54 40 And Fight: The Oregon War

[mspence]

The phrase was made famous over the territorial dispute. WI the hawks, led by Lewis Cass, had prevailed and Polk had gone to war? Polk did use it as an issue in 1844 in OTL as a largely unknown candidate against the far more well known Henry Clay, while Lewis Cass definitely wanted a fight but eventually baked down. It helped that the British had Aberdeen to settle the dispute, but in TTL perhaps he isn't available and both sides decide to reinforce their claims with navy reinforcements. This along with pressure from Polk, Cass and the expansionist Democrats sets the stage for the Oregon War of 1845...



1844 map of disputed territory

[lordroel]

Apr 23, 2023 8:29:17 GMT mspence said:

The phrase was made famous over the territorial dispute. WI the hawks, led by Lewis Cass, had prevailed and Polk had gone to war?


1844 map of disputed territory

I told you, you need to actually start a discussion not just ask a question, also date on when this war start would be helpful, this helps members to jump into a discussion, not to google it first.

[miletus12]

Apr 23, 2023 8:29:17 GMT mspence said:

Lewis Cass

was something of a cypher as goes politics. He was a slaveowner from Michigan, who not only sympathized with slavers, but made the mistake of being a slavocrat who supported popular sovereignity, the Stephen Douglas solution to the Kansas Nebraska problem.

Those are the principle political strikes against him. On matters military, such as risking war with Great Britain in 1848, when the gamble of a war with Mexico came near to wrecking the United States, let me summarize the military judgement and experience of the man.

War of 1812:
a. Fort Malden bridge



The idiot allowed his concealed troops to be revealed by a noisy horse; specifically HIS noisy horse. The trap laid for the British was bungled. The British sent their native American allies forward to be bullet stoppers instead of themselves and the witless Americans under Cass prematurely opened fire, thus causing the British to say "No thank you, we will pull back and let you walk into our musket fire, instead." Cass tried to follow, but his superior, COL Hull, instructed him to withdraw from the British countertrap. Results... inconclusive, but the man to blame for the defeat was Cass.
b. Second try at Fort Malden Bridge: this time the accounts are confused, but apparently two companies of Americans, under Cass, presented themselves as a beautiful parade ground target and were promptly shot up by two British artillery guns who in the process wrecked the one American field gun present. This time, Cass' superior, a COL MacArthur, told him to withdraw under pain of court martial.
c. Bridge at Riviere aux Canards: this little set piece had the Americans on both sides of a trail used by Native Americans. This time Cass did not screw up the ambush. Results was that a hunting party, not even involved with the British, was peppered with bullets. They escaped a supposedly perfect trap. The one native American killed was scalped and this was taken back as a trophy of Cass' successful "raid".
d. Battle of the Thames:

Eye Witness Account of the battle.
Lincoln County, Ky., Oct 22, 1859
To the editor of the Louisville Journal.

"I commanded a company of 144 volunteers, in the Battle of the Thames, in Col. Johnson's Regiment; they are mounted riflemen. In enlisting my company, I had collected 133 men, when an old Indian fighter named Col. Whitley (miscalled Maj. Whitley in the above mentioned article), avowed his determination of going. In vain his friends attempted to deter him. He had acquired a taste for Indian fighting (having already figured in seventeen battles), and was determined to go. He accordingly enlisted, but being so old a man, the company voted him free of camp duty. This, connected with the fact that all discipline was slack among the volunteers, might erroneously lead a stranger to suppose that he was "fighting on his own hook." This man had few faults and many virtues, conspicuous among the latter was his dauntless bravery, amounting almost to recklessness.

After we forded the Thames, Whitley caught sight of four Indians on the opposite side and lingered behind, trying to get a shot at them. We went on, and when we had gotten about a mile on our road we were overtaken by Whitley, who rode up with a triumphant air, holding aloft the scalp of an Indian. He gave me the account of having killed the Indian, in a singularly venturesome manner. I reprimanded him for it, and recieved for an answer: "Don't fear, Captain, the ball is not run nor the powder made that is to kill me." This was a favorite saying of the old fellow. He was a complete a fatalist as either of the two Napoleons. This, I think proves that Capt. Ferguson and I refer to the same man.

Colonel Johnson charged upon the Indians. They were the only foes we had, but they were enough, as the numbered us about three to one. [ Error: this advance by Johnson, numbering about half (or near 500) of his regiment was met by approximately the same number of Indians, although Davidson was probably referring to his own company.]

Colonel Johnson divided his men. He and Lt. Col. Johnson (his brother) arranged it that Colonel R. M. Johnson was to charge the Indians and Lieut. Johnson the British. Colonel Johnson was wounded in the very commencement of the charge, before the two lines had come in close contact, and was immediately borne from the field, his brother, next in command, then leading the charge, and commanding the regiment the remainder of the day. After Colonel J. was wounded, he was succeeded in the command (in our part of the field ) by Major Thompson of Scott County ( an uncle of Johnson's I believe).

We were posted at the extreme right, in a dense forest, with thick undergrowth. A short time after the charge commenced, and in the heat of the battle, I saw Johnson pass, supported on his horse, badly wounded. He was immediately borne from the field. I think Mr. Hamblin is incorrect in saying that Johnson's horse fell on the field. The horse on which he was carried off was a white one, with a terrible looking wound in his side, with the blood streaming at every step. I have always understood that he [the horse] did not fall util he reached the river-bank, when (Johnson being taken off) he fell, and immediately died. Dr. Theobald (of the south, near Lake Providence), was one of Colonel Johnson's supporters, and can probably settle the question. [An editorial note was added here by Gen. Leslie Combs, who edited Davidson's account, to the effect that:

Dr. Theobald states that he was surgeon's mate of Colonel Johnson's regiment;
went with him in his charge, and saw him wounded in the first fire of the enemy.
Afterward took his holsters and pistols from his saddle-bow when his horse fell and
died, and carried them back to camp; bothe of the pistols being loaded. This being
so, it is certain that Colonel J. did not shoot Tecumseh, or any other Indian, in
the battle. Davidson and Theobald are men of unquestionable veracity, and are
still alive. I know nothing myself of the facts. The Johnsons were both brave
men.--Leslie Combs, June 7, 1860. [Gen. Combs was himself a captain at
the time of the Battle of the Thames.]

Soon after Johnson was carried off, the Indians charged on us and one of them shot and killed Col. Whitley who fell near my horse's feet. The Indians sprang forward to scalp him, which I endeavored to prevent by striking him with my sword, but he evaded the blows, and persisted in his attempt, until a man by the name of Massey [Lt. Massie], from Georgetown, aimed at him under my horse's belly and shot him dead.

I will now proceed to tell you who I think did kill Tecumseh. In my company was a private of the name of David King. He was a splendid specimen of backwoods man, brave as Caesar, an honest man, an unnerving marksman. Whilst we were awaiting another charge from the Indians, King loading his gun, put in his ball, forgetting the powder, and had no means of drawing the ball. He was much vexed and told me about it, saying: "Captain, what shall I do?" I told him Whitley had a fine gun, but it was hazardous to attempt to get it. He immediately crawled toward Whitley, keeping the body between him and the Indians, and succeeded in getting his gun and shot-pouch, and regaining his tree. The Indians peppered the spot with balls, but fortunately none hit him. He and some five or six of his comrades asked permission to go a little further to the right, as they wished to prevent the Indians flanking us. They outnumbered us so far, that it was with great difficulty we could keep from being surrounded. I detached them a short distance to the right, but their eagerness to get to the Indians made them move faster than the left wing; on perceiving which, I started toward them to warn them. I was afraid they might be cut off from the rest of the company. When I got about half way to them, I heard a fellow named Clarke, exclaim: "Look out, King! An Indian is aiming at you!" Whereupon, the Indian turned to fire upon Clarke, thereby exposing his left breast to King's aim, who instantly fired, and as the Indian fell, King exclaimed: "I've killed one damned yaller Indian booger!"

(I should have mentioned above that it was Whitley's custom to load his gun with two bullets, and that when King got the gun, it was cocked, but not discharged. He therefore used the charge that Whitley put in.) I got the men in the right place, and soon returned to my other men. I was soon after severely wounded three times, and saw no more of King and his comrades until after the battle.

That evening, I was lying on the field, feeling (like Charles Lamb) "ratherish unwell," when some of my men, among them King, came to hunt for me. Whilst they were getting ready to carry me off, King said to me, "Captain, I wish you would let us go by and see the Indian I killed; I wish to see if I made a good shot. If I did, two of old Whitley's balls went in at his left nipple. I took aim by it, and if the yaller devil has any knives, I want them." At first, being in great pain, I demurred, telling him I knew he could not find the Indian, and if he could, he couldn't identify him. "Oh!, yes, Captain," he replied. "My Indian is right behind that old dead tree," pointing to one about fifty yards off. It being on line of march to the camp, I consented. When we got there, we found the Indian behind the tree. They turned him over, and sure enough, his left breast was pierced by two balls, about half an inch below the left nipple. The Indian was plainly, but more comfortably dressed than the rest of the Indians, having on the finest wampum belt I ever saw...next day Mike (my brother) and Charles A Wickliffe, of Bardstown, determined to have a look at "King's Indian." They went to the spot, and found the Indian. Whilst they were looking at him, Gen Harrison and two British officers came up, and one of the latter exclaimed: "I believe that is Tecumseh!" The other also thought it was him...They agreed that this was Tecumseh...Because Tecumseh was killed where Johnson made his charge, Johnson got the credit of killing him, and as there was great rivalry between Shelby's and Johnson's corps, we were glad that the Colonel of our regiment got the credit for it. King never cared a cent for it, and I thought it made no difference who killed him. It is only at the request of friends that I make this public. King brought Whitley's gun home, and restored it to his family. Some of Whitley's descendants are living in this County. King moved to Tennessee, and died there some twelve years ago. All his comrades who were with him when he shot the Indian are dead, but there are a number of persons in this County who have heard it from their lips.

I have to employ an amanuensis, and it may be that some mistake has crept into this account; but I have heard it carefully read, and I believe it to be a true statement of what I know concerning the matter.

Respectfully, James Davidson

Cass was in charge of the US 27th Infantry during the battle. According to various accounts he was "ineffectual", his troops being personally handled by General Harrison. Nevertheless, the imbecile parleyed his "role" in that battle into quite a political career that resulted in a failed bid for president that led to James K. Polk instead. 

To answer the question: 

Apr 23, 2023 8:29:17 GMT mspence said:

WI the hawks, led by Lewis Cass, had prevailed and Polk had gone to war?

The distances, the terrain, the weather would have been at best a replay around Vancouver of the debacle around Detroit, with neither side achieving their goals. They would have killed each other and wasted treasure to achieve what Polk accomplished by talking and running a bluff.   At worst from the American point of view, an Anglo-Mexican alliance would have settled our hash proper.   

Londo Mollari:


"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

From Babylon 5