But Polk is grimly determined to end the war with Britain, whatever the cost.

Unfortunately for Polk, his is not the only government in which strong men have taken advantage of the fog of war to advance themselves. Russell’s government was weak; Stanley’s is stronger, and has an actual mandate to deal diplomatically with the Americans, unlike Polk. William Gladstone, the foreign secretary, has been working in close harness with Prime Minister Lord Stanley--there will be no Palmerstons in this ministry. Gladstone and Stanley, as well as the other ministers, have thought long and hard about the current relationship between Great Britain and the United States, and reached certain conclusions. Those conclusions would be extremely disheartening to Polk, did he know them.

Britain and America have fought three wars in just seventy-five years. The Americans have repeatedly invaded Canada, despoiling the land, murdering British subjects, and violating numerous treaties. They have invaded Mexico, an action that Britain was previously inclined to dismiss, but now regards as an ominous portent of American intent. To Gladstone, Stanley, Peel, and the remainder of the Queen’s government, things are clear: the United States of America is a rogue state, a danger to international relations and peace in the New World. Gladstone prepares a memo outlining Her Majesty’s Government’s position: America can no longer be trusted to keep the peace and respect British sovereignty, and therefore must be removed as a threat. She must be ground down until she can no longer attack any aspect of Britain--until she is a fourth-rate power.

The division of the United States into two separate nations, North and South, is in Gladstone’s mind a good start, and the “Californectomy” that has recently occurred on the West Coast also good, but to the British the United States has not reached the desired state.

When Polk’s overtures of peace arrive in London, they are dismissed out of hand. Peace now would allow the United States to regain her rebellious provinces and eventually restore her strength. Inevitably she would attack Canada again. That would be intolerable. There can be no peace.

Therefore, the British respond with a deliberately inflammatory set of conditions upon which any attempt towards peace must be built:

  • American recognition of the Union of California and New Mexico, and the Confederate States of America, as well as any other states which decide to exercise their right to secede from the Union.
  • American military forces must be reduced to less than 5,000 soldiers. The American navy must be handed over to the Royal Navy, and a moratorium on American military shipbuilding must be enacted for a period of no less than 10 years.
  • America’s claim to the Oregon Territory must be discarded, and the American government must recognize the full extend of Britain’s claim to the region.
  • The United States must cede Upper Michigan, Wisconsin north of the Wisconsin River, and the entirety of the Minnesota Territory, to Britain.
  • The United States must pay reparations to Great Britain of 20 million US Dollars.

Bloomfield is instructed to maintain these demands without the slightest deviation. Now that Britain holds the whip hand, the United States must be destroyed.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Your thoughts?
This risks creating revanchist feelings in the US population.
 
I know this is late but I found this TL for the first time and I want to say good job but I have a quibble which I think undermines the last 9 pages of updates. Ok, so Van Buren :)p) is a Free Soiler which is different than abolitionism (albeit slightly) so how does he lose the convention to another Free Soiler such as Cass. The problem IIRC is the Panic of 1837 and the havoc it caused on the US economy; the Texan annexation is minuscule in relation and almost irrelevant considering President Jackson agreed with his adopted son's position of pro-annexation (do not underestimate Jackson's importance).
 
GreatScottMarty,

GreatScottMarty said:
Ok, so Van Buren :)p) is a Free Soiler which is different than abolitionism (albeit slightly) so how does he lose the convention to another Free Soiler such as Cass.
Good question. Here's the answer. In the Democratic Convention of 1844, OTL, van Buren was indeed the front runner on the early ballots. However, the Democrats had enacted a rule stating that the nominee had to receive 2/3rds of the delegate vote, which van Buren, although he had a majority, did not have. As a result, multiple ballots were held, and with each ballot, Lewis Cass, the candidate most closely trailing van Buren, gained votes, until he was actually in the lead and van Buren had fallen to second place. But still no one had gained two thirds of the vote. Prior to the eighth ballot, James Polk's friend Gideon Pillow proposed putting Polk on the ballot as a compromise candidate. On the ninth ballot, Polk gained the unanimous support of the convention and was nominated.

This TL supposes that Pillow never made it to Baltimore for the convention; instead the Tennessee delegation is headed by Andrew Johnson, who is not a friend of Polk's. Polk never gets put on the ballot, and instead eventually Cass gains enough votes at the convention to win the nomination, and eventually the election.

Hope this answers your question.:)
 
Ya think? It could bring on a "Fight 'em to the last paper cartridge!" response IMHO.

Hero of Canton

Hero, Archangel

I agree the terms are harsh, and markedly stronger than I would go for. However I think Thespitron 6000's stance is that the view of the current British government is that the US will be hostile regardless. That their willing to accept them being somewhat more hostile as long as their markedly less capable of doing something nasty. If you take a pessimistic view of the US attitude it is logical as you're establishing buffer regions, largely unpopulated currently so not something the US can fight to the last man on, and a significant counter balance power in the south.

Shocked it's so long since the last update. Know Thespitron 6000 is working on his alien invasion thread but hope he hasn't given up on this totally. [Mind you I'm going to be away for a fortnight so not immediate hurry on my part but hopefully some more to come].:)

Steve
 
Top