Now some have proposed that such a defeat in 1837 could lead to a sundering of the Entire West Coast etc. I respect your right to propose that but I just don't see it.
Well the West coats isn't really the US to surrender, it is jointly administered with the territory being filled with British factories and British allied Indians.
Anybody taking a look at the peace conference can't make a valid US claim to it.
Even if the area's are legally declared another country that makes about as much sense to me as if the British had invalidated the Lousiana Purchase would have stopped western migration.
I don't follow the argument, you say it is unlikely because something else unrelated was unlikely.
Could you please explain why the initial statement is unlikely.
Indians still would have been pushed out (largely by the efforts squatters, Non-government armed bands etc).
Why?
The British can arm the Indians and establish a fort on the edge of the territory to turn away settlers, those that continue in are left at the mercy of the British backed Indians.
They aren't going to have the protection of the cavalry here unless the British decide they want them in the territory and that means small groups can be delat with by the Indians piece meal.
However the British might just settle it with their won people or even just let Americans in, large parts of Canda sure American settlement and despite American hopes they didn't really seem to care what flag they lived under.
Certaintly the British Army could crush any of these that they wanted too. The thing is are the British going to want to pay for it? Redcoats cost money. Food supplies, forts, etc and if you are expelling settlers infavor of supporting the native tribes there your not going to be making any money on the enterprise.
The Hudson bay company was primarily interested in making money and they also favoured trade with the natives over settlement.
Limited War? depends on who's commanding the British Expeditionary. And if they attack down from Canada or fight from Mexico in a limited war its worse if they do both. (after all the issue of the war is Texas not Canada while Canada will likely be attacked in retaliation they can't say 'We're here to help you Mexico and then never set foot in Mexico').
Well what the war is about isn't exactly clear from the opening post, really the idea of Britain fighting a war to prevent Texas and the US unifying is bordering on ASB.
Also in a Limited War they might just stick to fighting from Mexico.
They can't because the US won't refrain from attacking Canada and because they already have a ready reserve of troops in Canada which will surge forward to gain territory that gives Canada a better defensive position.
Now I keep saying from Mexico and your probably all like 'but Texas is independent already' Oh yeah....US and British Empire is at war and Mexico is NOT going to jump in. Dispite having a dispute over their border with Texas.
Mexico will most likely jump in if the issue is Texas because their treaty with Texas forbade Texas form joining another nation.
As its been stated however the British Empire has its hands in a lot of pie's right now that quite frankly are more important. if the Expeditionary force it sends happens to have a less then stellar general. the U.S. is likely going to end up with most of their gains from Mexico per OTL.
Wildly implausible, in OTL they invade California and made their main effort against Texas by sea, that option is cut off from them.
If the British General is better the desire to end things quickly is going to leave Texas independent (dependent on Britain not the U.S.).
The problem there is that the British have essentially got to hold Texas down for the rest of eternity.
Maybe the Oregon adjustment but if the leaders in Oregon had decided to just sit it out and see what happened might be nothing there.
The joint administration would be terminated by the very act of declaring war, after that the company doesn't have to do much but tell the Indians to have some fun against the barely present Americans (I doubt even that would be necessary), hell the centre of American "power" in the area was Astor, a place that was staffed almost entirely by French Canadians.
Oh and why aren't I talking about the Canadian front? *shrugs* if you insist...ok some guy said it was a matter of marching really lame slapdash invasion of Canada and the Canadian/British fight it off. Cue indecisive skirmish's for the rest of the war.
The Britsih had more regulars in Canada than he Americans had regulars, such an "invasion" would be beaten off well within US territory.