WI/PC: Can the UK acquire Alaska after Seward's Folly?

Because the British Empire was seen as almighty at the time (and even today by AH.com people) any compromise is the UK backing down because based on what those who think the UK was sooooo powerful and able to put their might anywhere seem to say, then the UK being willing to compromise proves that they are scared of the possibility of losing to the USA.

Always dangerous to use the word proof in a discussion of history and/or politics, proofs are for mathematics.

Here for example it can be argued that the British were being calm and level headed and knew they had so much stuff already they could give away some unimportant bits without losing their paramount position. A quite monied life is basically what the British ruling class were pursuing.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Because the British Empire was seen as almighty at the time (and even today by AH.com people) any compromise is the UK backing down because based on what those who think the UK was sooooo powerful and able to put their might anywhere seem to say, then the UK being willing to compromise proves that they are scared of the possibility of losing to the USA.
But just because a country is powerful doesn't mean that any willingness to compromise indicates the country is scared - it can indicate, for example, a feeling that a given war would not be worth it for an ultimately small gain.

Let's take, for example, the Colorado River Dispute of the 20th century. This was resolved with a compromise between the US and Mexico - but does that mean the US was 'scared of the possibility of losing to' Mexico?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
An even more pertinent example is the 1963 and 1970 treaties which settled US-Mexico border disputes. Are we to take it that the US feared Mexico in 1963 and 1970?


ED: but, of course, there's still the Trent. For those unsure, here's how the Trent event went:


US ship boards British one (illegally - ship is not in breach of blockade inwards or outwards and there is no right of search), takes off passengers as contraband.
British protest, move ships, move guns, move troops, generally prepare for war.
US undergoes bank panic at threat of war, issues apology, releases passengers.

There is no interpretation of this event where the British are backing down.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that no, the UK cannot acquire Alaska after Seward's folly. The US had purchased the territory and despite its critics they weren't likely to sell it to a foreign power. Britain also had no real interest in Alaska which could translate into them pushing for it either in negotiations or offering to purchase it. They sacrificed Canadian good will to further rapprochement with the US when the boundary was being negotiated after all.

The only way for the UK to acquire Alaska is before the US buys it, or they never purchase it in the first place.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You mean that the British government could count noses , know the logistical problems in North America for them and unlike Seph didn't think of Americans as cowards and weaklings who would flee at the sound of the approach of the British Army? Who would have guessed?
Uh....

Play the ball, not the man.
 
Top