The Oregon War

67th Tigers

Banned
Or a revolt in India? Drawing down on Indian forces might just provide encouragement for such.

The major factor that caused a loss of low caste hindu confidence in the HEIC, the militant evagelism of certain Christians, hasn't taken place yet. While the Taliban may indeed stage a rising, they won't have the apathy of the Hindu Sepoys of the Bengal Presidency.

The conditions for the Mutiny/ First Taliban War haven't yet come together.
 

Glen

Moderator
It's your fantasy, so I suppose you can make it go however you want.

Or rather, in a speculative piece told a century and a half later of a history that often took odd twists and turns anyway, I have the latitude at times to choose which parts of history to retain and which to change, within the bounds of plausibility (if not always probability)?:)

I just thought it would be more plausible if a President who actually wanted to annex Cuba (Pierce was appalled by the Ostend Manifesto) did so.

Appalled by its intent, or it coming out of left field AND blowing up in his face.

Also, a war hero, I suppose is subject to debate, but Pierce volunteered for service, led a regiment as a colonel and a brigade as a brigadier general. He was reportedly competent as a brigade commander, fought in three major engagements and was badly wounded leading his troops and still suffering from his wound returned to lead his troops again. He was called a war hero when he returned home.

Fair enough, just saying he wasn't launched from obscurity to inevitability by it, though you are right it was a point in his favor.

It was that status that led to him being appointed president of the New Hampshire constitutional convention in 1850 and led to him being a delegate to the 1852 convention. I think, no Mexican War, and Pierce is still US attorney for the District of New Hampshire and not at the convention and thus has no chance of getting the nomination.

Yet it is not all that implausible that he would be rising in New Hampshire politics at the time absent a war.

It is an interesting alternate time line, however. Not having the Mexican War, changes a great deal of the history at the time.

Thank you.

Many of the great generals on both sides of the Civil War cut their teeth in the Mexican War and without that experience, I do wonder what impact that would have had on their military development.

Probably not much. It gave them a taste of battle, but didn't hold a lot of innovative campaigns as far as I can recall.
 

Glen

Moderator
The major factor that caused a loss of low caste hindu confidence in the HEIC, the militant evagelism of certain Christians, hasn't taken place yet.

Have to look into that. Still, foreign rule is not likely to sit all that well...

While the Taliban may indeed stage a rising, they won't have the apathy of the Hindu Sepoys of the Bengal Presidency.

The conditions for the Mutiny/ First Taliban War haven't yet come together.

Taliban?
 

Glen

Moderator
Where did you think the Taliban came from? They were Indian (now Pakistani) Wahhabists

What I meant to ask is what do you mean by Taliban in this context? I'm quite familiar with the term as it applies to the movement in Afghanistan and North Pakistan in the late 20th and early 21st century.

What I'm not entirely certain of is who you are talking about when using the term to refer to politics in the mid 18th century.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
What I meant to ask is what do you mean by Taliban in this context? I'm quite familiar with the term as it applies to the movement in Afghanistan and North Pakistan in the late 20th and early 21st century.

What I'm not entirely certain of is who you are talking about when using the term to refer to politics in the mid 18th century.

Same people, it was born in the 1820's. The name Taliban wasn't used for the movement, but isn't even now. It's just our name for it, based upon their word for follower.

If you've a spare hour: Clash of Worlds episode 1: Mutiny
 
Same people, it was born in the 1820's. The name Taliban wasn't used for the movement, but isn't even now. It's just our name for it, based upon their word for follower.

If you've a spare hour: Clash of Worlds episode 1: Mutiny

67 Tigers

Problem is I found that highly selective in its facts to get the interpretation it wanted. Presented the Indian mutiny as mainly a Muslim rather than an Hindu uprising. I have actually read that one of the main centres of loyal troops was the relatively recently obtained NW Frontier area. Possibly the key factor religion played was that, when the British, under growing pressure from London, removed the restrictions on Christianity, that made some Hindus concerned that there would be parallels with the period of persecution by Muslims towards the tail end of the Moguls empire. There were other factors in the mutiny, including the deteriorating economic and social position of the military, which actually means that overseas duties such as operations in Oregon could delay/prevent a mutiny.

Steve
 
Pierce was an unlikely president OTL and seems less likely ITTL.

Why not Buchanan?
Buchanan's credentials were very good and were based on politics and not on war. No Mexican war reduces Pierces clout (as mentioned up thread). Also Buchanan was an architect of the Ostend Manifesto, so it seems he fits in with TTL well.
 

Glen

Moderator
Pierce was an unlikely president OTL and seems less likely ITTL.

Why not Buchanan?
Buchanan's credentials were very good and were based on politics and not on war. No Mexican war reduces Pierces clout (as mentioned up thread). Also Buchanan was an architect of the Ostend Manifesto, so it seems he fits in with TTL well.

Not a bad idea, but we will be sticking with Pierce here. This was designed to be a somewhat low butterfly timeline with most of the changes being due directly (where possible) to the primary POD.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
67 Tigers

Problem is I found that highly selective in its facts to get the interpretation it wanted. Presented the Indian mutiny as mainly a Muslim rather than an Hindu uprising. I have actually read that one of the main centres of loyal troops was the relatively recently obtained NW Frontier area. Possibly the key factor religion played was that, when the British, under growing pressure from London, removed the restrictions on Christianity, that made some Hindus concerned that there would be parallels with the period of persecution by Muslims towards the tail end of the Moguls empire. There were other factors in the mutiny, including the deteriorating economic and social position of the military, which actually means that overseas duties such as operations in Oregon could delay/prevent a mutiny.

Steve

There certainly were problems with certain sectors of Sepoy society. I read one of the grievances the Marathras had was the large influx of Muslim troops into the Bengal Army (starting in 1850 with the General Service Act). IMHO there were in fact three separate mutinies:

1. The Marathras rebelled about various conditions, there was an orgy of violence, then they dispersed.

2. With a power vacuum created, and a small core of Muslim sepoys, the Muslim population of the Punjab rise up in Jihad.

3. Around Cawnpore a group of Hindu nobles who had lost their lands use the opportunity to forment rebellion and try and regain their lands (primarily centred on the Gwalior Contingent).
 
Pierce was an unlikely president OTL and seems less likely ITTL.

Why not Buchanan?
Buchanan's credentials were very good and were based on politics and not on war. No Mexican war reduces Pierces clout (as mentioned up thread). Also Buchanan was an architect of the Ostend Manifesto, so it seems he fits in with TTL well.

Buchanan was one I had in mind as a President who would have been interested in annexing Cuba and who would have been more likely than Pierce. Buchanan was one of the front runners in 1852 (with Cass and Douglas). Without the Mexican War and the need to be concerned about the newly acquired territories, some of the bitter animousity toward him at the convention might have been avoided. Buchanan was a principle author of Ostend and there is no evidence that Pierce knew anything about it until the document became public.
 
Last edited:
Same people, it was born in the 1820's. The name Taliban wasn't used for the movement, but isn't even now. It's just our name for it, based upon their word for follower.

I am sorry, but I disagree. The religious school system in India may have been set up in the 1820s, but it had relatively little to do with the Mutiny.

Taliban is definitely their word--meaning a Pashto word for students based on the Arabic word talib meaning student. The Taliban are not Pakistani, they are Pashto--an ethnic group mostly in Afghanistan. In other words, Pashto students in the system adopted the word to describe themselves and they were and are certainly referred to as taliban in Afghanistan. We did not make up the word for them. Pashto students in the school system took upon themselves the name taliban. They did not organize themselves until 1994 for any kind of endeavor politically.

It is not correct to refer to the Mutiny as having anything to do with this group.
 

Glen

Moderator
I am sorry, but I disagree. The religious school system in India may have been set up in the 1820s, but it had relatively little to do with the Mutiny.

Taliban is definitely their word--meaning a Pashto word for students based on the Arabic word talib meaning student. The Taliban are not Pakistani, they are Pashto--an ethnic group mostly in Afghanistan. In other words, Pashto students in the system adopted the word to describe themselves and they were and are certainly referred to as taliban in Afghanistan. We did not make up the word for them. Pashto students in the school system took upon themselves the name taliban. They did not organize themselves until 1994 for any kind of endeavor politically.

It is not correct to refer to the Mutiny as having anything to do with this group.

What Mike said.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I am sorry, but I disagree. The religious school system in India may have been set up in the 1820s, but it had relatively little to do with the Mutiny.

Taliban is definitely their word--meaning a Pashto word for students based on the Arabic word talib meaning student. The Taliban are not Pakistani, they are Pashto--an ethnic group mostly in Afghanistan. In other words, Pashto students in the system adopted the word to describe themselves and they were and are certainly referred to as taliban in Afghanistan. We did not make up the word for them. Pashto students in the school system took upon themselves the name taliban. They did not organize themselves until 1994 for any kind of endeavor politically.

It is not correct to refer to the Mutiny as having anything to do with this group.

The Taliban are simply Wahhabists/ Deobadists, and the reference to "The Taliban" as the name of a grouping is due to the western need to pigeonhole everyone. No doubt an Afghan radical fighter might refer to himself as a "Follower of the Way" (the literal translation), but he means he's following Wahhabism.

The phrase "I am a Taliban" makes sense, "I am in the Taliban" does not.
 

Glen

Moderator
The Taliban are simply Wahhabists/ Deobadists, and the reference to "The Taliban" as the name of a grouping is due to the western need to pigeonhole everyone. No doubt an Afghan radical fighter might refer to himself as a "Follower of the Way" (the literal translation), but he means he's following Wahhabism.

The phrase "I am a Taliban" makes sense, "I am in the Taliban" does not.

Well, unless any of us are Afghans able to report to its current usage, I say we move on....

Whatever you consider its usage in Afghanistan, even if we grant its use in the West as a convenient label for a certain movement in Afghanistan, it is a modern term that only came into use in the West in the 1990s for a group that gained political power in the 1990s and came out of Wahabi supported Madrassas in Pakistan that were part of the anti-Soviet movement of the 1980s. We can argue whether or not they had spiritual ancestors in the region in the 1850s, but there the use of Taliban for groups in the region in the 1850s is not particularly informative since all the reference material available from that time period, and indeed up until the 1990s, will not use the term.
 
The -an ending makes it Pashto and not Arabic. So, the word taliban is not Arabic, even if talib is.

It does not and never has applied to all Wahhabi. It applies to a group of Pashto who studied in Wahhabi schools. A name they applied to themselves and used to describe their organization.
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
A compilation of the first posts and some important comments from this spin off of the Clay Victorious timeline.

Prologue: Obituary of an Abolitionist, October 1844.

....Liberty Candidate James Gillespie Birney was thrown from his horse and swiftly succumbed to his injuries. This tragedy mere weeks before the election has thrown the Liberty Party into serious disarray. He is survived by his two sons, William and David....

Chapter One: Henry Clay's First Administration

....Whig Candidate Henry Clay won a narrow victory in November of 1844. This win ended for the time the push for expansion of the territories of the United States, given President-Elect Clay's position on the matter....His first four years saw a steady increase in internal improvements within the United States, one of President Clay's passions....In the last year of his first Administration, President Clay renewed for another ten years the codominion agreement regarding the Oregon Country between the United States and Great Britain. Ironically, the Clay Administration had also pushed for expansion of the railways to the early portions of the Oregon Trail, increasing the rate of settlers heading for the Oregon Country....Clay won reelection in 1848 by a comfortable margin....

Chapter Two: President Clay's Second Administration

....During Clay's first Administration, Mexico had floundered through a number of failed governments and the border region between Mexico and Texas had been an unsettled one that would see alternating periods of wary truce and low level border clashes. The Texan Government strove to deal with their substantial war debt....It was in the first year of Clay's second term that the situation changed with the Californian Gold Rush. The boom in Mexico's Northwestern area promised a welcome increase in income to Mexico's government and the economy in general, but was also bringing more Americans, Oregonians, and even Texans, into the area, though this was somewhat ameliorated by the Mexicans moving up to Alta California as well....Therefore, when President Clay offered to mediate a treaty between Mexico and Texas, the Mexicans were interested....The final treaty agreement was surprisingly generous to the Republic of Texas, conceding most of their points, in return for the American pledge to respect and maintain the integrity of Mexico's borders thereafter, particularly with respect to California, as well as maintaining in perpetuity the independence of Texas from the United States....the United States gained in the treaty significant trading concessions, including liberal use of Mexican Pacific ports....while a controversial agreement at the time, it later was seen as the cornerstone of peace in North America....President Clay nearly served out his entire second term before dying peacefully in office in 1852....By the time of his death, Henry Clay had guaranteed peace on the Continent, maintained the Missouri Compromise, and greatly improved the infrastructure of the United States of America....

Chapter Three: Franklin Pierce and the Great Expansion

....Theodore Frelinghuysen was president only briefly, and was passed over for the Whig nomination. However, it was the Democratic nominee, Franklin Pierce, who won the election in 1852....President Pierce in his first term of office presided over the greatest gains in American territory since Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. Initial inquiries by the Pierce Administration into the possible purchase of Cuba from Spain were rebuffed, and started to strain relations between the two nations. When Spanish officials in Cuba began illegally siezed an American ship in 1854, this was the final straw that triggered the Spanish-American War. The war was especially popular in the South, and many Southerners volunteered and raised troops. The North was less sanguine about annexing potential slave territories, but felt national honor was at stake. The war was entirely constrained to the Caribbean basin. In the end, the Spanish were forced to cede Cuba and Puerto Rico to the United States....President Santana would negotiate to bring the strategically placed Dominican Republic under the aegis of the United States as a Protectorate....Pierce won re-election in 1856....Pierce's last years in office were marred by the border raids from Haiti that necessitated the American occupation of the Haitian portion of Hispaniola. And of course, the Oregon War....

I am planning a Clay Victorious spin-off, called The Oregon War.

The timeline is the same as Clay Victorious until 1856 when the British fail to agree to renegotiate Oregon before the 10 year period is up. Pierce begins negotiating in 1858, but now has to deal with Palmerston's government, and things don't go well. By 1859, filibusters in Oregon including William Walker have raised the flag of the Republic of Oregon and call for US annexation. Thus begins the Oregon War.

So instead of the US Civil War, we get the Oregon War. I can see Spain joining forces with Britain, anxious to avenge her losses in the Spanish-American War just a few years earlier. If France throws in as well with promises of a free hand in Mexico, that may in turn bring in Mexico on the American side. I'm envisioning it turning almost into a World War of the Old Powers versus the Rising Powers....

Obviously, still very early stages in my head....

Note that the US has more developed infrastructure than it did in OTL 1859 due to the efforts of the Clay Administration.

Also, relations with Mexico are reasonably cordial at this time.

ITTL, the Spanish-American War is a later stand-in for the Mexican-American War, and the Oregon War will replace the ACW.

Always liked the idea of Sherman and Lee fighting side by side, but found Harry Harrison's timeline a bit of a stretch? Well, here's your chance to have some fun...

The War of 1859 will start as one of passions.

Since the US does not have California, more time has passed, and the initial legs of the journey to Oregon faster due to increased availability of rail and good roads (not certain how far this would extend, but it definitely is further than OTL), there are more Americans in Oregon by 1859, and they are the ones who start the fighting, when they unilaterally declare independence and demand annexation by the US. There is enough popular sentiment in the North to go for the war. Ironically, the war will be less popular in the South.

Those Caribbean possessions are going to be very very vulnerable to the British. The Oregon is isolated, but don't count out a resupply cross-country. If the US could fight in the Southwest during the ACW, it can make Oregon.

The Canadian front will be interesting.

The US does have more at stake than the British do in this war, this is true.

I suppose the real question remains, would the war go on for long or not? The British attacks in the Caribbean are likely to be early, although doing so will undoubtedly trigger a counter-invasion of Canada. Imagine Lee heading up the US Army's attack into Canada....

I believe the generalship available to American troops at the time was superior to that of the British at the time, given they were going through some major changes in how they developed officers after the debacles of the Crimean war just three years earlier. The Americans also have more manpower likely in theatre. And the Americans are likely to raise more of those troops over time.

While the British clearly have the largest navy of the time, the problem for them is it is the start of a major transition in naval technology. At first, the British will dominate on the seas, but I can see a determined US pushing the envelope on the emerging technologies and getting the industrial force of the nation to pump out ships within a year or so. Men like Dahlgren, Eads, and Ericsson can make things very uncomfortable for the RN if given time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad

So the real question would be why wouldn't the Brits and US rather than dive into this madness too deeply, why wouldn't they settle on some equitable division of the territory, despite the protestations of the American Oregonians?

I suppose pig headedness leading to early bloodshed could be enough to enflame passions, and before too long both sides are too invested to easily come to the bargaining table....

Book II: The Oregon War

Prologue -

For over a century and a half, historians have debated what foresight President Henry Clay might have had as to the possibility of war with the British Empire. He had been a staunch opponent of further territorial annexations in his time as president, yet had encouraged continued American settlement in the Oregon Country, then under codominion with Great Britain, a codominion that President Clay renewed in 1848. His drive for internal improvements to the nation saw the extension of interior roads, canals, and the new railways, throughout the nation, and deep into the territories from the Louisiana Purchase. Could he have known that these improvements would prove critical in case of a hostile force blockading coastal trade? Could he have foreseen the consequences of allowing ten more years of settlement in the Oregon Country, especially with American infrastructure now making the Eastern leg of the journey that much faster? What did Henry Clay think the future would hold?

The world will always ponder, for he did not live long enough to see the Oregon War.

Book II: The Oregon War

Chapter One - The Pierce Administration from the beginning appeared intent on expansion, in stark contrast to the policies of his Whig predecessor, Henry Clay. When overtures to purchase Cuba failed, it was only a matter of time before war would break out between Spain and the US. While the proximity of the US to the Spanish Caribbean possessions made it easier for the US to fight than Spain, the war did show that the US Navy, though exemplary in its fighting, was seriously undersized if it wished to secure the new Caribbean territories. So Franklin Pierce heralded in a significant expansion of the Navy almost immediately after the war in 1856. The US took the opportunity to incorporate many new innovations in warships just starting to be explored in the latter half of the 1850s....
 
I like the concept, and you're definitely setting North America up to be different. A few nitpicks if I may.

I've said before on many occassions Mexico would be smart to grant Texas the full extent of it's territorial claims on the grounds. It's certainly Mexico's best chance to hold on to California for example. But the Gold Rush does happen, that's going to bring a lot of Anglos into the area regardless of the borders. Surely some sort of version of the Bear Flag Revolt's going to happen, yes? Doesn't mean it will win mind you.

Also, with Texan soverignty secured, this is going to put a large roadblock into the expansion of slavery. Unless some sort of release valve is put into place somewhere, when states like Iowa and Wisconsin start joining the Union. So either slavery's going to expand into Kansas and the upper midwest or the South's gonna be really unhappy.

A Clay presidency has always fascinated me just because it's Henry Clay. One doesn't know what this man was going to do next. During 1844's election OTL, Clay was against the westward expansion, at least at the cost of a war. He won't pick a fight with Mexico, but is going to with Britain? Seems more likly he'd go for a compromise similar to OTL. Or is Britain going to be emboldened by the US's weaker claim to the west since it's lacking Texas and California? I'm not an expert on British politics at the time, but I was always under the impression a war was the last thing they wanted in this time period.

If it does come to that, I'll be honest and say I'm not sure the US military is up to the challenge at this point. Unless you spark this off accidentally while their attention is divided in Crimea perhaps?
 

Glen

Moderator
I like the concept, and you're definitely setting North America up to be different.

Thank you.

A few nitpicks if I may.

But of course!

I've said before on many occasions Mexico would be smart to grant Texas the full extent of it's territorial claims on the grounds that it's certainly Mexico's best chance to hold on to California for example.

More or less agree, at least for these timelines.:)

But the Gold Rush does happen, that's going to bring a lot of Anglos into the area regardless of the borders.

Yep.

Surely some sort of version of the Bear Flag Revolt's going to happen, yes? Doesn't mean it will win mind you.

Without any encouragement from the US, I think not. Also Mexico itself is in a bit better position to send people up to the region, so the Anglos aren't alone.

Also, with Texan sovereignty secured, this is going to put a large roadblock into the expansion of slavery. Unless some sort of release valve is put into place somewhere, when states like Iowa and Wisconsin start joining the Union. So either slavery's going to expand into Kansas and the upper Midwest or the South's gonna be really unhappy.

They went to war with Spain to get Cuba and Puerto Rico, and they annexed the Dominican Republic. Ergo more room for slavery.

A Clay presidency has always fascinated me just because it's Henry Clay. One doesn't know what this man was going to do next. During 1844's election OTL, Clay was against the westward expansion, at least at the cost of a war. He won't pick a fight with Mexico, but is going to with Britain? Seems more likely he'd go for a compromise similar to OTL.

You are right, except Clay doesn't do this, his successors do.

Or is Britain going to be emboldened by the US's weaker claim to the west since it's lacking Texas and California? I'm not an expert on British politics at the time, but I was always under the impression a war was the last thing they wanted in this time period.

Unfortunately they have Palmerston at the time that the precipitating events of the Oregon War happen, and he's a bit more hot-headed....

If it does come to that, I'll be honest and say I'm not sure the US military is up to the challenge at this point.

I tend to disagree. Basically this is the military that would have fought each other in the ACW with Lee in overall command. Also, they have had recent success fighting the Spanish. And the British are in an awkward place militarily after the Crimean War, basically reorganizing their army and needing to convert to more modern navy.

Unless you spark this off accidentally while their attention is divided in Crimea perhaps?

It's a bit after the Crimea.
 
Top