I had heard somewhere that before the Mexican American War, Mexico offered to sell California to the British(or it could have been the British offer to buy it from Mexico, I'm not exactly sure). My thought is, what if the British bought Calironia? Would this spark war with the United States?
British California
- Thread starter IchBinDieKaiser
- Start date
Probably, considering how insecure American access to the Pacific is with a Britt California. and the fact that california was one of he major war aims of course.
Also, if this did spark a war, what would the result be? Would Mexico get involved? Would it only be fought in the disputed area, or also be fought in the east?
on a tangential note, according to wiki (so take with a few tonnes of salt) shortly before the Mexican-American war the Minister in Mexico wrote to Palmerston urging him to establish a colony there, so if its true there's another possible POD.
anyway, I'd say that at this point Brittan would totally dominate the Americans in any war. probably the usual "blockade the east coast, ruin economy" plan, with a peace that just recognizes British dominance in California. Also the Monroe Doctrine takes a bit of a hit.
If the U.S. goes for a longer war, then it will probably end up as either some compromise peace of exhaustion when something more important to the Brits comes up, or possible an American cessation of the Oregon territory or part thereof. In that case American access to the Pacific could be gone, which has some interesting effects..
anyway, I'd say that at this point Brittan would totally dominate the Americans in any war. probably the usual "blockade the east coast, ruin economy" plan, with a peace that just recognizes British dominance in California. Also the Monroe Doctrine takes a bit of a hit.
If the U.S. goes for a longer war, then it will probably end up as either some compromise peace of exhaustion when something more important to the Brits comes up, or possible an American cessation of the Oregon territory or part thereof. In that case American access to the Pacific could be gone, which has some interesting effects..
From a long-term perspective that's completely true, but I wonder from what point in time the US considered access to the Pacific a realistic goal.
Alex Richards
Donor
Basically, this is a question of 'How strong is Manifest Destiny at this point.' What we're really trying to figure out is whether America would go to war with Britain over California, when they don't even have Texas yet.
Yes, they did.
It should be pointed out that in the run-up to the Mexican-American War, one of the negotiating offers from Santa Anna was the possibility of Selling modern-day California and east to the US, while settling the Texas border in Mexico's favor.
Any verification for this, as it has the potential of a MAJOR POD.
I would say 1806, when the US first started negotiating with Spain to buy Florida, and Spanish Oregon.
I say this as I remembre reading about it on-line, However I have never been able to Find anything about this afterwards. [I hate not being able to remembre what IGoggled]
Last edited:
NomadicSky
Banned
If the British take California, and the US goes to war over it with and the British will win. The peace settlement could have the Oregon area conceded to the British Empire, which would alter the US so much not to have Pacific access. I like the idea though.
Britain in the 1840's/50's would avoid war with the USA at all costs. Her forces are already overstretched, but most importantly she depends heavily upon food imports from North America. Rapid industrialization has caused mass migration from the countryside into towns and cities, and Britain can no longer feed herself. Also, the British Army is in a poor state during this period. This was shown during the early stages of the Crimean War.
So, in conclusion the British government's priority at this time is to avoid being drawn into a North American conflict. The outcomes of the Oregon Treaty and the 'Pig War' clearly show the British government's attitude at this time.
So, in conclusion the British government's priority at this time is to avoid being drawn into a North American conflict. The outcomes of the Oregon Treaty and the 'Pig War' clearly show the British government's attitude at this time.
The Oregon compromise was prior to this, so technically they already had it.
and yeah, I wonder how long "sea to shining sea" will stick in the American consciousness after getting curb stomped trying to achieve it.
Also, how would the lack of a pacific coastline affect American expansionism? harsher terms for Mexico possibly?
King Henry
If the US fought over California and lost Oregon as a result it would probably markedly delay the settlement of much of the west. That was mainly important as a way of reaching the Pacific coast and of realtively little value. Until the Indians were driven out, new farming techniques developed and access to underground water supplied much of it was known as the Great American desert.
If the US loses such a war heavily it could be some time before it would be in a position to attack Mexico. Depending on timing and circumstances Texas might stay independent. Also with such a defeat and losses in the north a number of internal questions might come up i.e. blame for the defeat, trade and immigration policy, slavery for instance.
Steve
Xenos
Not so. Britain had strong trading interests in the US and a preference for peaceful development but was pretty much at the height of its powers. There were problems with the army at this point but it was only the Crimean war that showed this and the army learnt a lot as a result. Against the US its facing a much weaker opponent who has to build up an army virtually from scratch so it will have plenty of time.
As such it doesn't want a conflict, which might be why it rejected such an offer if made. However if it did buy California and the US attacked as a result the US will get hammered.
Steve
It would be an interesting war to say the least. You probably wouldn't see too much fighting in California itself just because of logistics. The Canadian border and high seas are another story.
The US would likely try and sieze some chunks of Canada as a bargaining chip in any negotiated peace. The Royal Navy's inevitable blockade comes along, though it would be a hard faught conflict as the US Navy was becoming quite respectable in the 30's and 40's.
Even if Britain wins, is it going to stop people from going west? I have my doubts. So they'd just be setting themselves up for another war ten years later more than likely.
The US would likely try and sieze some chunks of Canada as a bargaining chip in any negotiated peace. The Royal Navy's inevitable blockade comes along, though it would be a hard faught conflict as the US Navy was becoming quite respectable in the 30's and 40's.
Even if Britain wins, is it going to stop people from going west? I have my doubts. So they'd just be setting themselves up for another war ten years later more than likely.
New Liverpool?
They'll need to be a significant British presence or British California will end up like Mexican Texas. Perhaps as a concession to the US getting California Britain gets all of Oregon?
New Liverpool?
They'll need to be a significant British presence or British California will end up like Mexican Texas. Perhaps as a concession to the US getting California Britain gets all of Oregon?
Or New Albion, the original name given by Drake to San Francisco Bay when he (debatably) discovered it in (IIRC) 1585.
I would have to say that a California-Oregon trade wouldn't really make sense as a like for like swap, though. California was essentially worth the same as Oregon initially (before the discovery of gold), mile for mile, but California was far more expansive. On top of this, the US had no claim to California (except believing that they had a divine right to the land) whereas Oregon was contested in whole by both the UK and the USA. For Britain, this swap would be giving up a far more sizable territory in order to secure an uncontested claim on a smaller parcel of land which the British claimed in whole anyway - it's not a sensible swap. It would be a bit like, for instance, Henry V after being made heir to France selling his entire stake in France in order for the French to promise not to send troops to interfere in Ireland and Wales, or in 1810-odd, Spain selling Mexico to the USA in order to have a guarantee that Cuba wouldn't be threatened in future. It's selling £100 to keep £10 for yourself. It's not a sensible trade.