'Fifty-Four Forty or Fight': Facts and Fictions

Sperber, Hans

doi:10.2307/454081

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…David Pletcher (1973) provides an extensive account of political, diplomatic, and military developments in these simultaneous territorial disputes.4 The origin of the slogan is obscure. Both EdwinMiles (1957) andHans Sperber (1957) conclude that, contrary to some accounts, it was not used during the election campaign of 1844, but originated during the congressional debates that followed the election.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Choosing Between Peace and War

Grossman

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although most disputes between groups of people are settled peacefully, sometimes disputes result in war. This lecture uses historical examples to illustrate how the ability to negotiate a credible peaceful settlement of a dispute between sovereign states, typically a dispute over the control of territory or natural resources, depends on the divisibility of the outcome of the dispute, on the effectiveness of the fortifications and counterattacks with which an attacker would expect to have to contend, and on the permanence of the outcome of a potential war. The lecture also contrasts the possibilities for avoiding wars between sovereign states with the possibilities for avoiding civil wars.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Choosing Between Peace and War

Grossman

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both Edwin Miles (1957) andHans Sperber (1957) conclude that, contrary to some accounts, it was not used during the election campaign of 1844, but originated during the congressional debates that followed the election.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

"Fifty-four Forty or Fight!"

Grossman¹

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops an explanation for historical differences in the ways in which territorial disputes between sovereign states have been resolved. The main innovation in the analysis is to allow for three possible equilibria:·A an unfortified border; ·A a fortified but peaceful border; and ·A armed conflict.The analysis shows that the possibility of a credible agreement to divide a contested territory and to leave the resulting border unfortified depends on the effectiveness of spending on arms by one state relative to another and on the importance that states attach to the potential costs of future armed conflicts. The analysis also shows that, if all relevant parameters are common knowledge, then, even if an agreement to have an unfortified border would not be credible, states can resolve a territorial dispute peacefully by dividing the contested territory and fortifying the border. Finally, the paper points out that unverifiable innovations, especially innovations in military technology, can cause a peaceful settlement to break down, resulting in an armed conflict that in turn can provide the basis for a new peaceful settlement. Today a territorial dispute between the United States and Canada, much less an armed conflict over the border between the United States and Canada, is unimaginable. In the decades following the Oregon Treaty the United States and Great Britain peacefully resolved territorial disputes that arose over the San Juan Islands, rights to hunt fur seals, and the boundary of Alaska. These agreements completed the demarcation of the current borders between the United States and Canada, which have now been both undisputed and unfortified for many years.1 The origin of the slogan is obscure. Both Edwin Miles (1957) andHans Sperber (1957) conclude that, contrary to some accounts, it was not used during the election campaign of 1844, but originated during the congressional debates that followed the election. 1In sharp contrast to the peaceful resolution of the dispute over the Oregon territory, in the same year, 1846, a territorial dispute between the United States and Mexico led to armed conflict, with disastrous consequences for Mexico. As the result of the Mexican-American War the United States annexed previously Mexican territories that now comprise Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Texas. 2As a schoolboy I learned with pride that the United States and Canada enjoyed the world's longest unfortified border between sovereign states. In addition, my elders led me to believe that this happy state of affairs resulted from the moral superiority of Americans and Canadians, especially in contrast to Mexicans and also to Europeans, who, being greedy and quarrelsome, fortified their borders and, even worse, regularly engaged in wasteful and destructive territorial conflicts, the Second World War that had just ended being the latest example.This paper develops a analysis that yields a less invidious explanation for historical differences in the ways in whic...

show abstract

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight

Grossman¹

2003

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

'Fifty-Four Forty or Fight': Facts and Fictions

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Choosing Between Peace and War

Choosing Between Peace and War

"Fifty-four Forty or Fight!"

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About