What you explicitly said isn't important, wallet and myself were discussing all of Canada
For 1845 America, Which Lands Would be More Valuable: Western Canada, or the Mexican Cession?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
My apologies for the mistake. I didn't realize you were having a private discussion about economics.
Thanks, although you are mistaken it wasn't a private conversation but a related one that branch off of the original discussion. You are forgiven, Its okay to make mistakes it happens to the best of us.
Lusitania
Donor
I want to understand the question better, are we asking it from the view point of Americans in 1845 with their knowledge of world then or are we asking from hindsight of our knowledge today.
The gold rush of California only started in 1848. There was no known minerals in the Arizona desert at that time. From the perspective of the Americans in 1845 where the desire for US to stretch from sea to sea, the San Francisco Bay was vital to America. Plus the factor that attacking Mexico was seen as less risky than attacking British North America. (Hudson Bay was British, as well as British Columbia).
We also need to understand American thinking at time. That the prairies west of Mississipi was not good for agriculture and the prize was the lands west of the Rockies. So the easiest and best land was in California.
The gold rush of California only started in 1848. There was no known minerals in the Arizona desert at that time. From the perspective of the Americans in 1845 where the desire for US to stretch from sea to sea, the San Francisco Bay was vital to America. Plus the factor that attacking Mexico was seen as less risky than attacking British North America. (Hudson Bay was British, as well as British Columbia).
We also need to understand American thinking at time. That the prairies west of Mississipi was not good for agriculture and the prize was the lands west of the Rockies. So the easiest and best land was in California.
Last edited:
I assumed the former when I made my post. Thus, CA was seen as more desirable than anything in BC. I think the US view can be summed up by the fact that Polk was more than willing to settle for an amicable split of the OR region, and go to war for what became the western USA...
This is good analysis, although going to war with Mexico was a much less risky endeavor than doing the same with Britain.
true enough in hindsight, but at the time, there were a lot of people who thought Mexico would beat the USA. But also at the time, BC wasn't known for anything special, while CA was well known for good ports and agricultural land. And the mineral wealth of the rest of the desert west wasn't really known, but suspected... there were a zillion rumors of gold and silver mines found and lost there.
FFS! Are you two actually going to push this to the point where I have to intervene?
Seriously?
I thought we were being fairly civil but if it's bothering you consider it dropped
Saphroneth
Banned
The one which means you don't have to fight the world's first (and at the time only) industrialized superpower?
Okay, okay, I know it's not quite that simple. But if it's going to go to a fight, as the US I'd rather take on Mexico than Britain - Mexico's got no power projection capability and an inferior navy, plus an army the relatively small US professional army can actually beat. Britain... is quite different, having not only the world's number one navy at the time but also a considerable standing army by US scales of measure.
In 1845, the British Army had:
9 Guards cavalry and 11 regular cavalry in Britain
7 Guards infantry and 28 regular infantry in Britain
And 10 regular or reserve infantry in Canada
(none of these count militia).
What this means is that the British can administratively move to Canada enough troops to produce roughly three British-standard army corps (i.e. 36 battalions of infantry); fewer than Trent but then the US Army in 1845 was less than ten thousand men of all arms.
The reason I make this point is that "which is more valuable" is not the only factor that plays into it all.
Okay, okay, I know it's not quite that simple. But if it's going to go to a fight, as the US I'd rather take on Mexico than Britain - Mexico's got no power projection capability and an inferior navy, plus an army the relatively small US professional army can actually beat. Britain... is quite different, having not only the world's number one navy at the time but also a considerable standing army by US scales of measure.
In 1845, the British Army had:
9 Guards cavalry and 11 regular cavalry in Britain
7 Guards infantry and 28 regular infantry in Britain
And 10 regular or reserve infantry in Canada
(none of these count militia).
What this means is that the British can administratively move to Canada enough troops to produce roughly three British-standard army corps (i.e. 36 battalions of infantry); fewer than Trent but then the US Army in 1845 was less than ten thousand men of all arms.
The reason I make this point is that "which is more valuable" is not the only factor that plays into it all.
I am not sure if we are counting Texas in this but if you are, the Republic of Texas was already exporting a considerable amount of cotton in 1845 and much of it (the area between modern I35 and the Gulf Coast, north of Corpus Christi and up to the Trinity River) is very good for agriculture
While California was already viewed as basically paradise by this point by everyone who had been there and sent reports back
I'm sure Polk really didn't like the idea of taking on the UK, but I'd still say the deciding factor was that CA was much more desirable than BC... scarcely anything was known about BC back then, other than that it had a couple of good bays for ports and a vague idea that because OR was so fertile, BC might be as well... but CA had even better ports and agricultural land. Warring with the UK over dubious land in BC vs. warring with Mexico for the southwest was scarcely a hard choice...
Saphroneth
Banned
It's an interesting question how a Polk War would go... mainly because it's pre Enfield rifle and pre steam liner. Last hurrah of smoothbore muskets and sail battleships?
California alone is better than the entire Canadian West in the era. Even without gold it's potential value is greater. Plus, picking a fight with Mexico is a much less dicey proposition than a war with the UK.
Perhaps a better question would be Western Canada vs Northern Mexico that the US did not take, provided similar costs.