Discussion:
WI British North America took Alaska during the Crimean War?
Add Reply
Rob
2017-06-08 01:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
How would this influence Anglo-American relations in the short run, and how would it effect long-term developments in the United States, Canada, and the Pacific region?
Dan
2017-06-08 13:01:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
How would this influence Anglo-American relations in the short run, and how would it effect long-term developments in the United States, Canada, and the Pacific region?
So you are talking about 1853-56, US Army is pretty well organised after defeating Mexico in 1848, the US had been arguing for most of what is now British Columbia as US territory till 1848 when they agreed a compromise at the time of the Mexican American war.

By 1860 of course US has descended into Civil War itself.

Would a US of mid 1850's have supported Russia and used it as an opportunity to attack Canada overall, or would the looming internal issues have distracted the US for long enough that the UK could keep the territory past the Civil War.

If the UK manages to maintain ownership past 1860, it is likly to simply evolve into part of Canada.
Rob
2017-06-10 01:24:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan
Post by Rob
How would this influence Anglo-American relations in the short run, and how would it effect long-term developments in the United States, Canada, and the Pacific region?
So you are talking about 1853-56, US Army is pretty well organised after defeating Mexico in 1848, the US had been arguing for most of what is now British Columbia as US territory till 1848 when they agreed a compromise at the time of the Mexican American war.
By 1860 of course US has descended into Civil War itself.
Would a US of mid 1850's have supported Russia and used it as an opportunity to attack Canada overall, or would the looming internal issues have distracted the US for long enough that the UK could keep the territory past the Civil War.
Well, it could excite anti-British jealously and orneriness, of course the south would be against expansion since it would add to the north. Their objections may be enough to discourage any action by the dough-faced Pierce administration (then again, as a New Hampshire-ite, he would probably *personally* like to see the British driven from the St. Lawrence.
Post by Dan
If the UK manages to maintain ownership past 1860, it is likly to simply evolve into part of Canada.
----shorter version of Don P's response: - "no because reasons"
Don Phillipson
2017-06-08 16:30:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
How would this influence Anglo-American relations in the short run,
and how would it effect long-term developments in the United States,
Canada, and the Pacific region?
The missing ingredients are (1) the calculable benefit to the UK of
acquiring Alaska and (2) its strategic (ir)relevance to the actual
nexus of the Crimean War (viz. competition between Russia and
Ottoman Turkey for control of the Levant.)

Item #1 is characterized by Britain's readiness in 1867 to negotiate
quasi-independence for the Canadian colonies of 1857. This was
when the free-trade "Little Englanders" were hostile to the expansion
of the empire 1750-1850. Parliament was at just that date engaged
with the 1867 Reform Act which enfranchised landless workers. Next
to no MPs bothered to turn up to debate or vote on Canadian self-
government. The Canadians were fully aware of this i.e. suspected
Britain wouod do nothing to resist American "manifest destiny."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
The Horny Goat
2017-06-08 17:44:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:30:50 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Rob
How would this influence Anglo-American relations in the short run,
and how would it effect long-term developments in the United States,
Canada, and the Pacific region?
The missing ingredients are (1) the calculable benefit to the UK of
acquiring Alaska and (2) its strategic (ir)relevance to the actual
nexus of the Crimean War (viz. competition between Russia and
Ottoman Turkey for control of the Levant.)
Item #1 is characterized by Britain's readiness in 1867 to negotiate
quasi-independence for the Canadian colonies of 1857. This was
when the free-trade "Little Englanders" were hostile to the expansion
of the empire 1750-1850. Parliament was at just that date engaged
with the 1867 Reform Act which enfranchised landless workers. Next
to no MPs bothered to turn up to debate or vote on Canadian self-
government. The Canadians were fully aware of this i.e. suspected
Britain wouod do nothing to resist American "manifest destiny."
This of course is THE major reason why Macdonald and Cartier wanted
the union of the British North American colonies done before the end
of the US Civil War. They expected that American expansionism would
resume once 'the southern unpleasantness' ended and clearly in the
case of Alaska it did.

The Canadian Fathers of Confederation felt that as separate colonies
they too might be next on the list.

I really appreciated your Crimean War scenario since it was a new spin
on the devolution of Alaska that we haven't seen before - original WIs
are always most welcome.

I would assume a force smaller than 5000 men would have been required
to seize Alaska during the Crimean war though really wonder how it
would have affected both the Crimean peace treaty on the one hand and
ongoing Anglo-Russian relations on the other.particularlry in 1878
and the events leading up to 1914.

I can't see the Americans reacting strongly as I haven't seen anything
in print suggesting they were even interested in Alaska before the
Civil Warr. Could it have poisoned Anglo-American relations after the
Civil War? Very possibly.

Certainly General Rohmer would have one less novel to write!
Rob
2017-06-10 01:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:

Snip Don P's lecture
snip HG's good points on Canadian history
I really appreciated your Crimean War scenario since it was a new spin
on the devolution of Alaska that we haven't seen before - original WIs
are always most welcome.
Thanks-
I would assume a force smaller than 5000 men would have been required
to seize Alaska during the Crimean war though really wonder how it
would have affected both the Crimean peace treaty on the one hand and
ongoing Anglo-Russian relations on the other.particularlry in 1878
and the events leading up to 1914.
It could well not be important enough in the global scale to effect the war settlement at all, except for Britain getting to keep it.

Russia could *ask* that if they concede Britain the territory can they be compensated by keep what they lost of southern Bessarabia, but that depends on the somewhat unlikely prospect of UK, France, Ottomans, Austria and the Principality of Moldavia all agreeing that's a good deal.

Russia could be bitter about losing Alaska and keep bringing it up, but it would be kind of dumb and they'd be unlikely to make it a point.
I can't see the Americans reacting strongly as I haven't seen anything
in print suggesting they were even interested in Alaska before the
Civil Warr. Could it have poisoned Anglo-American relations after the
Civil War? Very possibly.
Certainly General Rohmer would have one less novel to write!
The Horny Goat
2017-06-10 23:16:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:35:30 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
Post by The Horny Goat
I would assume a force smaller than 5000 men would have been required
to seize Alaska during the Crimean war though really wonder how it
would have affected both the Crimean peace treaty on the one hand and
ongoing Anglo-Russian relations on the other.particularlry in 1878
and the events leading up to 1914.
It could well not be important enough in the global scale to effect the war settlement at all, except for Britain getting to keep it.
Russia could *ask* that if they concede Britain the territory can they be compensated by keep what they lost of southern Bessarabia, but that depends on the somewhat unlikely prospect of UK, France, Ottomans, Austria and the Principality of Moldavia all agreeing that's a good deal.
Russia could be bitter about losing Alaska and keep bringing it up, but it would be kind of dumb and they'd be unlikely to make it a point.
My earlier point was that Anglo-Russian relations really didn't start
improving until the naval restrictions of the Crimean War settlement.
Since from the Crimean War to the removal of the naval restrictions is
the period when the US acquired Alaska I have long felt that the
chance of anybody BUT the US acuiring Alaska given the actual Crimean
War settlement was slim and none.

Thus I was pleased to see someone posing a WI where the US doesn't get
Alaska that was fairly oiriginal. Besides the US and the Russians the
ONLY powers I could see holding Alaska in any scenario would be either
the UK (or Canada depending on whether Canada is independent at the
time Alaska changes ownership) or Japan - and Japan acquiring Alaska
probably means war with the US or Britain or both.

Loading...