How delicate was the Oregon Crisis?

In an effort to learn more about North American history, I've been trying to find ways that the USA can achieve the majority of the Oregon Crisis by allowing Britain compensation elsewhere (the only thing that came to mind was the border dispute between Venezuela and British Guyana).

I was wondering just how delicate the situation was and if the partition along the 49th parallel is inevitable, and if the Monroe Doctrine was ingrained enough for the USA to disallow British compensation.

A POD I'm looking at is the Mexican-American War, wherein the war ends up like it did in A Mexican Victory (forgive me, as I write this I can't remember the author...is it Jycee? I think so), with the border between Mexico and the US extending west from some point along the Rio Grande (so the US has a border on the Rio Grande like OTL, but extending much, much further north).

As a result of losing out on so much territory, the USA begins a policy of a different Pax Americana which involves more colonialism rather than pushing its continental boundaries too much (resulting in the USA having a war with Spain like OTL, and becoming more involved in the Scramble for Africa). But also because of the territorial 'losses' (by losses I mean, what they didn't gain), they begin to push for more territory in Oregon. Britain of course opposes this but neither party is prepared to go to war.

So what can happen? Can Britain get its desired border with Venezuela in exchange for America getting the Oregon? Or is that still not desirable enough to Britain (or too much of a sore spot for America)?
 
I think I've heard it suggested that America could have taken the entire Oregon Country just by doing nothing and letting it continue to be flooded by settlers.
EDIT: Actually, that's not terribly helpful to your question of compensating the British I suppose.
 
I think I've heard it suggested that America could have taken the entire Oregon Country just by doing nothing and letting it continue to be flooded by settlers.
EDIT: Actually, that's not terribly helpful to your question of compensating the British I suppose.

Yes, I did think about that. The solution I came up with was that the British anticipated America's hunger for territory following the Mexican-American War and began to push more settlers west to Oregon (maybe even beginning a trans-continental railroad much earlier, but I don't know shit about rail history). So both sides are now very, very hungry for Oregon and nobody's really sure why.

Just as a disclaimer of sorts, I don't want to wank Britain, but I'm trying to think logically here. In other parts of the world (namely Africa) Britain has lucked out.
 
In 1846 neither side wanted war. The Oregon Boundary was only an issue because Polk made it a campaign issue. Most likely if the US had ignored the issue than the joint occupation could have been extended for a further 10 to 20 years. The US wanted the region far more than the British government did, but ironically, by pushing the issue in 1846 the US lost the chance to gain far more later. When the Fraser Gold Rush occurred about ten years later the mainland area of British Columbia (called New Caledonia) filled with Americans to such a degree that the local governor of Vancouver Island, which was separate at the time, was worried that the region would become part of the US. In fact some local politicians and business leaders actually looked forward towards this as they felt abandoned by the British government. Despite the Pig War scare of 1859 the mainland region remained tied to the US till the building of Canada's transcontinental railroad.

Add this to the anger the Metis had towards the HBC monopoly, native unrest and a continuing influx of American fortune seekers and it would have been fairly easy for the US to acquire far more of western Canada. I doubt the UK would give up Vancouver Island without a fight, but the US stood to gain a lot more if they had been patient.

Benjamin
 
Yes, I did think about that. The solution I came up with was that the British anticipated America's hunger for territory following the Mexican-American War and began to push more settlers west to Oregon (maybe even beginning a trans-continental railroad much earlier, but I don't know shit about rail history). So both sides are now very, very hungry for Oregon and nobody's really sure why.

Just as a disclaimer of sorts, I don't want to wank Britain, but I'm trying to think logically here. In other parts of the world (namely Africa) Britain has lucked out.

I know little about rail history, but I don't think that anyone would fund a transcontinental railroad to contest hypothetically highly-disputed lands in the far and unpopulated west of Canada. :p
Though I suppose an earlier discovery of gold might do it, but I still would be unsure of the reliability of early 40s railroads at that distance.
 
I know little about rail history, but I don't think that anyone would fund a transcontinental railroad to contest hypothetically highly-disputed lands in the far and unpopulated west of Canada. :p
Though I suppose an earlier discovery of gold might do it, but I still would be unsure of the reliability of early 40s railroads at that distance.

Well, if Britain makes a jump in the Pacific there might be much more support for a transcontinental railroad and a population swell in Western Canada. Let's say the Oregon Crisis, with no sight in end, extends into the 50s and Britain annexes Hawaii and buys the Northern Marianas off Spain (maybe so Spain can start to fund for a war with Morocco). Perhaps Britain, now with such close relations to Japan and Hawaii, needs the Marianas as a base between Japan and Hawaii.

So Britain has Hawaii, America wants Oregon, and now Britain has a good reason for populating the underpopulated Western Canada. Will the USA find a way around this?

Butterflies would probably make a Spanish-American War over Cuba more likely than less ITTL, but if the USA loses out against Mexico, what will happen when the time of the ACW rolls around? Will it even happen? I don't think the end of slavery would be butterflied away, unless the USA starts electing more expansionist presidents.

Edit: If the US doesn't want the UK to get their border with Venezuela, then how about Panama? It didn't declare independence until the 1890s and under American pressure. Would the UK be interested in building a canal there? With their more ingrained presence in the Pacific, I can imagine so.
 
Well, here's a map of the Americas, Europe, Africa and some of Asia. I haven't touched the Pacific yet until I get some more info. Does it seem plausible so far? Keep in mind, I also haven't touched South America aside from Guyana-Venezuela, and that can be subject to change.

Edit: Oh wait, I did touch South America... well, I guess I may as well ask, is that plausible?

New and Old World - Mexican-American War POD.png
 
Don't forget that the two times it almost exploded into war it was not a question of grand policy decided in national capitals but impulsive and intransigent behaviour by the commanders on the scene, which could have led to a firefight, and a war before the national leaders even became aware of it

Increase the tensions in the area and you increase the likelihood

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think that is plaussible. And the US can attain both borders (the Mexican and Oregon) without war.

Have, a reasonable Mexican leader at the needed time, and a border at the 38th (includes part of San Fran Bay) or 37th parallel (Between San Fran and Monterrey Bay) could be arranged for reasonable compensation. Mexico probably keeps the Nueces Strip as well. Another option would be to have the US only annex Texas post-war and buy the rest later.

Oregon as many have said it only became an issue because the US made it an issue. Given enough time and the US could have likely kept all and maintain good relations with Britain. However Britain would want some compensation. The border with Venezuela might be enough compensation. I am not sure, but if not the other option, depending on how late this is could be Hawaii. However Vancouver Island was more important to them than the rest of the territory, some issues could be sparked over its administration. Britain might want some special rights there.
 
I think that is plaussible. And the US can attain both borders (the Mexican and Oregon) without war.

Have, a reasonable Mexican leader at the needed time, and a border at the 38th (includes part of San Fran Bay) or 37th parallel (Between San Fran and Monterrey Bay) could be arranged for reasonable compensation. Mexico probably keeps the Nueces Strip as well. Another option would be to have the US only annex Texas post-war and buy the rest later.

Oregon as many have said it only became an issue because the US made it an issue. Given enough time and the US could have likely kept all and maintain good relations with Britain. However Britain would want some compensation. The border with Venezuela might be enough compensation. I am not sure, but if not the other option, depending on how late this is could be Hawaii. However Vancouver Island was more important to them than the rest of the territory, some issues could be sparked over its administration. Britain might want some special rights there.

I see, so something like basing rights for Pacific-bound ships and the like? That's what I was wondering about Panama as well, if Britain is able to get Hawaii or already has it, would they try for Panama? Perhaps they will try for some sort of special rights arrangement in Panama with the USA as well.
 
I think that is plaussible. And the US can attain both borders (the Mexican and Oregon) without war.

Have, a reasonable Mexican leader at the needed time, and a border at the 38th (includes part of San Fran Bay) or 37th parallel (Between San Fran and Monterrey Bay) could be arranged for reasonable compensation. Mexico probably keeps the Nueces Strip as well. Another option would be to have the US only annex Texas post-war and buy the rest later.

Oregon as many have said it only became an issue because the US made it an issue. Given enough time and the US could have likely kept all and maintain good relations with Britain. However Britain would want some compensation. The border with Venezuela might be enough compensation. I am not sure, but if not the other option, depending on how late this is could be Hawaii. However Vancouver Island was more important to them than the rest of the territory, some issues could be sparked over its administration. Britain might want some special rights there.


Actually I dont think that is possible to obtain this result.. with the example of Texas and the ensuing War with mexico over annexation, the handwriting is on the wall.. Both the British and the Americans knew that an agreement was necessary...Neither side wanted a repeat of the unnecessary ugliness of 1812.

The decision had dragged from 1818 simply because there was no overriding political decision to come toan agreement.

With Polk mucking the waters political during his election...I dont think that Britain will allow the situation to slide indefinitely...With settlers coming into the region, they can only be diverted into the willamette valley for so long before they start squatting north of the Columbia on lands that Britain, at least on paper still insist on for its bargaining position.

If the US doesnt come to an agreement byt the mid 1850s I suspect Britain could very well unilaterally decide the matter for them by declaring the Columbia river as the de facto border. It was on paper their bargaining positon from the start and Palmerstons preferred border. I suspect he would have declared it too if the govt had not fallen. They would simply start implementing laws and regulations as if it were a province of the Empire regardless of US wishes, or tell the HBC to start organizing it as such in proeparation for transferring to civilian govt. This in order to bring the matter to a head and force an agreement more on their terms while they still can.
the Vancouver Island colony came into existence at this time as well remember specifically in the aftermath.

in such an environment one loose hothead too many is all it would take, or alternatively could be the further catalyst to galvanize an agreement.

If anything the Kootenay Gold Rush would bring matters to a head and it probably would not be in the US favour if Britain still maintained on paper its initial bargaining position.

oh and btw...

the Venezuela border dispute is early 20th C while oregon is mid 19th They simply would not be issues at the same time.
 
Last edited:
the Venezuela border dispute is early 20th C while oregon is mid 19th They simply would not be issues at the same time.

Actually the claim had been disputed between the Spanish and Dutch, British and Spanish and then British and Venezeulans since the colonies were established. 1895 is when it came to blows, and the Monroe Doctrine was called into play, but I'm pretty sure nothing changed. Venezuela never got its territory west of the Essequiba River, and Britain never got the extreme extent of the Schomburgk Line.

So the border dispute wasn't a massive issue until 1895 but it has existed forever.

Heh, and nobody has yet answered my questions about Panama :eek:
 
Top