A heartbeat away from greatness: a timeline of missed opportunities
- Thread starter yboxman
- Start date
yboxman
Banned
The boundary dispute
This shows what the dispute is all about. Brits want the Eastern boundary which leaves the Haro strait under their full control and Rosario under their influence as well. The American want exactly the opposite (blue line). Green line was an American compromise proposal in 1852 that the Brits then rejected. Note that Victoria is currently the "Capital" of British columbia and that the only way to communicate by sea between Victoria to the British Columbian mainland is overlooked by San Juan Island. Put up a real fort on the island and enough heavy artillery and...
This shows what the dispute is all about. Brits want the Eastern boundary which leaves the Haro strait under their full control and Rosario under their influence as well. The American want exactly the opposite (blue line). Green line was an American compromise proposal in 1852 that the Brits then rejected. Note that Victoria is currently the "Capital" of British columbia and that the only way to communicate by sea between Victoria to the British Columbian mainland is overlooked by San Juan Island. Put up a real fort on the island and enough heavy artillery and...
Last edited:
yboxman
Banned
#31 Four bills and a funeral
November 2nd, 1859, Mount Vernon, Virginia
The provisions of a state funeral was, Buhanan reflected, as he bore the pall of the coffin bearing somewhat decayed carcass of Colonel Lewis Washington, a stroke of genius on his part. He had succeeded in arranging the funeral in such a way so as to have himself, Seward, Crittendan for the "Opposition" and Senator Bell for the "Know nothings" (1) act as the pallbearers for the final stretch of the procession. It would, he considered, be quite difficult, at least for some weeks, for even the most strident of the radical republicans to oppose
November 4th, Washington D.C
"The trouble", Crittendan stressed, "Is with Kansas". Buchanan sighed. He was not unaware of the irony of the situation. He, a northerner who had never owned or sought to own slaves, had sought to rapidly introduce Kansas as a slave state to the union. Crittendan, a slave owner and a southerner, albeit from the border state of Kentucky, had opposed him on procedural grounds (2). It was sign of the times that he could not have either of his rivals, Douglas or Breckinridge (3) manage the preparatory negotiations with Crittendan. Any deal reached by the former would be denounced by the increasingly bellicose southern wing of the party, whereas the antagonism of the southern democrats to "southern traitors" such as Crritendan and Bell would make any negotiations by the latter fruitless.
"What, if I may enquire, does Alaska and the Northwest dispute have to do with Kansas?" he asked peevishly.
Crittendan spread his hands. "Why, nothing and everything." His countenance toughened. "But heed my words Mr President. Until the bleeding sore of Kansas is purified then every step you undertake in congress will be blocked. Slavery has been rejected in Kansas. Accept now the Wyanadote constitution (4) and move on. The bitter feelings associated with that loss were to be expected when the Missouri compromise was revoked and would have been repricocated in the North had our own section prevailed. It is for that reason that I opposed the fiendish popular sovereignaty doctrine. Have we not just seen where that road leads us? The hell of bleeding Kansas has spawned a myriad of fanatical John browns, each of them placing the abolition or defense of slavery above the constitution and the law."
Buchanan grimaced. This was the connondrum he had wished to avoid. "I can't accept the Wyanadote constitution. Not unless I can give my own people something in return".
"I imagine" remarked Crittendan dryly, "that you have some such thing in mind".
"I do. The Mexican loans (5), including the purchase of any outstanding European loans (6). And Cuba (7)".
Crittendan slowly nodded. "I thought as much. I can give you the support you need on this. But on a number of conditions".
"First, you will not have support for warlike acquisition of Cuba. Only peaceful purchase (8).
Second, any acquisition of Baja must be attached to California rather than becoming or being attached to a new state or having separate territorial statues.
Third, the army expansion bill must allocate more West point openings and positions to the Western states (9)
Fourth, the Mexican loans and the Alaska purchase must be linked in the same bill. Likewise the allocation of funds for the Mexican debt purchase and Cuba purchase must be linked to a fund dedicated to the purchase of British Columbia (10)
Fifth, any admission of a state south of the Missouri compromise line must be accompanied by the admission of a new state North of the line (11)"
Buchanan blinked. "The Missouri line? Of what relevance is that with Dred Vs Scott and popular sovereignty?"
Cittendan smiled. "Well that's another thing that will have to change"….
Buchanan sighed. This was going to be a long night.
(1) Neither is the leader of their parties (not that the "opposition" has a leader), and Senator Bell is associated with the "Know nothings" purely out of political convenience. But both have high prestige and influence among moderates of the two large parties and having two southerners (Bell and Crittendan) balances the two northerners (Buchanan and Seward)
(2) That is, Crittendan actually stood for principle and would not consent to the pro-slavery party stealing an election. He would have been happy had the pro-slavery immigrants won the demographic and political contest by fair means.
(3) Who Ironicaly were very good friends indeed before the Leecompton (pro-Slavery) constitution was passed in Kansas.
(4) A compromise where slavery is rejected but not right away (so as to give slave owners a chance to relocate their property gradually) and property qualifications for the franchise are set sufficiently high so as to give the richer southerners more of a say in state affairs.
(5) Buchanan offered Benito Juarez a large loan to finance the liberals in the Mexican civil war in October 1859. The collateral was Baja California, a transit agreement a railroad concession from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and a de facto protectorate over the Northern tier of Mexican states. Congress refused to fund the cost.
(6) In 1860 Buchanan tried to purchase the French, Spanish and British loans to Mexico. Congress refused to fund the purchase.
(7) Negotiations, though the Spanish were probably just playing for time had started in 1859. They ended after Buchanan could not secure funding from congress.
(8) Which de-facto means no acquisition at this point. Unless of course Spain loses effective control over the Island to rebels or filibusters. But it's a bone Buchanan can throw to the Southern wing.
(9) He means Ohio, India, Illinois, etc. Not California and Oregon. It's porkbarrel politics.
(10) The chances of Britain selling it are dick-all absent defeat in war. But like Cuba it's a means of generating support from the particular sections.
(11) The unwritten rule up to 1850. Crittendan's formula for stability is to return the slavery issue to the same constraints according to which it was managed prior to the Mexican war. It can't work of course. BTW- ever wonder why the Midwest and Northwest was divided into so many small states rather than having a Oregon-Washington combo, a single Dakota, etc? Answer: the Republicans during reconstruction were stacking the Senate.
November 2nd, 1859, Mount Vernon, Virginia
The provisions of a state funeral was, Buhanan reflected, as he bore the pall of the coffin bearing somewhat decayed carcass of Colonel Lewis Washington, a stroke of genius on his part. He had succeeded in arranging the funeral in such a way so as to have himself, Seward, Crittendan for the "Opposition" and Senator Bell for the "Know nothings" (1) act as the pallbearers for the final stretch of the procession. It would, he considered, be quite difficult, at least for some weeks, for even the most strident of the radical republicans to oppose
November 4th, Washington D.C
"The trouble", Crittendan stressed, "Is with Kansas". Buchanan sighed. He was not unaware of the irony of the situation. He, a northerner who had never owned or sought to own slaves, had sought to rapidly introduce Kansas as a slave state to the union. Crittendan, a slave owner and a southerner, albeit from the border state of Kentucky, had opposed him on procedural grounds (2). It was sign of the times that he could not have either of his rivals, Douglas or Breckinridge (3) manage the preparatory negotiations with Crittendan. Any deal reached by the former would be denounced by the increasingly bellicose southern wing of the party, whereas the antagonism of the southern democrats to "southern traitors" such as Crritendan and Bell would make any negotiations by the latter fruitless.
"What, if I may enquire, does Alaska and the Northwest dispute have to do with Kansas?" he asked peevishly.
Crittendan spread his hands. "Why, nothing and everything." His countenance toughened. "But heed my words Mr President. Until the bleeding sore of Kansas is purified then every step you undertake in congress will be blocked. Slavery has been rejected in Kansas. Accept now the Wyanadote constitution (4) and move on. The bitter feelings associated with that loss were to be expected when the Missouri compromise was revoked and would have been repricocated in the North had our own section prevailed. It is for that reason that I opposed the fiendish popular sovereignaty doctrine. Have we not just seen where that road leads us? The hell of bleeding Kansas has spawned a myriad of fanatical John browns, each of them placing the abolition or defense of slavery above the constitution and the law."
Buchanan grimaced. This was the connondrum he had wished to avoid. "I can't accept the Wyanadote constitution. Not unless I can give my own people something in return".
"I imagine" remarked Crittendan dryly, "that you have some such thing in mind".
"I do. The Mexican loans (5), including the purchase of any outstanding European loans (6). And Cuba (7)".
Crittendan slowly nodded. "I thought as much. I can give you the support you need on this. But on a number of conditions".
"First, you will not have support for warlike acquisition of Cuba. Only peaceful purchase (8).
Second, any acquisition of Baja must be attached to California rather than becoming or being attached to a new state or having separate territorial statues.
Third, the army expansion bill must allocate more West point openings and positions to the Western states (9)
Fourth, the Mexican loans and the Alaska purchase must be linked in the same bill. Likewise the allocation of funds for the Mexican debt purchase and Cuba purchase must be linked to a fund dedicated to the purchase of British Columbia (10)
Fifth, any admission of a state south of the Missouri compromise line must be accompanied by the admission of a new state North of the line (11)"
Buchanan blinked. "The Missouri line? Of what relevance is that with Dred Vs Scott and popular sovereignty?"
Cittendan smiled. "Well that's another thing that will have to change"….
Buchanan sighed. This was going to be a long night.
(1) Neither is the leader of their parties (not that the "opposition" has a leader), and Senator Bell is associated with the "Know nothings" purely out of political convenience. But both have high prestige and influence among moderates of the two large parties and having two southerners (Bell and Crittendan) balances the two northerners (Buchanan and Seward)
(2) That is, Crittendan actually stood for principle and would not consent to the pro-slavery party stealing an election. He would have been happy had the pro-slavery immigrants won the demographic and political contest by fair means.
(3) Who Ironicaly were very good friends indeed before the Leecompton (pro-Slavery) constitution was passed in Kansas.
(4) A compromise where slavery is rejected but not right away (so as to give slave owners a chance to relocate their property gradually) and property qualifications for the franchise are set sufficiently high so as to give the richer southerners more of a say in state affairs.
(5) Buchanan offered Benito Juarez a large loan to finance the liberals in the Mexican civil war in October 1859. The collateral was Baja California, a transit agreement a railroad concession from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and a de facto protectorate over the Northern tier of Mexican states. Congress refused to fund the cost.
(6) In 1860 Buchanan tried to purchase the French, Spanish and British loans to Mexico. Congress refused to fund the purchase.
(7) Negotiations, though the Spanish were probably just playing for time had started in 1859. They ended after Buchanan could not secure funding from congress.
(8) Which de-facto means no acquisition at this point. Unless of course Spain loses effective control over the Island to rebels or filibusters. But it's a bone Buchanan can throw to the Southern wing.
(9) He means Ohio, India, Illinois, etc. Not California and Oregon. It's porkbarrel politics.
(10) The chances of Britain selling it are dick-all absent defeat in war. But like Cuba it's a means of generating support from the particular sections.
(11) The unwritten rule up to 1850. Crittendan's formula for stability is to return the slavery issue to the same constraints according to which it was managed prior to the Mexican war. It can't work of course. BTW- ever wonder why the Midwest and Northwest was divided into so many small states rather than having a Oregon-Washington combo, a single Dakota, etc? Answer: the Republicans during reconstruction were stacking the Senate.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say during reconstruction. the States came in during 1889/1890 after reconstruction is considered to be over. And Oregon came in prior to the Civil War. Definitely agreed on the Dakotas.
yboxman
Banned
Yeah, but look at the boundaries of the territories. Before the civil war there were three territories: Nebraska territory, Dakota territory and Washington territory, all the way from Minnesota to Oregon.
In 1863-1867 they were subdivided into the territorial boundaries (Montana territory, Idaho territory, etc) which roughly correspond with the States we know today. You can't make a state out of more than one territory though you can make more than one state out of a territory. The subdivision of the territories pre-determined the boundaries of the future states. I'll grant this subdivision was largely done during the civil war rather than afterwards.
There were 4 states west of Missouri in 1861, Texas, California, Oregon and Kansas. (While the Southerners had objected to the fact that Kansas was going to be a free state, I haven't seen anything indicating they objected to the size). I consider both Texas and California to be affected by other issues. The the remaining states in the West admitted after 1861, five are bigger than both Oregon and Kansas: Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada*, Colorado, three are in between: Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho and five are smaller than both: Nebraska, South Dakota, Washington, North Dakota and Oklahoma. (Nevada was certainly smaller than Oregon in its original boundaries, not sure whether it was smaller than Kansas)
Any chance of the Americans arguing for the Stuart and Satellite Channels as being the main Channel? (that is essentially the route that runs directly to the Vancouver Island shore) (yes, that is being a PITA to start negotations)
yboxman
Banned
Haven't considered them going that far... though that might make sense as a negotiating position. In practical terms it doesn't matter much unless the U.S starts demanding a toll for passing through territorial waters. In times of war control of the seas depends on the range of the artillery on land and the size of the fleet, not the maritime boundary.
Last edited:
Technically not true. In 1858 the Colony of British Columbia was proclaimed separately from the colony of Vancouver Island. The Capital of BC was New Westminster which was just being constructed by the Royal Engineers to control the inflow to the Gold Fields by way of the Fraser. Although Douglas did tend to govern both from Victoria
yboxman
Banned
True, but at this point that city isn't even incorporated and administration of BC is being doe almost comppletely out of Victoria. New Westminister was never very succesful as either an administrative capital or as an economic center (after the gold ran out). in 1866 when the colonies were joined Victoria was made the Capital.
The importance of communications between Victoria and the Mainland is primarily military (since reinforcements must arrive by sea rather than over the bloody Canadian Rockies) and economic (since the gold and furs need to be shipped out somehow) but also administrative , cultural, and psychological. Victoria is properly British/Canadian and a mostly established community. The mainland is a wild frontier of rootless gold miners who are mostly Vulgar Americans. Severing or threatening communications between the two makes the Brits feel as if they are losing control of BC.
As a administrative center no, but it did allow the RE a base for creation of infrastructure, which led to the beginnings of stable settlement. Once the gold rushers started going home, which starts about now ITTL i think, it is the only game in town.
This is true, but it is only feeling. Most of the gold rushers were short term, and went home, some almost immediately once they realized there was no food, or roads, and a bunch of moderately hostile Indians, and the amount of actual Americans is an open question. My understanding is by far the majority were recent immigrants to america from europe and elsewhere, pursuing the dream of riches in the new world. As many as 30% may have been chinese from San Francisco. They were loyal to the idea of getting rich quick, America not so much. But that may not be apparent to the British Authorities, especially not to the Creole Douglas, who really didn't like Americans, for obvious reasons.
yboxman
Banned
Not quite. OTL, there is another, more sustained, gold rush further inland which overlaps the earlier one in Fraser canyon and in which many of the earlier miners participate. It starts as an American dominated Gold rush but then the Civil war starts, and Canadians/Brits become the dominant "rushers". Americans who choose to stay during the civil war undergo "Canadization". Bottom line is at this point BC still has a majority :American" population which Douglas is finding hard to control (he tried to limit weapons importation, force everyone to come through Victoria, Not fight the Indians etc, etc- failure)
Let us say mostly feeling. The loyalty of the miners to the U.S of A may be nominal but their loyalty to the British administration is non-existent. Especialy since that administration is taxing their hard earned and meager profits, trying to prevent them from wiping out the Indians, views many of them (who came overland) as "illegals and occasionaly deports them and ,unlike the U.S to the south is at this point (in BC. Not in East Canada) unrepresentative. When there is no open conflict that's not a problem. But when there is a "with us or against us" mentality starts to set in.
I'll grant you that American belief that American settlers in Canada would align with them in any conflict has been dissapointed in 1812- but this situation is somewhat different. It's somewhat analogous to the Uitlander population in Johanesburg in the prelude to the second Boer war.
You have a source for that? I never saw anything suggesting the Chinese were such a large component of the Gold Rush. If they are... then I wonder how Douglas would view them? Loyal, disloyal or irrelevent?
Exactly- And the steps he intends to carry out (Disarming the "Americans". He contemplated this OTL during the Fraser Canyon war) is pretty much the only thing which might make the "Americans" rebel. How effective or organized their rebellion might be or whether it gets that far is another story. But the potential for temporary British loss of control in British columbia exists.
But these rushes were less accessable and most of the "faint hearted" had given up and gone home, and the further the miners move inland, the more dependant they are upon British law and infrastructure making possible their ability to feed themsleves.
Only American in the sense many came from America first, after getting off the boat from Europe and Asia.
Partial failure really. He was able to force all supplies to come thru Victoria and later New Westminster, mainly because shipping is easier then hauling overland. The Indian war was a bit of a farce, the annexationist leaning white "Whatcom" militia killed most of each other off in a mistaken night time brawl, and casualties were generally speaking low, and it was all resolved thru negotiation, as most of the natives had good relations with Douglas and wanted peace. The end result was all the miner leaders swore oaths to obey British law in future.
The bizarre incident with Ned McGowan was dealt with by Begbie, and by the presence of Royal Marines and Engineers, and by this time in 1859, most of the wildness was dealt with. The miner population was immigrant in orgin, but the framework of governance, police, magistrates, military, was pretty much in place, and the population had pretty much accepted it, becuase they were primarily interested in digging not politics.
This is not entirely true, originally Douglas hoped to keep all "foreigners" out, but was overridden by the British Colonial office, which by definition allowed everybody in. Which meant that non white miners could come in too. The Chinese especially took advantage of this to migrate north from California to escape restrictive american laws and take advantage of British protection. There were apparently some problems with the Chinese selling guns to the Indians, which led to lots of racially charged fun. I tis interesting that the miners who actually paid their taxes, were the chinese ones.
So the British would likely have the loyalty of the non-white american miners, the chinese and free blacks, as well as the Indians, and there were an estimate of 75k Indians in BC at the time, smallpox not having gutted them yet.
Apparently tax collection was minimal in any event, not enough officials and when the miners were asked to pay, most of them laughed and the British let it slide.
And my reading of the Indian war was that the Miners were lucky to have quit when they did, the various nations had gathered up several thousand warriors with guns and the miner militias marched right into their middle at Nlaka'pamux. Had the Natives not already decided to talk peace, it could have been little big horn on the Thompson.
http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/3450/b13919519.pdf
This has a pretty good bit on Chinese participation.
http://www.library.ubc.ca/chineseinbc/mining.html
This talks about 5000 of the population of Barkerville being chinese.
http://www.library.ubc.ca/chineseinbc/mining.html
From China to Canada
Harry Con, Ronald J. Con, Graham Johnson, Edgar Wickberg and William E. Willmott, From China to Canada, Edited by Edgar Wickberg, (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1982)
States
"Many of these early immigrants came from the provinces of Guangdong and Fujian. They sailed to San Francisco but in May of 1858 reports of the discovery of gold sent some of them to Victoria. It is reported that the first Chinese arrived in Victoria on June 28, 1858. The trip was arranged by Hop Kee and Co. of San Francisco and some 300 Chinese were sent with Allan Lowe & Co. onboard the Caribbean. The authors of From China to Canada, state that in 1859 the first Chinese arrived directly from Hong Kong and the following year some 4,000 Chinese immigrants landed at Victoria. It is further estimated that 2,875 arrived in the first part of 1861. As well as by sea, some Chinese entered British Columbia by moving overland from the present state of Oregon. "
The 30% figure i read somewhere and i have been trying to find it again, but i can't. Apparently 20,000 were in California at the time, and many did come north. It is clear that they made up a significant number, certainly in the thousands, but they weren't very good at counting during the rushes apparently.
Regarding Douglas, he didn't much like "foreigners", but given that he was part black through his mother, i think his dislike of foreigners seems to have been restricted to the white, native born american republican kind. There are examples of colonial and HBC officials intervening on behalf of the the Chinese and free blacks vs the white miners, and he entertained petitions from chinese businessmen regarding equality under british law. So while he was pretty liberal for the time, he was also a product of it, mainly interested in proving his britishness, and he certainly didn't shout his identity to the rooftops. There was an all black militia unit formed at Victoria under his auspices at this time, so if there was shooting trouble, and he has identified the Chinese and Blacks as not "with" the americans, which i think he had, he would be willing to use them. He certainly would use his contacts among the Indians. Regardless of what Douglas himself thought he would have had to deal with prevailing racial attitudes of the time regarding the Chinese.
maybe, the miners were very much not a united or organized group, and by 1860, most of them had moved up the fraser or gone home, and the lower valley was pretty much under british control, so any trouble is going to be well isolated in the interior, and they may not in fact know about it until much later.
yboxman
Banned
Thanks for the links and the info- a hell of a lot more factors in the 1859-1860 situation than I thought!
let's assume for a moment, as a working assumption, that some manner of uprising/invasion/Chinese-Indian-"American" miner ethnic warfare does lead to the UK losing control of the Fraser valley and adjacent areas (An earlier "Rock creek war" seems like the most likely trigger under the circumstances) but that the UK assumes full control of Puget sound and parts of the lower Fraser valley.
How are the miners set up for food? Would most of them be able to survive the winter from existing supplies, hunting and trading with less hostile Indians if supplies from the coast are cut off? How much in terms of supplies can reach the region overland from the U.S?
yboxman
If there was what amounted to, or is likely to be seen by both governments as, a rebellion against British rule then I would suspect the attitude of Washington would of course depend on whether their at war or not. If not and they aren't willing to go to war, then any intervention would be basically an act of war. However it could be that local factors in the NW make different decisions.
Its easier if the US has decided on war but how much would they be able to supply to any rebellion? Britain has naval superiority and more forces immediately in the region, although possibly the US can move more forces from California or raise more troops. It will be pretty much impossible for either side to move additional forces from the east for the duration. The RN is likely to seize the disputed islands in the event of conflict and make reinforcement more difficult so, presuming that local US forces know of any rebellion and decide to support it, they may decide they have more important use of their resources.
Steve
Yeah, the whole thing was a wild melange.
I think it would depend. The pragmatic, experienced miners will already be laying in food for winter because once the snows hit, supplies will be intermittant anyway. Many of the muddle thru type will have gone home the previous year. But there will always be some, who rely on the upriver steamships offloading who could be in trouble, especially the 5000 semi permanent residents of Yale, which was the end of the navigable river. Of course since steamships with cannon can get there, if the British have the lower valley they will likely control to the head of navigation as well.
It is up the canyon where it will get fun, and since most of them will be preparing for winter anyway the miners should be ok. It will be in spring, when they expect to replenish their supplies that there will be problems.
Lots of opportunity for conflict with the natives and each other at that point.
Travel overmountain in winter with anything approaching a big load is a non starter, so not much would be coming in from the US by way of the Skagit trail i wouldn't think, even if word got out that it was needed in any case. The Whatcom trail comes from puget sound, so any surplus food lying around is under potential UK interdiction, either at its source or where it comes out near Yale. And that trail is going to be pretty grim in winter as well.
AJNolte
Unlikely I suspect, at least at this stage. The north is dominant enough in population and resources that I can't see the pro-slave faction becoming powerful enough that it can gain enough security that the abolitionist elements [as opposed to just the free-state elements] would feel desperate enough that they had to leave. I think the southern fire-eaters have already started to anger enough people that the best they can expect is their own break-away from the US, which is almost certain to be bitterly opposed.
If you had had an earlier POD, possibly with say a disastrous 1812 conflict that means that one way or another the north loses a lot of land what you suggest might be a possibility but I think it would take something like that to make it a decent possibility.
Steve
OTL there was a lot of heart burn in New Englan and the other northeastern states about the perceived cooptation of the federal government by slave interests. If ITTL sees more expansion southward, it's a possibility. Not a likely one, granted, but a possibility nonetheless.
yboxman
Banned
Not sure about that. There are several barely navigatable spots before you get to Yale where an artillery battery located on the cliffs overlooking the river might wreck havoc with any steamer pushing it's way through. Fort Langley I assume the Brits can hold until Lord's Elgin's forces arrive. But Yale and even Hope might be captured by the Americans.
Spolier- if this war does get kicked off expect a post titled "Wendigo".
Question is- when does WINTER, in the sense of blocked mountain passes, unnavigatable terrain, etc start?
Also, I've been reading up on the respective force dispositions and I've come to the conclusion that the Situation for the Brits is somewhat less positive than I thought.
While they have a whopping 2,000 regulars based on Vancouver, only 450 of them are Marines, army engineers and other land troops. The rest are Sailors who cannot be dragooned into long term land campaigns without degrading ship performance too badly- and they aren't prepared for such combat and won't be that good at it anyways (better than Millitia, but not that much).
Baynes OTL started recieving reinforcements after August when the Second Opium war ended- but TTL the SOW drags on well into December so he's on his ownsome until Feburary. The Yanks by Contrast have had two extra months to raise militia in California and Oregon. That's also enough time to stockpile supplies., shift some regulars from further East, by portage through Mexico or Panama and then ship up the coast.
Also, there is quite a lot that can be done in San Juan over the two months of the blockade to make taking the Island a longer and more expensive (though still ineveitable) proposition than I would have thought- particularly since Picket's ground troops face an equal number of land reguilars (though naval bombardment will even this out somewhat).
Bottom line is that The Americans can place a larger ground force on the Washington BC border than Douglas, even reinforced by All of Baynes Marines and 500 of his sailors (or whoever remain avaliable once San Juan is captured) . Their Regular core will be somewhat larger than that of the Brits (Around 1500 men) but will be better trained for land warfare and the yankee millitia auxilaries will substantialy outnumber British millitia (say 3000 to 1000. Though supplying that many men might be a problem)- especialy if the miners in BC join in the fun. If, for whatever reason, "woman killer" storms BC BEFORE, Baynes has a chance to finish up San Juan then they might just be able to beseige Fort Langely before Baynes is free. Taking it is unlikely though.
In Short, they might make some impressive gains in BC, while suffering a bad defeat in San Juan before the British expedionary force in China (15,000 Regulars!!!) makes it across the Pacfic to Vancouver. At that point the Yanks are in big trouble.
thoughts?
P.S. Regarding speculations on AACW and northern secession- not releasing any more spoilers
Last edited: