Plausibility Check: British purchase of Alta California?

OK, how about from the very beginning of Mexico's existence as an independent nation the UK becomes very friendly with México City, no matter if it was a Republic or an Empire (the only concern here is ensuring stability). In effect, Mexico ends up becoming an "honorary Dominion", with the effect that Mexican-*Canadian ties end up becoming stronger as a result and both British and *Canadian businesses thrive in Mexico alongside local businesses (as well as the case of people later on who have impeccably [admittedly old-fashioned] British names and surnames who don't speak a word of English at all, or ditto with impeccably French-Canadian names, just Spanish). As a result, both British culture and Canadian culture (English-Canadian and French-Canadian) rub off onto Mexicans to the point where they are considered integral parts of Mexican culture.

Even in that case, I still wouldn't see Britain snatching up Alta California - at this point, unless if one was Canadian (NWT, anyone?), Britain was basically done with the whole North American land thing. Even if there were *Canadian hordes descending onto Alta California and Nuevo México. If anything, Britain might end up defending the Mexican claims over the American claims.

Well, given Britain's other colonial adventures in the area (mostly Oregon) it quickly became clear that aside from Canada, Britain's possessions or dominions in the region were going to be swallowed up by the Americans eventually, if not by being outfought, than by being outbred (American MO for getting a territory was move in settlers and eventually have them able to overwhelm whoever the original owner of the territory was, they did it in Texas and pretty much all the Mexican Cession territories.

I can see a more realistic scenario where Britain extensively supports Mexico and even sends military aid and advisors to give the Mexicans more up-to-date equipment (their army was pretty decent though their equipment cost them dearly in battles) but doesn't actually intervene. If Anglo-American tensions ever get too hot the British know they have a protracted overseas conflict in which they stand a decent chance of losing a lot of their American possessions, it isn't so much an issue of is Britain a better military power than America it's an issue of can they handle the logistics of a land war against the USA and are they going to make the commitment in both manpower and money to win. Individually, they are quite difficult problems, together they make for a very unappealing situation for the British if they have to go to war.

In the longer-term they would have to consider the implications as well, another war with America so soon after the War of 1812 is only likely to make America MORE contentious with Britain and worsen existing tensions, Britain wouldn't want to be conducting expensive wars with America on a regular basis.
 
@HeavyWeaponsGuy: Definitely. Of course, part of this is contingent on the Mexican side actually being competent enough from the get-go to not let anyone like Santa Anna reach the position of power he did in OTL. If that fails, than Britain could probably use the American MO against the Americans in the name of Mexican stability and Mexican territorial integrity. Or both - the idea of Mexicans doing Cajun music just sounds a bit tempting at this point. :D

EDIT: Oh, and the idea of a hot war would probably be enough for Britain, even in this realistic scenario, to actually intervene and clamp down on both sides to probably prevent the Mexican-American War from actually occurring.
 
Last edited:
@Dan: I don't think Britain would really want to make the investment to settle their own immigrants in America, they don't have the same readily available population as the US in the British Isles and they have to travel way farther, plus I think two-sided immigration would piss off Mexico royally.
 
@Dan: I don't think Britain would really want to make the investment to settle their own immigrants in America, they don't have the same readily available population as the US in the British Isles and they have to travel way farther, plus I think two-sided immigration would piss off Mexico royally.

You're forgetting the Irish and the French-Canadians. ;) The latter could almost linguistically assimilate to Spanish, albeit with a very distinctive accent.
 
You're forgetting the Irish and the French-Canadians. ;) The latter could almost linguistically assimilate to Spanish, albeit with a very distinctive accent.

I considered the Irish actually, I can't see them working well as British loyalists though... just call it a history of relations between the two, a lot of Irish immigrants to America disdained Britain and its government immensely, I don't see why shipping them off to Mexico will make Irish antipathy towards the British any different.

And weren't the French Canadians already resettled from previous conflicts with Britain? It's not like either of these groups like Britain, certainly not enough to provide a loyal 1800s era satellite state in Mexico for the British.
 
I considered the Irish actually, I can't see them working well as British loyalists though... just call it a history of relations between the two, a lot of Irish immigrants to America disdained Britain and its government immensely, I don't see why shipping them off to Mexico will make Irish antipathy towards the British any different.

Well, in the eyes of Whitehall, it would've probably been something worth trying, even if it backfired.

And weren't the French Canadians already resettled from previous conflicts with Britain? It's not like either of these groups like Britain, certainly not enough to provide a loyal 1800s era satellite state in Mexico for the British.

You're thinking of the Acadians, and a whole load of them made their way to Louisiana.
 

Thande

Donor
@Dan: I don't think Britain would really want to make the investment to settle their own immigrants in America, they don't have the same readily available population as the US in the British Isles and they have to travel way farther, plus I think two-sided immigration would piss off Mexico royally.

We used to send undesirables all the way to Australia, cost is not an issue. Though they probably wouldn't be sent to California for the same reason transportation to Australia stopped at this point--the gold rush meant people were committing crimes in order to get a free trip to the mines in the hope of striking it lucky.
 
Well, in the eyes of Whitehall, it would've probably been something worth trying, even if it backfired.

I'm not very familiar with British leadership of the time to make accurate predictions as to whether certain policies would or would not be accurate though I suppose my concern was more that the Irish wouldn't magically gain a love for Mother England by being shipped halfway across the world.



You're thinking of the Acadians, and a whole load of them made their way to Louisiana.[/QUOTE]

That's the name I was looking for, I don't think they'd exactly be loyal subjects is my contention.

"We used to send undesirables all the way to Australia, cost is not an issue. Though they probably wouldn't be sent to California for the same reason transportation to Australia stopped at this point--the gold rush meant people were committing crimes in order to get a free trip to the mines in the hope of striking it lucky."

The problem is would these undesirables be either wanted by Mexico or considered a worthwhile venture for their return? I guess I should elaborate, I admittedly totally overlooked Australia in my consideration of the cost but I guess I would want to focus on the perceived RETURNS from such an investment.

Britain in its American possessions in the 1840s (Oregon) when it came to competing with the US was at a disadvantage population wise. A lot of the reason for the Anglo-American dispute over Oregon involved the fact that Americans were starting to vastly outnumber British settlers in Oregon, the British cut their losses and gave America most of the territory (but not up to the 54-40 like the Americans had wanted) rather than be outbred and then completely lose the territory to the US.

Assuming Mexico even agrees to this idea in the first place (and that's a big if) and paws over Alta California the British are going to have to realize that it will put them on a collision course with American interests, as soon as they acquire that which is desired to be part of US territory they are in a lose-from-every-approach situation. Whether it is set up as a dominion or some sort of independent British client state or used as a full-on British territory with representation in Parliament and all they will have the same problems nevertheless. Their issues are as follows once they have Alta California.

1. Gold will be discovered there eventually, the British didn't know this when they were buying it and they will get very interested very quickly after it happens, as a side effect that is negative for the British, they will attract every kid and his grandmother capable of getting to California looking to strike it rich. The vast majority of these migrants, by sheer proximity, will be Americans, there is no way around it. The British can allow these immigrants and (whether they realize it or not) basically wind up outnumbered by the Americans, even mass British migrations to California will not be able to offset the fact that they are fighting a losing battle in the population game. If they shut their borders to American immigrants they lose a major labor source and also hurt their relations with the USA, lose-lose situation.

2. Even if it's set up as an independent state under British protection and support there's no guarantee it will be a loyal little lapdog that sits in the paws of the British Lion and asks for treats, Britain will probably (since it's already using convicts for Australia) use other unwanted local populations like the aforementioned French Canadians or the Irish, that has the potential to backfire spectacularly and wind up giving all of the empire's carefully-invested resources to the Americans, especially with the immigration problem.

3. America is becoming economically important enough and militarily powerful enough (the latter to deter any British schemes to take back their troublesome former colonies) that the British are slowly shifting from cold belligerence to begrudging acceptance of America's existence, sometimes even as a useful regional proxy to keep Britain's competitors out of the Americas (like in the case of the Monroe Doctrine, which would have been laughed at uproariously if Britain hadn't pledged support). To this end it is more useful to avoid potential conflict and acquiesce to American interests to some degree.
 
Top