British interests in the region are firmly established since the turn of the century...particularly in the Northern New Caledonia district ( basically 50 degrees and points north...Columbia District less so but not much.
I'm no expert, I'll grant you that. However, from what little I can glean, neither side had their interests that firmly established at first. Here there's 12 years more under codominion, and that leads to a lot more Americans throughout the territory.
BTW, was there a named overland route to Oregon from Canada?
Both parties went out of their way to avoid an open conflict OTL because of their mutual understanding that they had more in common and that a war over Oregon was not in either parties mutual interest...therefore I simply cannot see your administrations moving so decisivly behind the Americans in Oregon,
I'd say that the British were more interested in not going to war over it than most Americans, at least if you listen to the rhetoric of the time. And the Pierce administration is more ambitious than some of the time.
and lets face it these are all generally south of the Columbia even at your point.
My timeline stipulates greater American settlement, including north of the Columbia.
there is just too much that could go wrong politically...and damage the relationship with Britain.
Operative word 'could'. Here it works out. However if you wish to write a divergent timeline where the Pierce Administration's negotiations go south, feel free to do so, it would be interesting to see.
Britain may be involved in the Crimean War but they will not be strong armed by the upstart republic from across the sea....and to say that relations after the fact would be proper..forget it the US will find itself marginalized politically in its own hemispere. What need do the Brits have of supporting the Monroe Doctrine even if behind the scenes when they are backstabbed at the first opportunity...
Relations will be a down right frosty if not discordant for at least a generation.
The Royal Navy can still strangle the US overseas commerce if it puts its mind to it...
I'm certain all you say is possible, but I don't see it necessarily being probable. Look at the on the Red River Settlement in 1818, only a few years after the US and Britain had just fought a war. In fact, look at trade after the War of 1812. I don't see Britain getting over an actual fighting war so quickly, but not a negotiation on the Oregon Country.
and just try invading and see how far you get in the wilderness of Oregon...Where British forts and Trading posts dot the land more readily than Us outposts....
This changed over the past 12 years of the divergence. Americans are more numerous now.
because lets face it nobody is going to invade Eastern Canada over Oregon... the Northern states will never stand for it.
Right, those "54'40" or Fight" people in 1844 were just joking....The Northern states were the ones pushing hardest for Annexation of the Oregon.
I think you should ask yourself if the Canadians would stand for going to war over the Oregon? I'd say that would be less likely than the Americans.
The only result I see is the same as ours...the extension west to the Pacific of the 49th...its just too logical.
Well, the logical thing isn't always what happens.
and why suddenly the Canadian filibuster....Britain and Russia had their agreement not to extend the conflict to their N. American holdings....
Did they? That's interesting. Do you have a reference on it? I would have thought that if the British were willing to land forces in Kamchatka, North American would hardly be off limits.
In any event, the Canadian filibuster was just that, a filibuster. Which means it was executed by Canadians without the consent or approval of the British government (initially). The why is that there are a few Canadians who still want to see the Canadian Confederation reach the Pacific.
