WI: Divided Alaska between the UK and US

I'm not sure how to ask this question so here it goes.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that the US has gained up to 54-40 by 1855 and has set its eyes on the entire pacific coast, which the US greedily snatches up in 1857 when it purchases Alaska from Russia. Great Britain is obviously mad because they have just virtually lost the entire North American Pacific coast to the US. Unfortunately the US is also unhappy because Alaska is hardly the contiguous winter wonderland they had planned. Great Britain has is also making it difficult by refusing to recognize its new borders or something. So as a compromise during the 1862 Stikine Gold Rush the US offers a trade of sorts: Great Britain gets everything North and East of the Yukon River and the continental divide and the US gets everything south and west. This would result in a north/south divided Alaska between GB and US, a nice contiguous continental US, and a pacific coast for Canada near OTL Nome, AK.

Plausible? Probable?
 
Last edited:
I could see something where Britain got the northern parts of Alaska, particularly if some sort of greater cultural voice for the Inuit people leads to some sort of regional recognition and a larger province of Nunavut popping up 100 years earlier.
 
I'm not sure how to ask this question so here it goes.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that the US has gained up to 54-40 by 1855 and has set its eyes on the entire pacific coast, which the US greedily snatches up in 1857 when it purchases Alaska from Russia. Great Britain is obviously mad because they have just virtually lost the entire North American Pacific coast to the US. Unfortunately the US is also unhappy because Alaska is hardly the contiguous winter wonderland they had planned. Great Britain has is also making it difficult by refusing to recognize its new borders or something. So as a compromise during the 1862 Stikine Gold Rush the US offers a trade of sorts: Great Britain gets everything North and East of the Yukon River and the continental divide and the US gets everything south and west. This would result in a north/south divided Alaska between GB and US, a nice contiguous continental US, and a pacific coast for Canada near OTL Nome, AK.

Plausible? Probable?

Texian

The two problems I see are:
a) How does the US gain all of Oregon since that effectively screws Canada west of Ontario and the British will know this?

b) What's in this latter partition for Britain/Canada as it basically gets some barren wilderness far too far from anywhere to act as a practical outlet to the Pacific?

If you have some serious distraction for Britain so the US can obtain all the Oregon region then I can't see any point in Britain/Canada expressing any interest in Alaska.

Steve
 
a) How does the US gain all of Oregon since that effectively screws Canada west of Ontario and the British will know this?
(I said "for the sake of discussion")The Oregon country remained jointly occupied another 10 years until 1854. Due to manifest destiny Oregon had a much larger American population ITTL. The treaty ends in 1854, the US calls GB bluf on thier claim to the territory and GB folds to threat of war leading to the annexation of all of Oregon.
b) What's in this latter partition for Britain/Canada as it basically gets some barren wilderness far too far from anywhere to act as a practical outlet to the Pacific?
"Well at least it's something..." There is Nome.
If you have some serious distraction for Britain so the US can obtain all the Oregon region then I can't see any point in Britain/Canada expressing any interest in Alaska.
Britain was beginning to mobilize for The Crimean War.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how to ask this question so here it goes.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that the US has gained up to 54-40 by 1855 and has set its eyes on the entire pacific coast, which the US greedily snatches up in 1857 when it purchases Alaska from Russia. Great Britain is obviously mad because they have just virtually lost the entire North American Pacific coast to the US. Unfortunately the US is also unhappy because Alaska is hardly the contiguous winter wonderland they had planned. Great Britain has is also making it difficult by refusing to recognize its new borders or something. So as a compromise during the 1862 Stikine Gold Rush the US offers a trade of sorts: Great Britain gets everything North and East of the Yukon River and the continental divide and the US gets everything south and west. This would result in a north/south divided Alaska between GB and US, a nice contiguous continental US, and a pacific coast for Canada near OTL Nome, AK.

Plausible? Probable?

NO...the border b/n Russian Alaska and the British NW territory at 141 degrees is already established by Anglo Russian Treaty.
 
Texian

The two problems I see are:
a) How does the US gain all of Oregon since that effectively screws Canada west of Ontario and the British will know this?

b) What's in this latter partition for Britain/Canada as it basically gets some barren wilderness far too far from anywhere to act as a practical outlet to the Pacific?

If you have some serious distraction for Britain so the US can obtain all the Oregon region then I can't see any point in Britain/Canada expressing any interest in Alaska.

Steve

And then there is this of course...As the British never considered the US claims to be anything more than what the Spanish haqad, which is where the US claims really gained credibility, and they had people and stns on the ground in the northern districts. US settlers wer confined south of the Columbia...by British design.

However should the US gain the mainland to 54 40 , there is no way the Br would ever lose V.I. or those off the coast. Then |russia would almost certainly have lost the territory during the Crimean War, because at that point the need to actually possess it would have been pressing. so the question is moot. As it would not exist.
 
(I said "for the sake of discussion")The Oregon country remained jointly occupied another 10 years until 1854. Due to manifest destiny Oregon had a much larger American population ITTL. The treaty ends in 1854, the US calls GB bluf on thier claim to the territory and GB folds to threat of war leading to the annexation of all of Oregon.

It's not that it's not an effective outlet It's just manifest destiny.

Britain was beginning to mobilize for The Crimean War.

How... the original settlers would have starved without the humanitarian intervention of the HBC director on site at Ft. Vancouver. If more come the Br will simply dig their heels in earlier and some will definitely perish. This is not going to encourage more immigration in the early going untill the US actually establishes itself. there. This probably means tensions with Britain that will mean NO Mex. American War over Texas annexation. or Br. intervention to improve their bargaining position in Oregon during same which probably results in a a US loss on the West coast.
 

katchen

Banned
While most of the Alaska Canada border (which is by the way the most unsecured of America's borders) is at 141 degrees west, the Alaskan Panhandle was the subject of an ongoing dispute with the British because that border was unclear. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_boundary_dispute
The British (and B.C. Provinical Government) wanted at least some ocean frontage, the better to buld a port at the mouth of the Stiine to service and open up the Stikine and Cassiar regions. The US claimed much further inlad, perhaps the better to have a rail right of way though no obvious right of way is fully inside the disputed territory. The issue was not settled until 1903 IOTL.
In 1894, during the Second Cleveland Administration, the US and UK almost went to war over
Wha might work is a settlement whereby most or all of the Alaskan Panhandle is ceded to the UK and British Columbia in return for one or more railroad right of ways with US syle land grants across British Columbia and Alberta to Alaska. This settlement would be made in 1894 over the border between Venezuela and British Guiana. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela_Crisis_of_1895 www.[B]guyana[/B].org/Western/NYT_Compiled-reports-web.pdfuntreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XXVIII/331-340.pdf.
The United States insisted on it's right to negotiate the Venezuela British Guianan border because of it's rights under the Monroe Doctrine, and after doing so, ultimately awarded the British 90% of what they asked for.. A good POD might involve perhaps Benjamin Harrison winning re-election, although with Cleveland winning by 400,000 votes, that would be a bit of a stretch. Or Cleveland and Olney are somewhat more pragmatic about turning the dispute into an opportunity to link the two boundary disputes and perhaps gain some more strategic territory for coaling stations for the US instead of making it a Monroe Doctrine isue that can only lead to a war the US is unprepared for.
The settlement might involve the US screwing over Venezuela by giving the Brits not only all it asks for but everything South and East of the Orinocco River, which would become an international waterway.:D This would include the Orinocco Dellta, easilydrained and settled with East Indians and growing jute, and contiguity between Trinidad and British Guiana and British possession of the entire west Guiana Highlands, with it's gold and other minerals and wild rubber.
In teturn, the British would not only give the US what it was asking for on the Alaskan Panhandle but rail corridors to Alaska which by now, American authorities know from studying the growing cycle Alaska has as much or more arable land as Oklahoma. The railroads to Alaska refloat rail stocks, the fall of which led to the Panic of 1893. To sweeten the deal, the British could offer the US Ascension, St. Helena and Tristan da Cunha as possible coaling stations and the Falkland Islands and in the Pacific, Easter Island from Chileand perhaps either the Galapagos Islands from Ecuador and/or Coiba Island from Colombia, givint the US a protected sea route around Cape Horn, since it is by no means certain a canal across either the Isthmus of Panam or Nicaragua. ;);)
 
How... the original settlers would have starved without the humanitarian intervention of the HBC director on site at Ft. Vancouver. If more come the Br will simply dig their heels in earlier and some will definitely perish. This is not going to encourage more immigration in the early going untill the US actually establishes itself. there. This probably means tensions with Britain that will mean NO Mex. American War over Texas annexation. or Br. intervention to improve their bargaining position in Oregon during same which probably results in a a US loss on the West coast.

This is apart of an independent Texas TL but I don't understand why HBC would suddenly leave when more customers arrive. US annexation doesn't mean that area's largest importer has to be shut down. If anything HBC would expand into more American markets.

However should the US gain the mainland to 54 40 , there is no way the Br would ever lose V.I. or those off the coast. Then russia would almost certainly have lost the territory during the Crimean War, because at that the need to actually possess it would have been pressing. so the question is moot. As it would not exist.

So in your opinon It's Oregon or Alaska but not Both?

NO...the border b/n Russian Alaska and the British NW territory at 141 degrees is already established by Anglo Russian Treaty.

That treaty is void since Russia no longer owns Alaska. British Northern Alaska becomes apart of the NW Territory (or whatever it's called in 1862) Borders change, both parties are buying and selling certain portions of land to settle on borders they can both agree on.
 

Very intresting, but that is a bit late for my purposes. I'm looking for a settlement before 1870. I know the US in "The Story of a Party" got every thing west of the Canadian continental divide as settlement for the Alabama claims. However my terms are much less harsh, GB gets most of Alaska. I would even be content with an border even farther south on the Kuskokwim River for example.
 
This is apart of an independent Texas TL but I don't understand why HBC would suddenly leave when more customers arrive. US annexation doesn't mean that area's largest importer has to be shut down. If anything HBC would expand into more American markets.



So in your opinon It's Oregon or Alaska but not Both?



That treaty is void since Russia no longer owns Alaska. British Northern Alaska becomes apart of the NW Territory (or whatever it's called in 1862) Borders change, both parties are buying and selling certain portions of land to settle on borders they can both agree on.

You cannot void a treaty that exists prior to your "sale" Russia can only sell..what is actually recognized as its own to sell. While the panhandle boundary was disputed ( because of treaty interpretation of the original French)...the 141st was not.

Second...Yes probably its one or the other. If more colonists come...the HBC will not leave the terr. they will simply push more of them into the Willamette valley much as they did OTL until a settlement is obtained that they and the British deem acceptable. This is a distant trading outpost there are only so many supplies to go around. Those supplies will become rather expensive in the local market. If there is no settlement, the Company will have to start charging for them... prices that some of those settlers will not be able to pay. The company cannot continue to give away supplies forever...it makes no economic sense to do so. If they starve from lack of supplies, this will discourage them from coming. You can only get so many there before you will have to have a settlement of some kind. A sale during the Crimean War is not probable...nor its it likely to be recognized as valid by Britain...it would probably result in immediate invasion of the Russian Terr. to prevent its transfer. If it were to leak that The Tsar were considering this possibility then It would become a demand of Britain at the peace ending the Crimean War to prevent its transfer as well, sale can only occur post war...... mind you then you might get a partition...the panhandle to Britain which is all the HBC really wants in any case, and the remainder of Alaska to the US ( extending the 141st parallel south to the coast.)... but they' re only likely to want such a thing in the first place if they have a definite undisputed hold on the west coast somewhere.
 
Last edited:
You cannot void a treaty that exists prior to your "sale" Russia can only sell..what is actually recognized as its own to sell. While the panhandle boundary was disputed ( because of treaty interpretation of the original French)...the 141st was not.

Right. The US buys all of Alaska from Russia, then sells a portion to Great Britain in exchange for a larger inland section of the Canadian coast near the Stikine Region. By 1862 the US owns all of the coast up from the 42nd parallel. (except for perhaps Moresby Island and V.I.) Britain would be foolish not to accept the offer, but would be able to pressure the US into selling to them as far south as the Aleutian Islands/Penninsula.


I wasn't aware that the HBC kept American and Canadian settlers apart. Thought, I guess it is understandable because by 1853/4 the region would be so Americanized their would be no hope of it ever willingly remaining apart of BNA. I have no idea why the settlers wouldn't at the least be bartering for supplies. Likewise the HBC is not the settlers only source of supplies. The joint-occupation of the Oregon Territory would end just prior to the Crimean War and the sale of Alaska is two years after the same. an Anglo-American War for the Region is a possibility but the logistics of such a task would not be worth the territory and most likely end in stalemate. There is no way GB would buy Alaska from Russia, a former enemy. They could take it during the war, but then again, what couldn't they take! Like you said:

but they' re only likely to want such a thing in the first place if they have a definite undisputed hold on the west coast somewhere.

Which they didn't have. (Besides V.I. But its an Island.) "It's a distant, logistical nightmare of an outpost over run with Yanks. Let'em have it and don't look back." - Richard Packenham (ITTL)
 
I'm not sure how to ask this question so here it goes.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that the US has gained up to 54-40 by 1855 and has set its eyes on the entire pacific coast, which the US greedily snatches up in 1857 when it purchases Alaska from Russia. Great Britain is obviously mad because they have just virtually lost the entire North American Pacific coast to the US. Unfortunately the US is also unhappy because Alaska is hardly the contiguous winter wonderland they had planned. Great Britain has is also making it difficult by refusing to recognize its new borders or something. So as a compromise during the 1862 Stikine Gold Rush the US offers a trade of sorts: Great Britain gets everything North and East of the Yukon River and the continental divide and the US gets everything south and west. This would result in a north/south divided Alaska between GB and US, a nice contiguous continental US, and a pacific coast for Canada near OTL Nome, AK.

Plausible? Probable?

No, not really plausible. How does the US get 54-40 when the British won't give it to them and they can't take it? Prior to 1848 the US has no real base on the Pacific, and hardly any settlers north of California, and OTL the Oregon treaty was signed in 1846. If the US tries to press they could find themselves at war with Britain and Mexico simultaneously, which would go very badly for them.
 
How does the US get 54-40 when the British won't give it to them and they can't take it?

They wait them out. The US and GB couldn't reach an agreement in 1834 and postponed settling the border for 10 years. When it comes up again in 1844, (under a Henry Clay administration) the US continues to delay a settlement because they know that, the more settlers they send to Oregon, the more likely Britain will be to give it to them. Clay also wants to avoid stirring the pot of angry southerners since the US won't be getting Texas either (No Mexican War). So when the Oregon Boundary comes up again in 1854 (Ten year precedent) the Population of the entire territory is approximately 60,000 USA / 40,000 GB. Great Britain's Population there has been falling as US settlers flock to the Area, the two sides settle and the US gets the entirety of Oregon for a cool Million, a 100 year lease of a Vancouver and Moresby Isle. and Navigation rights to the Columbia river. Canada is pissed of by these decisions and this leads to an earlier confederation around 1864/5.
 
They wait them out. The US and GB couldn't reach an agreement in 1834 and postponed settling the border for 10 years. When it comes up again in 1844, (under a Henry Clay administration) the US continues to delay a settlement because they know that, the more settlers they send to Oregon, the more likely Britain will be to give it to them. Clay also wants to avoid stirring the pot of angry southerners since the US won't be getting Texas either (No Mexican War). So when the Oregon Boundary comes up again in 1854 (Ten year precedent) the Population of the entire territory is approximately 60,000 USA / 40,000 GB. Great Britain's Population there has been falling as US settlers flock to the Area, the two sides settle and the US gets the entirety of Oregon for a cool Million, a 100 year lease of a Vancouver and Moresby Isle. and Navigation rights to the Columbia river. Canada is pissed of by these decisions and this leads to an earlier confederation around 1864/5.

Except Britain was no longer interested in codominion, and was willing to force the issue themselves by 1844. Remember Britain wanted the 42 parallel. And there was a real possibility that Mexico would sell California to Britain. Absent a Mexican war to preempt this it likely happens, which makes Britain very interested in getting the whole pacific coast.
 
Top