US annexation of British Columbia for the Alabama Claims

the now-northern Mexican states (that was the original plan of annexation), Greenland (we did offer to buy it after WWII),
Someone complains about Americans overestimating the enthusiasm new American subjects would have about the US, and you counter with blatant imperialism and America suggesting a trade? Greenland might have been realistic if the offer had been the other way around, but the US wanting something is obviously not enough on its own.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
The first thing to note about this scenario is that it needs a formidable 'deus ex machina' that the OP has not worked out or at least not mentioned to make it work. Consider for a moment: what possible threat or inducement could the USA apply to Britain to make it give up a valuable colony even if it was not part of the Canadian Confederation? There is nothing the USA can do to make the British give up BC, thus the only way this can work is if the British, the Canadians, the Hudson Bay Company and the colonists in BC itself want to get rid of it and frankly why they would want to do this is not obvious.

So accepting for the sake of the argument the flawed premise above. The first thing we can say is that in this scenario the British, knowing American aspirations in 1866 are highly unlikely to amalgamate the Colonies of Vancouver's Island and British Columbia. Thus we end up with a new American territory (British Columbia) that has a British Colony with a large naval base and by far the most powerful war fleet in the Pacific just a few miles off shore. On the basis of this geography American BC loses all of our BC's fishing grounds on top of this the gold is played out, it is cold and a long sea journey from the East Coast. It is thus likely to remain just as isolated and underdevoped territory as Alaska was in OTL.

Next there is no treaty of Washington and no great impetus for it as there was in OTL due to the Alabama claims. This means several things first, the principles of international law regarding neutrality and commerce raiding which the Alabama Commission gave rise to will not come into being. Second, the Halifax Fisheries commission will not resolve the joint exploitation of the Grand Banks and a festering sore in Anglo-American relations will continue. As a result of this the numerous OTL trade barriers between between the USA and Canada will continue (unlike OTL), there will probably be even more. It is not unlikely that. American ships will be denied access to the Atlantic via the St Lawrence by the Canadians (rather than the British). This will greatly retard the development of the USA regions south of the lakes. It might (or might not) enhance the development of Kingston as an international transshipment port (i.e. goods removed from American ships, import duties paid and loaded on to Canadian ships to load ocean going ships at Montreal). On top of all this without the treaty of Washington the dual occupation of San Juan island as a result of the Pig War.

In OTL the Russian Empire offered Alaska to Britain Before they offered it to the USA. In this scenario there is a very good chance that the British or at least the Canadians will want to buy it as it gives Canada access to the sea and Vancouver's Island.

The borders of BC to the east were not defined to my knowledge and would have to be agreed before handover as the British are no more fools than the Americans. It is thus likely that this BC could be a lot smaller than our BC. There is also an interesting discussion to be had as to the northern border.

So in conclusion, the POD is unbelievable but if the USA did get BC then Canada gets Alaska. BC remains underdeveloped. The USA's lakes region is less developed than OTL. Anglo-American and American-Canadian relations are poorer than in OTL. The channel between BC and VI becomes a potential naval flash point
 
In OTL the Russian Empire offered Alaska to Britain Before they offered it to the USA. In this scenario there is a very good chance that the British or at least the Canadians will want to buy it as it gives Canada access to the sea and Vancouver's Island.

The borders of BC to the east were not defined to my knowledge and would have to be agreed before handover as the British are no more fools than the Americans. It is thus likely that this BC could be a lot smaller than our BC. There is also an interesting discussion to be had as to the northern border.

So in conclusion, the POD is unbelievable but if the USA did get BC then Canada gets Alaska. BC remains underdeveloped. The USA's lakes region is less developed than OTL. Anglo-American and American-Canadian relations are poorer than in OTL. The channel between BC and VI becomes a potential naval flash point
This would of happened just after the purchase of Alaska, so it's not going to British hands. In fact, I think that one of the reasons that the Canadian Confederacy formed was because of the threat of American annexation of British Columbia.

Would Canada have any different population areas, like more or less people in Alberta or Manitoba?
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Nope Pando, the OP says things KO in 1867 and that give the British the chance to purchase Seward's folly to make up for the potential loss of BC.

I also note that the USA occupied Alaska in 1867 but only got around to paying for it in 1868 so technically the British could even buy it out from under the American forces that are in Alaska. Wouldn't that be a fun international incident!
 
Last edited:
I wish like heck I had an account there. That looks like a good read.

Now the next question is, now that we have enough of a motive to run with, is why BC and Britain accept it.
Perhaps the USA offers more financial aid to BC than it did in OTL which causes BC to choose the USA over Canada.
 
Nope Pando, the OP says things KO in 1867 and that give the British the chance to purchase Seward's folly to make up for the potential loss of BC.

He IS the OP. Britain wouldn't be purchasing it because Russia wouldn't sell it to them. Russia wanted the US to have it to keep it OUT of British hands.

I also note that the USA occupied Alaska in 1867 but only got around to paying for it in 1868

Russia first offered it to the US in 1859, so I'm pretty sure the offer was still on the table.
 
As far to my knowledge, the British offered British Columbia to the USA over the Alabama claims - we said no, we'd prefer money, and we got a few million dollars intead.

Just have the USA accept the intital British offer of British Columbia and OP accomplished.

One thing is the British may cede the territories, but ask for basing rights - perhaps Vancouver Island is leased from the USA. Hong Kong style?
 
As far to my knowledge, the British offered British Columbia to the USA over the Alabama claims - we said no, we'd prefer money, and we got a few million dollars intead.

Just have the USA accept the intital British offer of British Columbia and OP accomplished.

One thing is the British may cede the territories, but ask for basing rights - perhaps Vancouver Island is leased from the USA. Hong Kong style?
Like!

I think I'll use this in my TL with a Seward presidency.
 
As far to my knowledge, the British offered British Columbia to the USA over the Alabama claims - we said no, we'd prefer money, and we got a few million dollars intead.

Just have the USA accept the intital British offer of British Columbia and OP accomplished.

One thing is the British may cede the territories, but ask for basing rights - perhaps Vancouver Island is leased from the USA. Hong Kong style?

Source (on the underlined bit)?
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Several points. Russia did indeed offer the British Alaska before they offered it to the USA. Being the OP does not stop you getting your dates wrong. The Alabama claims were not progressed until the 1870s so whatever got offered there, and i have no memory of BC being offered is largely irrelevant. So I would very much like to see a reference to that as i believe it to be incorrect.

Actually if you can come up with a believable POD this would make rather a good basis for an Anglo-American war in the 1870s or early 80s.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
I'm told the USA was still paying for the ACW at the start of WWI and that was despite refusing to honour the debts of the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
If you want to think outside the box, you could have the ACW expand into a an early world war, with Britain on the side of the Confederates and the US and other powers winning.

But that'd be... complicated.
 
Top