Would Anyone Have Fought for 54?

Faeelin

Okay, it's been proposed that America and Britain almost came to blows over British Columbia in 1846. But was this really likely? Southern Democrats were opposed to expanding into canada and the Northwest, since they had commercial ties to Britain and any northern territory would become free states. (And of course beating up Meixco is way easier than fighting Britain). Whigs didn't care about the issue. North of the 49th Parallel, there were less than a hundred Americans in 1846.

And as for President Taylor? He didn't seem to care that much about the issue. When war clouds arose on the horizon, Wall Street crashed (reflecting the uncertainty and cost of war with the world's greatest power), and the Whigs were in an uproar.

Moreover, I think people don't understand the territory that was really in dispute. Americans had proposed a partition along the 49th aprallel (giving us part of Vancouver Island), while the British ahd proposed running along the Columbia River.

588px-Oregoncountry.png



So, how would you get an Oregon War?
 

Faeelin

jakewilson said:
What about the British? Would they have a reason to be the aggressor, if Americans were so ambivalent?
Click to expand...

Britain didn't really have anyone living below the 49th parallel; the only interests in the region were the Hudson Bay Company, which was mostly based north of Oregon by this point.

Despite American fears during this period, the Britain also wasn't making a move on California. So again, unless there's a radical change, why would Britain care?
 
V-J

V-J

Faeelin said:
Despite American fears during this period, the Britain also wasn't making a move on California. So again, unless there's a radical change, why would Britain care?
Click to expand...

States do not always go to war fully by design, you know. Or where they do, the reasons for committing are sometimes spurious and not well-calculated. Especially in the 19th century.
 

Faeelin

V-J said:
States do not always go to war fully by design, you know. Or where they do, the reasons for committing are sometimes spurious and not well-calculated. Especially in the 19th century.
Click to expand...

What are you thinking of?
 

Shawn Endresen

Depends on what treaty actually comes out of the talks. No, very few people were willing to fight for the 54th parallel - but Americans were prepared to fight for Seattle, as they wanted clear and sole title to a deep water Pacific port. The British were prepared to fight to keep Vancouver Island in its entirety, although they didn't seem to care much about any of the mainland.

Stall the talks a bit and/or have a Whig administration. The British are expanding slowly out from Vancouver Island while the Americans are pouring in from the East but mostly heading to the southern parts of the territory, current Oregon state and northern California. It shouldn't be hard to have, say, Clay or a protege of his fail to secure Seattle, and then have Democrats (with popular support) get a declaration of war through over it.
 

LordOfTheExacto

Shawn Endresen said:
Depends on what treaty actually comes out of the talks. No, very few people were willing to fight for the 54th parallel - but Americans were prepared to fight for Seattle, as they wanted clear and sole title to a deep water Pacific port. The British were prepared to fight to keep Vancouver Island in its entirety, although they didn't seem to care much about any of the mainland.
Click to expand...

Not Seattle; it wasn't there yet. Astoria and Fort Vancouver on the Columbia, yes. Those were lucrative and strategically important enough to warrant some wrangling, although perhaps not an all-out war. The primary motivation in setling the Northwest at that time was the fur trade.

However, suppose Joe Lewis, who helped incite the Whitman Massacre, had been influenced, or even paid off, by the British Crown. It wouldn't even have to be true; just the rumor might have been enough. Add in the influence of Jesuit missionaries in a time when neither the American government nor the British one had much use for Papists, and the whole region could become very unstable very quickly. The Cayuse War could turn into the third Anglo-American war.
 

papermario

I don't think there is much reason for a war, but there wasn't any legitimate reason to go to war with Spain, either. It might be possible to have Britain simply replace Spain (though it would have to occur about 50 years later in order for it work the same way). If you somehow had the U.S. get a larger number of slave states, the call for more Northern free states would probably need to be answered.

A random incident might even be enough to spark a minor dispute into a war (same as the unneccessary Spanish-American War and the War of 1812). As long as you do it creatively, I think suspension of disbelief will be on your side.
 

stevep

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Pig War, anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War)
(this has been discussed a couple of times, but the search function isn't working for me today, so I can't link them)
Click to expand...

That's one option. People locally start squabbling, then shooting and London and Washington get dragged in.

Another option might be if possibly the war starts over some other issue but you could still have fighting in this region. Slightly outside the scope of the OP but could then have conflict continuing/escalating over the future of the area.

Steve
 

jycee

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Pig War, anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War)
(this has been discussed a couple of times, but the search function isn't working for me today, so I can't link them)
Click to expand...

This is probably one of the best options.

I don't think a war over the whole Oregon is that difficult to achieve. As mentioned above even rumors could make Anglo-American relations go bad. ue to difficult communications people in Oregon could think that war over the issue has already started back east and then provoke a war themselves or vice versa; rumors of skirmishes or a massacre reach Washington Montreal and later London, and they start a war over nothing.

Another version could involve Mexico.

At this point Britain was hoping for an independent Texas, and eyeing California. In Mexico President Herrera was actually trying to get the Brits to help with Texas in exchange for a lease over California.
Lets say Paredes never deposes Herrera over the issue, thus Mexico doesn't declare war, and holds the troops south of the Rio Grande (Paredes failed at both). The Polk administration begins to get impatient in trying to find a window of opportunity to declare war against Mexico. At the same time since Herrera didn't kick out the American and British envoys talks continue in trying to settle the matter peacefully. Stubbornness from all three parties (Mexico and America in particular) make this impossible. Word reaches all respective capitals that Fremont and his men had reached California and (unlike IOTL) they actually engaged against Castro and his men believing the war had already started.
You get a Mexican American war with Britain involved believing that the US will not only stop at California but continue into claiming all Oregon. This is not really a war over Oregon but I think it still applies.

(You could also have Fremont going up north into Oregon instead and getting into trouble with the Hudson Bay Company)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top