American Victory in Oregon War

[Norman]

Since the recent postings of related to the 54-40 American British Conflict scenario, I have been bothered by the assumption that Britain would win, and have been doing some research and have constructed what I consider a more likely scenario. The US wins, and it doesn’t even have to invade Canada.

In a nutshell, I think that if the US had stood firm, Great Britain probably would have given in to American demands. The reason I think this is not because the US would beat Great Britain on the battle field, but rather the more ‘delicate’ nature of Great Britain relationships with the rest of the world.

The US would win for one reason – cotton. In 1848, there were still no viable alternatives to American cotton, and GB relied on cotton more than just about any other import. This factor alone would have caused the war to be won by the Americans. Consider the followingâ€

First, there were huge crop failures throughout Europe related to potato blight, not just in Ireland. In Ireland’s case, millions were immigrating to the US, but this migration was also paralleled by massive movements of continental Europeans, particularly the Germans, for the same reason.

Second, remember the European political environment of 1848. All over Europe there were uprisings pushing for greater rights. In OTL, Great Britain avoided this because it had been slowly addressing many of the concerns of its growing middle class, and as a result, the political movements of the continent never got traction in England. The movement was caused as much by worker unhappiness as anything else.

Third, ask what is going to make workers unhappy in a pre-welfare state environment? The answer is obvious, not being able to feed oneself because one isn’t working will probably make people unhappy.

Now let’s think about what is likely to happen in a war between the US and GB. Exports of Cotton from the US are immediately stop. As a result, mill owners are going to fire hundreds of thousands, and Great Britain’s economy crashes immediately. Why would this happen? Unfortunately because there are no good alternative sources of cotton, and in 1846 44.2% of exports from GB were cotton textiles. In Lancashire alone in 1851, some 359,000 people were involved in the manufacture of cotton textiles. I can only surmise that the numbers throughout GB were in the millions.

These millions of people (in this capitalistic paradise) lose their jobs literally overnight, and unless GB can win the war quickly, it will experience massive civil unrest. In addition, hundreds of thousands return to their country side places of origin. Great Britain’s army will not be able to leave the country to fight a war in North America, it will be too busy guarding the instruments of state.

Within weeks, hordes of hungry textile and factory workers would be in full revolt, after all, weren’t they doing so elsewhere in Europe? While the British Middle class would mostly stay loyal, the sight of men, women and children starving to death in the streets would be too much. They would demand that the unemployed be fed, that arrangements be made. Where are they going to get food? Europe? Perhaps, but remember that Europe is still caught in a potato famine of its own.

The only good place they can get food is from the US and Canada. If the war lasts longer than six months, the economics of the situation will result in the complete victory of the US forces.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

But this is 1846. Britain still had an independant Texas for cotton.

 

[Norman]

But this is 1846. Britain still had an independant Texas for cotton.

Texas was annexed in March of 1845. (Actually, annexation was approved byt he US on 2-28-1845, but didn't take effect until 12-29-1845).

 

[Sean Swaby]

Since the recent postings of related to the 54-40 American British Conflict scenario, I have been bothered by the assumption that Britain would win, and have been doing some research and have constructed what I consider a more likely scenario. The US wins, and it doesn’t even have to invade Canada.

This is what I cannot understand about some of the posts on this board. They seem more to be about personal feelings than about accepting logical conclusions drawn by persons with good arguments.

The US would win for one reason – cotton. In 1848, there were still no viable alternatives to American cotton, and GB relied on cotton more than just about any other import. This factor alone would have caused the war to be won by the Americans. Consider the followingâ€

First, there were huge crop failures throughout Europe related to potato blight, not just in Ireland. In Ireland’s case, millions were immigrating to the US, but this migration was also paralleled by massive movements of continental Europeans, particularly the Germans, for the same reason.

Second, remember the European political environment of 1848. All over Europe there were uprisings pushing for greater rights. In OTL, Great Britain avoided this because it had been slowly addressing many of the concerns of its growing middle class, and as a result, the political movements of the continent never got traction in England. The movement was caused as much by worker unhappiness as anything else.

Third, ask what is going to make workers unhappy in a pre-welfare state environment? The answer is obvious, not being able to feed oneself because one isn’t working will probably make people unhappy.

Now let’s think about what is likely to happen in a war between the US and GB. Exports of Cotton from the US are immediately stop. As a result, mill owners are going to fire hundreds of thousands, and Great Britain’s economy crashes immediately. Why would this happen? Unfortunately because there are no good alternative sources of cotton, and in 1846 44.2% of exports from GB were cotton textiles. In Lancashire alone in 1851, some 359,000 people were involved in the manufacture of cotton textiles. I can only surmise that the numbers throughout GB were in the millions.

These millions of people (in this capitalistic paradise) lose their jobs literally overnight, and unless GB can win the war quickly, it will experience massive civil unrest. In addition, hundreds of thousands return to their country side places of origin. Great Britain’s army will not be able to leave the country to fight a war in North America, it will be too busy guarding the instruments of state.

Within weeks, hordes of hungry textile and factory workers would be in full revolt, after all, weren’t they doing so elsewhere in Europe? While the British Middle class would mostly stay loyal, the sight of men, women and children starving to death in the streets would be too much. They would demand that the unemployed be fed, that arrangements be made. Where are they going to get food? Europe? Perhaps, but remember that Europe is still caught in a potato famine of its own.

The only good place they can get food is from the US and Canada. If the war lasts longer than six months, the economics of the situation will result in the complete victory of the US forces.

My first question to this is, what is the deal with 1848? And what is this reasoning about "no viable alternatives" to US cotton? Cotton could also be grown in Central Asia (which was one of the myriad of reasons for the Russians going there), cotton is grown here in the West Indies and has been since before Colombus (which has its own strain)...in fact, if I remember correctly Colombus was rather impressed with the cotton grown and woven by the native Arawaks/Tainos. Cotton can be grown in Egypt, and didn't Egypt's cotton industry start as a result of the US Civil War, when US cotton was similarly cut off from the rest of world? Now 1861 is only 13 years after 1848 (2 decades had not even passed) and yet there was no revolution or unrest, and I don't recall there being an instanteous loss of millions of jobs. Egypt could just as easily begin planting cotton to sell to the UK for hard cash.

Second, why would exports of cotton immediately stop? In a capitalist country the government may make laws governing trade, but you will still have those in the south who will want to sell their cotton and they could easily sell it to Britain using ships under a neutral flag or maybe by selling through a third country such as the Spanish Caribbean colonies. That is called smuggling. If the UK begins buying cotton from countries that had already purchased US cotton, then those countries (or more specifically their merchants) will see how they can make some good money, by buying more US cotton that usual and then selling the excess to the UK and of course the UK would be willing to pay their price since it could afford to (it was THE major industrial, economic and military power in the early 1800s after all). The US govt. may issue a ban on selling cotton to the UK, but it cannot turn trade on and off like a tap (which is the assumption that your statement about an immediate cessation of cotton sales to the UK rests upon). Not even authoritarian or communist countries on their best days could stop smuggling, because it is not openly done. Also, wouldn't the southern cotton growers also be out of a job if suddenly their largest customer has been cut off from them? By your examples, there should be hostile sentiment in the south, if not revolt.

What does crop failures in Europe have to do with any of this? And what is this about starvation? There were Potato failures due to a disease, does that mean corn/wheat couldn't be obtained from Canada (and you said the US wouldn't even have to invade Canada, therefore Canada can still clearly give food)? And just whatever happened to the rest of the world? Did the UK only get foodstuff only from the USA and Canada? what about India? and local farms producing dairy stuff and beef, pork, chicken, beans, etc.? Didn't Britain also give (even minimal) food aid to Ireland during its famine, which shows it must have at least had enough to give Ireland a paltry amount of food.
Also, you overlook the fact that the reason for Ireland's horrendous situation was that in Ireland potato was almost the SOLE staple of the average man's diet. This was not so in the rest of Europe, which is why we only hear of the Irish Potato Famine. The rest of Europe had a potato blight, which could lead to famine situations if conditions were like Ireland's, but did not because people on the continent ate foodstuff other than potatoes.

Now I am not saying the US cannot win. Of course it can. It has a chance, just as the UK has a chance. Just as how the Nazis had a chance to win WWII and how the Central Powers had a chance to win WWI. Just as how the Allies had chances to win WWI and WWII. Who had a greater chance of winning a war over Oregon? Well we shall never know for certain, but if persons can come up with pretty good arguments (and more arguments) as to why the UK should win, then maybe the UK had a greater or just slighter greater chance to win. Similarly if persons can come up with better arguments as to why the US should win, then perhaps the US did have a better chance.

 

[Norman]

It's not so much that I have any personal feelings, what I do believe is that there is a tendancy to think that big guns will win every conflict. I sometimes like to point out that it isn't always big guns that win, otherwise the US would never have won its War of Independnece, nor have lost the Vietnam war.

Now, as for cotton. No there weren't any viable options in 1846-48, it took the American Civil War to put the Egyptian cotton industry on its feet, the west indies just don't have the land, and India is still in play. Where are they going to get the quantities they need to keep all these people employed?

Famine and potato blight have everything to do with Great Britain's ability to fight a war. If the people at home have no food, then they will resist the government. What could an unhappy populace, even if it is working class do in Great Britain? Remember, at one point of the Napoleonic Wars GB had more of its army watching the Luddites than were fighting Napoleon.

Let them get the food from Canada? If this is 1846, it was only 6 years before that Canada was unified because of large parts of the population (english and french) revolted. (1836) If there is even a thought that they can use the conflict with the US to do this again, they will.

The disparity of power isn't the same as between the Nazis and the allies, or even the Union and the Confederacy, populations are near equal, and both have significant manufacturing capacity.

Woody Allen once said that "90% of success is showing up on time." and NB Forrest sated that the art of war is getting there 'the fustest with the mostest.'

In this case I think that the US has all the non-big gun advantages, and it would win.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

Yeah, apparently I'm an idiot about the Texas thing. Damnit....

 

[Norman]

Yeah, apparently I'm an idiot about the Texas thing. Damnit....

No - I had to look twice too. Despite how it looks, it was only luck that I was right.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

I agree with you Norman. I dont even see this hypothetical war being worthwhile for the crown, british people, or british trade interests. It might have happened as a kind of abortive set of skirmishes, but cooler heads would have prevailed.

 

[Norman]

I agree with you Norman. I dont even see this hypothetical war being worthwhile for the crown, british people, or british trade interests. It might have happened as a kind of abortive set of skirmishes, but cooler heads would have prevailed.

I agree, GB had too much to lose for so little gain. As a matter of fact, isn't that exactly what happened?

 

[Sean Swaby]

It's not so much that I have any personal feelings, what I do believe is that there is a tendancy to think that big guns will win every conflict. I sometimes like to point out that it isn't always big guns that win, otherwise the US would never have won its War of Independnece, nor have lost the Vietnam war.

Well, I agree with that.

Now, as for cotton. No there weren't any viable options in 1846-48, it took the American Civil War to put the Egyptian cotton industry on its feet, the west indies just don't have the land, and India is still in play. Where are they going to get the quantities they need to keep all these people employed?

Now why would a war which would in theory cut off American cotton from the world's theoretically largest consumer of it not put the Egyptian cotton industry on its feet? Isn't that what we both agreed happened in the American Civil War? It is true the West Indies don't have much land, but if you add the West Indies, India (+ other parts of the world where cotton can be grown such as China) and Egypt then surely the UK could make up for the theoretical loss of cotton. And what do you mean by India is still in the play? Remember only 10 years later EIC control would become direct crown control, and by then most of India was either directly ruled by the EIC or closely allied to it.
And also whatever happened to India's cotton industry being wiped out by the British Industrial Revolution and the UK's colonization of India? Before India's cotton industry was dismantled, the British used to import processed and woven cotton fabric from India, not the Americas.

And you still have not addressed the issue of smuggling, which would happen. Nor have you addressed the point that the south would lose money and jobs as well.

Famine and potato blight have everything to do with Great Britain's ability to fight a war. If the people at home have no food, then they will resist the government. What could an unhappy populace, even if it is working class do in Great Britain? Remember, at one point of the Napoleonic Wars GB had more of its army watching the Luddites than were fighting Napoleon.

You must have hardly read my post. I refuted all of this long ago. The Famine in Ireland was cause by the Potato Blight (Phytophthora infestans). True. Potatoes all over Europe became large piles of worthless, soggy, crap. True. People in Ireland depended heavily on the Potato. True. People on the rest of the Continet did not. True. Hence we only hear of Famine in Ireland. I would like you to name a couple other places where people were starving in in Europe due to the Blight (and not just a couple of villages, but whole areas). And why do seem to assume that Potato Blight= no food? There are hundreds of different varieties and species of crop plants and a lot of them can be eaten and many have diseases only specific to them. So to say that the people at home have no food is an incorrect assumption.
Please read the following website if you don't believe me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine


The example of the Napoleanic Wars has nothing to do with this, since I seem to have found where you extracted that bit about the Luddites. The Luddites were protesting the changes that produced the Industrial Revolution and which seemed to threaten their jobs. From the Wikipedia article I have seen no reference to starvation or hungry bellies being the catalyst. So I don't see how this dropped into the argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites

Let them get the food from Canada? If this is 1846, it was only 6 years before that Canada was unified because of large parts of the population (english and french) revolted. (1836) If there is even a thought that they can use the conflict with the US to do this again, they will.

What happened here? Firstly, during the Potato Blight, Ireland did get some food from Canada. Second, is that one of your dates is off. I remember and see in my history books and on Wikipedia(even my High School one, "Peoples, Revolutions and Nations" by Derek Wilson, which presents things in a rather simpler tone) that rebellion happened in Upper and Lower Canada in 1837 and 1838. Next there came someone by the title of Lord Durham who made a report in 1839/40 to the effect that the Canadas should be united and the rebels' grievances of a responsible government (in essence a large degree of self-government) be granted. Having had some of the issues addressed (and considering that some of the rebels were arrested by the US), then sure the more radical of the rebels who wished to set up a Republic of Canada would try some hanky-panky, but those who only wanted responsible, proper government would of course not be pleased at the prospect of US invasion and would be pro-British. Also considering that the republican rebels hardly came close to successfully expelling the British and didn't exactly garner support from the majority of the population of British North America and that they were rather quickly defeated, why should they be a problem.
Also, how do you overcome the problem that the main rebel leader for the republican rebels was arrested by the US and other top republican rebels were arrested (and even executed or died in prison) (and the population didn't seem to much care about that did they? Otherwise they would have become like Ireland in 1916).

The disparity of power isn't the same as between the Nazis and the allies, or even the Union and the Confederacy, populations are near equal, and both have significant manufacturing capacity.

[sigh]. You misread the point. I was talking about chance. Now please quote the populations of the USA at the time and the populations of the UK and British North America (for you would have to include it). Also please post for me, if you can the number of soldiers that the USA could raise, and the number of soldiers that the UK had and that British North America had and could raise as well as the number of soldiers in the British West Indies (from which the British could draw even a few reinforcements). Please be sure to separate the slave population from the US population. I am sure you will find that whilst the UK proper and US had almost the same population, when you throw in British North America (not just Canada) plus maybe the West Indies, you get the British having a few more millions on their side. Oh and quote sources.

Woody Allen once said that "90% of success is showing up on time." and NB Forrest sated that the art of war is getting there 'the fustest with the mostest.'

In this case I think that the US has all the non-big gun advantages, and it would win.

Hmm...a mediocre film and a southerner who owned a plantation, fought for the South as oneof its best cavalry officers and innovative generals and then became the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan. No need to reply to that, since it hardly proves anything. I am not saying the US couldn't win, but that you need to present convincing arguments based heavily on fact. Throwing in pretty quotes doesn't really matter. We could throw around quotes and proverbs all day without touching any facts, such as the fact that hardly ayone except the Irish were starving in the years 1846-1849 due to Potato Blight, that the US was not the only place capable of producing cotton (and cotton didn't even originate in the US South) and before the USA there were still a number of places that produced cotton and cotton fabric and that smuggling would occur.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The biggest problem Britian would have is in fighting an industrial power (admitedly with a smaller GDP) that has a larger population and is on its home turf. If the fight was in Brazil,for example, GB would win hands down. but the 3,000 mile distance from the Eastern Seaboard and quite a few thousand miles from its most eastern colony to the US Western Seaboard makes it damn expensive. If Britian is forced to invade it gets even worse, in fact I think GB would lose a great many troops before it would be forced to pull out. Even in 1848 the US can probably face off almost any out and out invasion.

 

[Norman]

Sean-
I can't do a point by point refutation of your points, but I would like to discuss a couple of the finer ones.
Let's discuss cotton first. My point isn't so much that cotton can't be obtained elsewhere, only that an economy the size of GB's, even in the 1846-48 time period, doesn't turn on a dime. It will take some time for the textile producers of England to actually set up these new areas for cotton production. I point to the civil war because it indicates the rough time period required, two to three years.

Also, with respect to the use of India a source of cotton, this was one of the problems India was having, textiles were cheaper from England than they could produce, throwing millions out of work in India. The result of this was a collapse of the Indian production of textiles.

Now with respect to the famine.
The Irish Potato famine represented the worst extreme of a wide spread problem, as is pointed out in the internet article below:

In 1845, most of Western Europe was hit by Phytopbtbora infestans. Combined with a poor grain harvest in many parts of Europe, the failure of the potato added to a pattern of agrarian stresswhich would be a major factor in the riots, rebellions and revolutions that swept across Europe in 1848.
However, events in Ireland differed dramatically from developments elsewhere, where, at least, widespread starvation was generally fore- stalled. In the Swiss canton of Bern, for example, when a food riot broke out in October 1846, the reaction of the cantonal government was to acquire food grains from abroad to prevent wholesale food shortages (Pfister 1990: 283). The contrast between this response and England's reaction to pending famine in Ireland was due to the fact that Bern was in command of its own affairs, while Ireland's fate depended on the interests of a colonial power. Indeed, many of the leading figures in the British cabinet at the time - including Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Clarendon, President of the Board of Trade and Lord Ueutenant of Ireland - were absentee Anglo-Irish landlords (Ridley 1970: 2-4, 321; Ptest 1972: 237; Stephen and Lee 1921-22, Vol. 20: 347-50). And if they were not, their families often were: the Duke of Bedford, the brother of the prime minister, Lord John Russell, also owned substantial estates in Ireland (Prest 1972: 238).

This famine clearly brackets the time we are discussing, and supports my contention that England really didn't have a lot of other sources of food, other than Canada. If English textile workers are thrown out of work, where will they get their food.

I suppose they could further starve the Irish, but you can't get blood from a stone, but the industrialists would have to respond, or GB would be hit with the same problems as the rest of Europe.

But they can't go to the rest of Europe as is suggested by the excerpt below.:

In Germany
The Role of German Nationalism and the Industrial Revolution in 1848
The peasant uprisings in Germany in 1848 were the result of massive famine and economic collapse that started in 1846. The sheer force of these rebellions was enough to make most German scholars believe that a revolution was in the making for Germany.

You are correct in pointing out that there is still Canada. But the scenario of a war between the US and GB also suggests that East Canada would be attackled by the US and might have some problems here, particularly if the revolts of 1836 reignite.

All in all, I think that GB and the US knew that this was a war neither side would win, and struck the compromise because of it. If they are dragged into a war, they will find a solution ASAP, one that will involve a different compromise, so that neither side appears to lose.

 

[Sean Swaby]

Let's discuss cotton first. My point isn't so much that cotton can't be obtained elsewhere, only that an economy the size of GB's, even in the 1846-48 time period, doesn't turn on a dime. It will take some time for the textile producers of England to actually set up these new areas for cotton production. I point to the civil war because it indicates the rough time period required, two to three years.

But up to now you still have yet to explain how the US is going to turn off the cotton trade on the turn of a dime, and how it is that Britain did not face the same situation you posited for this TL, but in 1861 instead. You point to the civil war for the time period required, but when did the Union start blockading the South? And were there not blockade runners? And in this TL will the USA blockade itself to prevent cotton from being sold? And even during the US Civil War, if it required 2-3 years for the UK to start to move to other sources of cotton, then what happened inbetween? The UK did not collapse industrially, now did it?

Also, with respect to the use of India a source of cotton, this was one of the problems India was having, textiles were cheaper from England than they could produce, throwing millions out of work in India. The result of this was a collapse of the Indian production of textiles.

Producing textiles and growing cotton are two different things. After India's textile industry collapsed (with a little help from her colonial master, Britain), then India became a classic colony- sending raw materials (such as cotton) to the mother country and receiving processed goods (such as cotton textiles) from said mother country.

Also what about the fact that the cotton growers are going to lose out big time if the British were so dependent upon American cotton? After all the British did pay for the cotton they got, so if the British don't buy the cotton, the Americans don't get the money and they too will face the difficulties you posit for Britain.

Now with respect to the famine.
The Irish Potato famine represented the worst extreme of a wide spread problem, as is pointed out in the internet article below:

In 1845, most of Western Europe was hit by Phytopbtbora infestans. Combined with a poor grain harvest in many parts of Europe, the failure of the potato added to a pattern of agrarian stresswhich would be a major factor in the riots, rebellions and revolutions that swept across Europe in 1848.
However, events in Ireland differed dramatically from developments elsewhere, where, at least, widespread starvation was generally fore- stalled. In the Swiss canton of Bern, for example, when a food riot broke out in October 1846, the reaction of the cantonal government was to acquire food grains from abroad to prevent wholesale food shortages (Pfister 1990: 283). The contrast between this response and England's reaction to pending famine in Ireland was due to the fact that Bern was in command of its own affairs, while Ireland's fate depended on the interests of a colonial power. Indeed, many of the leading figures in the British cabinet at the time - including Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Clarendon, President of the Board of Trade and Lord Ueutenant of Ireland - were absentee Anglo-Irish landlords (Ridley 1970: 2-4, 321; Ptest 1972: 237; Stephen and Lee 1921-22, Vol. 20: 347-50). And if they were not, their families often were: the Duke of Bedford, the brother of the prime minister, Lord John Russell, also owned substantial estates in Ireland (Prest 1972: 238).

This famine clearly brackets the time we are discussing, and supports my contention that England really didn't have a lot of other sources of food, other than Canada. If English textile workers are thrown out of work, where will they get their food.

With respect to that argument, I am suspicious of that "internet article" since you give me no link to see the site for myself. There is also the fact that if the article was typed by another author and then copied and pasted by you, then the author doesn't run spell-check since Phytophthora is mispelled and there is a word like "stresswhich". I will give it the benefit of the doubt and accept it, but it doesn't support your argument. Crop failure was "a major factor" according to the site, which apparently is an agricultural based one. However, crop failure was never undoubtedly "the major factor" or "the only factor". So for a revolutionary situation to occur in Britain, then not only must crop failures occur, but the other factors which had not been named by the site, must also occur in Britain as they did in Europe. In 1848 there were revolutions as well due to liberal ideals, as much as to crop failures. Consider that Britain itself was more liberal and progressive than some of the places where revolution did occur (for example the Reform Act, 1832).

And nowhere in your quote does it state or even so much as imply that Britain did not really have a lot of other sources of food apart from Canada. All this quote shows is that there was one food riot in Switzerland, but it never shows that people were starving as they were in Ireland, which is what I asked for. In fact your article actually states what I have been saying all along, that "However, events in Ireland differed dramatically from developments elsewhere, where, at least, widespread starvation was generally fore- stalled."
The article says nothing about the heavy dependence on potatoes by the Irish.
The article goes on to mention that Bern acquired food from abroad, which could very well mean it acquired grain from Spain. "Abroad" is never defined to any specific area of the world.
And what of the other areas of Europe? Certainly there were more areas of Europe than just Ireland that "were not in command of their own affairs". What of those areas?

"If English textile workers are thrown out of work, where will they get their food."

This is based on the assumption
1) that all the English textile workers are thrown out of work (which you cannot prove would happen)
2) that any that were laid off could not find other means of gainful employment
3) that the British govt. is actually going to let supposed millions of its citizens (and Protestant ones in Britain to boot, as opposed to the Irish) starve and not set up soup-kitchens and provide imported grain (as it did in Ireland at times, but usually too little too late).
4)that the textile factories will be unable to obtain cotton from India, the West Indies (small amounts as you said) and from the USA via smuggling.

I suppose they could further starve the Irish, but you can't get blood from a stone, but the industrialists would have to respond, or GB would be hit with the same problems as the rest of Europe.

I don't think it works like that, where they could further starve the Irish.

But they can't go to the rest of Europe as is suggested by the excerpt below.:

In Germany
The Role of German Nationalism and the Industrial Revolution in 1848
The peasant uprisings in Germany in 1848 were the result of massive famine and economic collapse that started in 1846. The sheer force of these rebellions was enough to make most German scholars believe that a revolution was in the making for Germany.

Ahh, good! Now we have a quote about starving people elsewhere in Europe, only you don't give a source, and your article specifically mentions nationalism and industry as factors in the revolutions, showing that starvation was not the only deciding factor. Now the quote suggests that Britain could not go to Germany. What of France? what of Russia? what of Austria? and Spain? Germany does not equal Europe. Where are the excerpts and quotes coming from?

You are correct in pointing out that there is still Canada. But the scenario of a war between the US and GB also suggests that East Canada would be attackled by the US and might have some problems here, particularly if the revolts of 1836 reignite.

But the scenario you suggested, stated that the USA did not even have to invade Canada, therefore Canada is not attacked. You said the US would win for one reason- cotton.

All in all, I think that GB and the US knew that this was a war neither side would win, and struck the compromise because of it. If they are dragged into a war, they will find a solution ASAP, one that will involve a different compromise, so that neither side appears to lose.

Now I agree here, even though what you state here contradicts your earlier position that the US would win because of some fibres produced by a plant.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Cotton Supplies

But up to now you still have yet to explain how the US is going to turn off the cotton trade on the turn of a dime, and how it is that Britain did not face the same situation you posited for this TL, but in 1861 instead. You point to the civil war for the time period required, but when did the Union start blockading the South? And were there not blockade runners? And in this TL will the USA blockade itself to prevent cotton from being sold? And even during the US Civil War, if it required 2-3 years for the UK to start to move to other sources of cotton, then what happened inbetween? The UK did not collapse industrially, now did it?

The South produced a surplus of cotton in 1859 and 1860 and England bought it so they could get it before the price went up. By the time they worked through it all they had cotton plantations in India and Eygypt.

 

[Norman]

My Final Word

All of this wasn't done to prove the US would win, only that there were a lot of reasons why it isn't a distant or small possibility that it could win.

I think that I have done what I was trying to do.

 

[Chrispi]

I am of the opinion that both the UK and the US would lose an Oregon War, in the sense that they would be worse off after its resolution than they would be under a negotiated settlement like OTL. IOW, the UK and US may be weakened enough that they would lose a future World War.

 

[Tyr]

Playing Victoria last night America declared war on me in the 1840s. I was playing as Britain.
They started conquering Canada pretty quickly though then my troops mobilised. In the west soldiers from India landed and took over Oregon and the whole area around there.
In the east some troops landed in Washington and took it over, some landed in Florida and started to move north capturing as they went and some landed in Canada/Maine to keep the Americans busy.
At the end of the war I had quite a lot of the western US possesions as offical British colonies and took part of Maine.

In reality Britain would also win, Britain being cut off from cotton? It was available elsewhere, not in the same quantitys but it was around. If bad feelings between the UK and US were rising I'm sure people would buy in a surplus of cotton in case of war. Also in a capitalist world I'm sure some Brits could buy it through a middle man from a neutral nation. Also the loss of the cotton industry would be a major blow to the US, they would have to continue it and the American shipping taking the cotton elsewhere would be captured by the superior British navy which would pretty quickly gain control of the north Atlantic and Carribean.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Playing Victoria last night America declared war on me in the 1840s. I was playing as Britain.
They started conquering Canada pretty quickly though then my troops mobilised. In the west soldiers from India landed and took over Oregon and the whole area around there.
In the east some troops landed in Washington and took it over, some landed in Florida and started to move north capturing as they went and some landed in Canada/Maine to keep the Americans busy.
At the end of the war I had quite a lot of the western US possesions as offical British colonies and took part of Maine.

In reality Britain would also win, Britain being cut off from cotton? It was available elsewhere, not in the same quantitys but it was around. If bad feelings between the UK and US were rising I'm sure people would buy in a surplus of cotton in case of war. Also in a capitalist world I'm sure some Brits could buy it through a middle man from a neutral nation. Also the loss of the cotton industry would be a major blow to the US, they would have to continue it and the American shipping taking the cotton elsewhere would be captured by the superior British navy which would pretty quickly gain control of the north Atlantic and Carribean.

The problem in real life for England was it was extremely expensive for them to have a war with the US. That was why the war never started in real life. It would have cost both countries (but particularly England) more money then Oregon was worth.

 

[Paul Spring]

If the US went to war with Britain, most of the cotton that had been shipped to Britain would go to the factories in the northern US instead. Economically, it would be a blessing to the north and no major setback to the south.

Britain would find alternate sources of cotton but it would take at least a few years to get production elsewhere to the point where cotton was as cheap as it was before.

Of course there would be smuggling, but it probably wouldn't supply more than a small fraction of what Britain had gotten from the US before.

 

[Norman]

Maybe not my last word

The idea of using troops from India to assist in an Oregon War has now been added to the discussion.

This is just not going to happen. If you looks at the 'brainy history" website for 1846

(http://www.brainyhistory.com/years/1846.html)

you will see that the british are engaged in this little thing called the Sikh War. They are just not going to take native troops from India and send them to the Americas to help, the troops are being used a little closer to home.

To be honest, I think that the intersting thing to consider about this 'conflict' is what other compromises are possible? For example, would the US be willing to trade all or part of its growing Hawaiian interests to Great Britain for its Oregon interests? Maybe a British protectorate of the Kingdom.

To me this may make sense. Great Britain would love to have a coaling station in the middle of the Pacific.

Would expansion of GB into the Pacific in a big way have an impact later? For example, What would the effect on the Spanish American War be (assuming it isn't butterflied away.)