> If the "54 - 40 or Fight" faction had won at the polls, there >wouldn't be an Alaskan panhandle. It would be the Alaskan Corridor >connecting the Lower 49 with Alaska. That is assuming the US had won that war. Against Britain and Mexico at the same time? Seems unlikely to me. I'd rather say they lose, with bitter consequences. No gold rush in California, bleeding Kansas much worse with all those refugees from Texas, Deseret and California, and no chance of ever getting to the Pacific coast for decades to come. That would be the end of "Manifest Destiny". Will the US ever recover from the shock, or are they marginalized? The Civil War might come several years earlier, with a somewhat better chance for the south. It might not be the south, but the *north* that secedes from the union. Let's see what happens if they try it... 1844: [POD] The elections turn out differently from OTL, placing a 54-40er in the White House and giving the 54-40ers a majority in Congress. 1845: Texas annexed by the USA, as in OTL. 1846: USA-British negotiation on Oregon fail due to US insistance on thze 54-40 line. Outbreak of the Pacific War between the USA and Britain. Mexico joins on British side. Britain and Mexico set up sea blockade against the USA. 1847: US offensive in Oregon bogs down. Rebellion of Anglo-American settlers in California thwarted by Mexican army. British forces raid the northern border of the USA. 1848: Joined British and Mexican forces push down North and South Platte Rivers, breaking US defenses in the west. 1849: Peace Treaty at San Francisco: Texas returns to Mexico, which retains its old boundary. All US territory north of the 42nd parallel and west of the Mississippi River ceded to Britain. 1850: Anglo-American rebellions in Texas, Deseret and California crushed by Mexican army. Refugees pour into the remeining western territories. Congress repeals Missouri Compromise. Bleeding Kansas as in OTL, but much more violent because the area is much more populated. The Civil War starts earlier than in OTL - and perhaps it is the *north* that secedes. Your opinions? >> If the "54 - 40 or Fight" faction had won at the polls, there >>wouldn't be an Alaskan panhandle. It would be the Alaskan Corridor >>connecting the Lower 49 with Alaska. One point--the "54-40 or fight!" faction _did_ win the election. The slogan was concieved pretty much as a ploy to shift the debate away from Texas annexation, which was seen by many in the north as a plot by slaveowners against the liberties of free men. > >That is assuming the US had won that war. Against Britain and Mexico at >the same time? Seems unlikely to me. Thus the contemporary slogan at pretty much the outside of anti-British sentiment--"One War At a Time!" >the end of "Manifest Destiny". Will the US ever recover from the shock, >or are they marginalized? The Civil War might come several years >earlier, with a somewhat better chance for the south. It might not be the >south, but the *north* that secedes from the union. True. In fact, very likely that some of the northeastern states secede. > >Let's see what happens if they try it... > >1844: > >[POD] The elections turn out differently from OTL, placing a 54-40er in the >White House and giving the 54-40ers a majority in Congress. > >1845: > >Texas annexed by the USA, as in OTL. > >1846: > >USA-British negotiation on Oregon fail due to US insistance on thze 54-40 >line. Outbreak of the Pacific War between the USA and Britain. More precisely--Hudson's Bay constabulary and a few ships from India secure the surrender of the American colonists, who have no realistic means of defending themselves. >Mexico joins on British side. Britain and Mexico set up sea blockade >against the USA. I'd break from your timeline here--there was already significant anti-war sentiment in the north in OTL, for instance Thoreau's _Civil Disobedience._ And that was against a foe that was, well, hapless. Now the Slave Power is maneuvering the US into war with Britain as well? InterChronology Quotation Service, from an unidentified Liberty Party pamphlet, 1849. The slave-drivers in Washington clamor for war with Britain, as well as war with Mexico. Why, when Britain has done us no clear injury? Why? Well, history shows that war is the health of the state. [Anachronistic quotation, but apt. Possible chronological leakage.] It is the stresses of war that produce Caesars, that produce Cromwells, that produce Andrew Jacksons, that produce Bonapartes, and only rarely Washingtons. The Slave Power is thrusting the country into a war with the premier naval power on earth, a war caluculated to disrupt our commerce and prosperity. This war will be the pretext for the "suspension" of American liberties, which history indicates will not be easily regained when the danger is passed. ******************* Without doing a bit of research, northern secessionist hotbeds would be New England and northern New York, probably also Michigan and Wisconsin. More care needs to be taken with the strict chronology. This is a good premise, but the timeline you give is pretty deeply flawed. Parts of the north would be likely to secede in this timeline, but during the war with Mexico and Britain, not after. Another strong possibility is a British-instigated and possibly led slave revolt. >1850: > >Anglo-American rebellions in Texas, Deseret and California crushed by Mexican >army. Refugees pour into the remeining western territories. Texas and California maybe - but why Deseret? A very large proportion of the early Mormons were recent British immigrants - many of whom had not yet acquired US citizenship - so many, in fact, that anti-Mormons tried to brand the whole church as a Limey conspiracy to plant a pro-British "fifth column" in the heart of the USA - helicopters had not been invented yet, but one or two black covered wagons may have been sighted! Even those LDS who were American citzens had little cause to love the US government. They had been hounded out of two states, there property stolen, many of them killed - and the Federal gov't hadn't wanted to know. In such circumstances, why would they have rebelled against either Britain or Mexico? Indeed, I would have thought that both those powers would have been courting them for support - especially as the Mormons seem to have got on better with the Indians than most white settlers did. >That is assuming the US had won that war. Against Britain and Mexico at >the same time? Seems unlikely to me. I'd rather say they lose, with >bitter consequences. No gold rush in California, bleeding Kansas much worse >with all those refugees from Texas, Deseret and California, and no chance >of ever getting to the Pacific coast for decades to come. That would be >the end of "Manifest Destiny". Will the US ever recover from the shock, >or are they marginalized? The Civil War might come several years >earlier, with a somewhat better chance for the south. It might not be the >south, but the *north* that secedes from the union. I agree with all of your above responses, and am not sure what the previous postor meant by an "Alaskan Corridor"; what is now British Columbia is a lot larger than a "corridor", and is comparable in size to WA, OR, ID, and MT combined. > >Let's see what happens if they try it... > >1844: > >[POD] The elections turn out differently from OTL, placing a 54-40er in the >White House and giving the 54-40ers a majority in Congress. > >1845: > >Texas annexed by the USA, as in OTL. > >1846: > >USA-British negotiation on Oregon fail due to US insistance on thze 54-40 >line. Outbreak of the Pacific War between the USA and Britain. >Mexico joins on British side. Britain and Mexico set up sea blockade >against the USA. A strongly anti-British 54-40 government in the US could probably have caused the elections in Britain to turn out differently, with Aberdeen not becoming foreign minister in 1846 (he acquiesced to the last-ditch 49th Parallel offer that his predecessor had meant to reject). Even if he had been foreign minister, the 54-40 faction in the States would have themselves rejected the last-ditch 49th Parallel boundary compromise and have insisted on war, which Aberdeen would have been unable to resist if the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island had been attacked. I should point out here that any effort to move the American boundary up to the 54-40 line on the Coast means that effective control of the Coast would have to be established, necessarily implying an attempt to end to the Royal Navy's tenure at Victoria-Esquimalt. Therefore an attack on this base, and the coaling station at Fort Rupert (on northern Vancouver Island; not today's Prince Rupert) would have had to be part of any American strategy, much moreso than any overland campaign to the Skeena River via the Interior. > >1847: > >US offensive in Oregon bogs down. >Rebellion of Anglo-American settlers in California thwarted by Mexican army. >British forces raid the northern border of the USA. The main reason for the US offensive to bog down in "Oregon" (including what is now British Columbia, which is the term that was in use by Americans for the whole region) is resistance by the still-populous Indians of the Interior and Coast. Although there had been a major round of smallpox in the early 1840s, especially in the Interior, the tribes of the Coast and Interior were well-armed as a result of half a century of trading with the British, Americans, and Russians - and the British would have seen to it that they were well-supplied as allies against US aggression, both from the sea and overland from the Prairies. Also, I think any US attack on the Royal Navy base at Esquimalt would have been a complete debacle; there were no American navy ships anywhere near the area at the time and the British could have bolstered their fleet locally, as well as enlisted and drilled the canoe fleets of the Straits Salish, Kwakiutl and Nootka. Any rowboat-based attacks by American volunteers would have been utterly destroyed and, er, eaten ... As for British forces raiding the northern border of the USA, I gather you mean from the Canadian end of things. There were no British land forces to speak of in the Northwest; Victoria (Fort Douglas) had a regiment or two of West Indian police/militia, but none of the HBC installations (Forts Nisqually, Puyallup, Langley, and Vancouver) had much beyond a couple of guardsmen and nominal arsenals. As for the Canadas, there were three times the number of British troops in Canada than the US had in standing army because of the ongoing occupation of Canada in the aftermath of the rebellions of 1837-8. Rather than British raids on the border, it is more likely to have been a rout of American forces and a probable loss of territory in the Great Lakes-New England region. Military activity in the Pacific Northwest is more likely to have been naval in character, especially after the crushing of the American rebels in California and the securing of San Francisco and Astoria as bases for the British fleet. > >1848: > >Joined British and Mexican forces push down North and South Platte Rivers, >breaking US defenses in the west. Again, I don't think that British land forces from the Northwest will have amounted to much, and it's a _long_ way from the Columbia to the Platte. Perhaps British-armed Metis and Plains tribesmen joining forces with Mexican troops in the Colorado region....... > >1849: > >Peace Treaty at San Francisco: >Texas returns to Mexico, which retains its old boundary. All US territory >north of the 42nd parallel and west of the Mississippi River ceded to >Britain. West of the Great Lakes; I see no reason why Wisconsin and Minnesota would have remained American in the context of such a defeat. The loss of Michigan and IN, IL, and OH should also be considered as possibilities. > >1850: > >Anglo-American rebellions in Texas, Deseret and California crushed by Mexican >army. Refugees pour into the remeining western territories. Deseret is likely to have survived as a Mormon Republic under British-Mexican patronage, rather than having been a rebel region at all. I think the most interesting outcome of all this is the connection between the Mexican Republic and the British Crown, in that Mexico would have owed the survival of its domination of southwestern North America to their alliance with the British ... throws a kibosh into eventual French meddling in Mexico, as well as a final and fatal end to the Monroe Doctrine. Which "remaining Western territories" were you thinking of? Oh - Kansas, etc. What about the survival of Oklahama as "Indian Territory"? Never mind, it was plain rubbish about panhandles and mini-states anyway, and the term might have been inspired by the silly "Canadian Corridor" thread portraying Roosevelt as a mirror-image of Hitler in a CSA victorious timeline. >> >>Let's see what happens if they try it... >> >>1844: >> >>[POD] The elections turn out differently from OTL, placing a 54-40er in the >>White House and giving the 54-40ers a majority in Congress. >> >>1845: >> >>Texas annexed by the USA, as in OTL. >> >>1846: >> >>USA-British negotiation on Oregon fail due to US insistance on thze 54-40 >>line. Outbreak of the Pacific War between the USA and Britain. >>Mexico joins on British side. Britain and Mexico set up sea blockade >>against the USA. > >A strongly anti-British 54-40 government in the US could probably have >caused the elections in Britain to turn out differently, with Aberdeen >not becoming foreign minister in 1846 (he acquiesced to the last-ditch >49th Parallel offer that his predecessor had meant to reject). You mean, causing Britain to be adamant on taking the whole lot as well? > Even >if he had been foreign minister, the 54-40 faction in the States would >have themselves rejected the last-ditch 49th Parallel boundary >compromise and have insisted on war, which Aberdeen would have been >unable to resist if the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island had been >attacked. Certainly. If the US insist on taking it all, by force if necessary, then it means war - no matter if Britain offers the 49th or not. > I should point out here that any effort to move the >American boundary up to the 54-40 line on the Coast means that >effective control of the Coast would have to be established, >necessarily implying an attempt to end to the Royal Navy's tenure at >Victoria-Esquimalt. Therefore an attack on this base, and the coaling >station at Fort Rupert (on northern Vancouver Island; not today's >Prince Rupert) would have had to be part of any American strategy, >much moreso than any overland campaign to the Skeena River via the >Interior. Yes. Anyway, taking the area from Britain by force would have been next to impossible, I think. And the fact that Mexico would have taken the chance to fall into the flank of the US wouldn't have made the job any easier. >> >>1847: >> >>US offensive in Oregon bogs down. >>Rebellion of Anglo-American settlers in California thwarted by Mexican army. >>British forces raid the northern border of the USA. > >The main reason for the US offensive to bog down in "Oregon" >(including what is now British Columbia, which is the term that was in >use by Americans for the whole region) is resistance by the >still-populous Indians of the Interior and Coast. Ah yes, I was a complete loss about them. Makes it even harder to the US. >Although there had >been a major round of smallpox in the early 1840s, especially in the >Interior, the tribes of the Coast and Interior were well-armed as a >result of half a century of trading with the British, Americans, and >Russians - and the British would have seen to it that they were >well-supplied as allies against US aggression, both from the sea and >overland from the Prairies. Oh yes, the Russians, another possible British ally I forgot about! >Also, I think any US attack on the Royal Navy base at Esquimalt would >have been a complete debacle; there were no American navy ships >anywhere near the area at the time and the British could have >bolstered their fleet locally, as well as enlisted and drilled the >canoe fleets of the Straits Salish, Kwakiutl and Nootka. Any >rowboat-based attacks by American volunteers would have been utterly >destroyed and, er, eaten......... Beyond all doubt! >As for British forces raiding the northern border of the USA, I gather >you mean from the Canadian end of things. Exactly that. British forces in Canada. > There were no British land >forces to speak of in the Northwest; Victoria (Fort Douglas) had a >regiment or two of West Indian police/militia, but none of the HBC >installations (Forts Nisqually, Puyallup, Langley, and Vancouver) had >much beyond a couple of guardsmen and nominal arsenals. As for the >Canadas, there were three times the number of British troops in Canada >than the US had in standing army because of the ongoing occupation of >Canada in the aftermath of the rebellions of 1837-8. Rather than >British raids on the border, it is more likely to have been a rout of >American forces and a probable loss of territory in the Great >Lakes-New England region. So they not only raid the border, but push deep into the US up to the Ohio and perhaps beyond, and sack New York and Washington DC. >Military activity in the Pacific Northwest is more likely to have been >naval in character, especially after the crushing of the American >rebels in California and the securing of San Francisco and Astoria as >bases for the British fleet. Mexico would have granted access, I think. With Britain having open access to the Mexican ports, and the US having nothing than perhaps a handfull of canoes filled with filibusters, things look bad for the US. >> >>1848: >> >>Joined British and Mexican forces push down North and South Platte Rivers, >>breaking US defenses in the west. > >Again, I don't think that British land forces from the Northwest will >have amounted to much, and it's a _long_ way from the Columbia to the >Platte. Perhaps British-armed Metis and Plains tribesmen joining >forces with Mexican troops in the Colorado region....... This way or the other, the US face hard times in the Rockys. And if Britain and Mexico don't achieve anything substantial in the West, there are still the massive British forces pouring in from Canada. Conclusion: whatever I might have had wrong on the way the war went on, it seems pretty certain the USA would have lost it. >> >>1849: >> >>Peace Treaty at San Francisco: >>Texas returns to Mexico, which retains its old boundary. All US territory >>north of the 42nd parallel and west of the Mississippi River ceded to >>Britain. > >West of the Great Lakes; I see no reason why Wisconsin and Minnesota >would have remained American in the context of such a defeat. The >loss of Michigan and IN, IL, and OH should also be considered as >possibilities. Possible, I simply have underestimated the strength of British forces in Canada, see above. I am a complete loss on North American military history in the 19th century, but considering that Britain was the time's strongest force and the Mexico war wasn't easy on the US in OTL, the outcome seems obvious even to me. >> >>1850: >> >>Anglo-American rebellions in Texas, Deseret and California crushed by Mexican >>army. Refugees pour into the remeining western territories. > >Deseret is likely to have survived as a Mormon Republic under >British-Mexican patronage, rather than having been a rebel region at >all. Yes, other posters have also stated that the Mormons wouldn't have rebelled. But Texas and perhaps California would. > I think the most interesting outcome of all this is the >connection between the Mexican Republic and the British Crown, in that >Mexico would have owed the survival of its domination of southwestern >North America to their alliance with the British.......throws a kibosh >into eventual French meddling in Mexico, as well as a final and fatal >end to the Monroe Doctrine. Absolutely. I haven't really considered the consequences yet. The Monroe Doctrine is quit, the US deeply humiliated, Mexico consolidated, and no Emperor Maximilian. This of course changes the history of both US and Mexico fundamentally. The gold rush in California happens, but this time it's Mexican and perhaps British prospectors. Kansas, filled with both slave-owning refugees from Texas and anti-slavery refugees from California, bleeds even heftier. If Britain slices off the Northwest Ordinance lands (IL, IN, OH, MI, WI) and perhaps New England, the remaining USA have a solid slave state majority. If a secession happens, it is the north (or rather what is left over from the north) that secedes - and possibly requests British protection. We than have a mostly agrarian, slave-keeping rump USA (amounting to the south and border states minus Texas) cornered between a *huge*, probably self-governing British Canada extending to the Ohio river and the Mason-Dixon line, and a large, prospering (California gold and Texas beef!) Mexico allied with Britain. Changes a lot. >Which "remaining Western territories" were you thinking of? Oh - >Kansas, etc. Yes. > What about the survival of Oklahama as "Indian >Territory"? The panhandle goes back to Mexico, the rest stays US. But it is quite likely that it is opened for settlers soon. The refugees from Texas, California and the territories lost to Britain will want to go somewhere. Well, I know that the prime reason the US won so decisivly against Mexico is because they were using rifles and the Mexicans were not. A lot of people often forget that the US was not expected to win that war. Most of Europe expected the US to loose. But with the Rifles they were able to go through the Mexican armies in one of the most spectacular military achivements in history (I really think it rates up their with the German campaign of 1940). The question is rather they'd have the same advantage over the British. Does anyone know the state of the British Army at the time? Joerg Rhiemeier (y0009071@ws.rz.tu-bs.de) wrote: : That is assuming the US had won that war. Against Britain and Mexico at : the same time? Seems unlikely to me. >Well, I know that the prime reason the US won so decisivly against Mexico >is because they were using rifles and the Mexicans were not. A lot of >people often forget that the US was not expected to win that war. Most of >Europe expected the US to loose. But with the Rifles they were able to go >through the Mexican armies in one of the most spectacular military >achivements in history (I really think it rates up their with the German >campaign of 1940). The question is rather they'd have the same advantage >over the British. >Does anyone know the state of the British Army at the time? >Mike Ralls >I wish I might live fifty years longer; I believe I should see the thrones >of Europe selling at auction for old iron. I believe I should >really see the end of what is surely the grotesquest of all the swindles >ever invented by man- monarchy. >- Mark Twain's letter to Sylvester Baxter of Boston Herald, 1889 Well, I would imagine it was not too different from how it was at the time of the Crimea, a few years later. On that basis, I should say it might have run into trouble if it had tried to take the offensive and advance into the US interior. However, in a mainly defensive war, where bulldog tenacity was the main requirement, I should imagine it would have done well enough. One small point. The Duke of Wellington was still alive and reasonably fit in 1846-8. If he took charge, British leadership would be much more competent than in the Crimea. Mike Stone _Peterborough England