The USA without a Pacific coastline?

Panhomo

How would the Pacific and surrounding countries be affected if the USA never expanded west to reach it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

One (Edit: not very) plausible POD I've considered is the British Empire strongly backing Mexico during the "Texas Crisis," starting around 1835. It is resolved a few years later by an independent Texas. A decade later gold is found in California prompting mass immigration. Under British supervision it too goes independent, with it's southern border slightly north of San Diego and including parts of Nevada.

Because of British interference in North America tensions remain high between them and the Americans. Fewer Americans are allowed into Oregon Territory, and it remains British, later to join the new country Canada, which forms around 1860.

As Russia and Britain play the great game in Asia Russia fears that its vast but nearly useless North American territory will be taken by force. The new country of Canada is eager to expand and to decrease the number of borders it needs defend. Russia sells Alaska for the equivalent of OTL US $1 000 000 and small concessions in Persia or Afghanistan. Alaska is later added to Canada, most of the panhandle is annexed to BC, Yukon Territory gains a small Pacific Coastline.

The USA might buy or otherwise gain small amounts of additional territory, but it's western border remains far from the Pacific.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure there are problems with this timeline, and other plausible ways the USA is kept from the greatest ocean. California remains Mexican, or Alaska remains Russian, or a resurgent Roman Empire annexes Louisiana territory. The main thing I wish to discuss is how the Pacific would develop without the American West Coast.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most obvious changes are a weaker USA and a stronger Britain. I expect The British empire will take over most of the USA's role OTL in the Pacific, especially with Hawaii, which will probably end up an independent state in the commonwealth. I expect France, and maybe Russia, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands to end up with a few of the USA's OTL islands as well.

It seems to me that whatever butterflies occur in the 20th century; some Asian power, maybe Japan, China, or Thailand will take advantage of war in Europe to forge their own empire halfway around the world from the old powers. Would a declining British Empire be able to stop the Japanese as effectively as the USA did OTL?

I'd appreciate thoughts from those much more knowledgeable about history than I am. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
"The World Rushed In" is not hyperbole...

Panhomo said:
Fewer Americans are allowed into Oregon Territory, and it remains British, later to join the new country Canada, which forms around 1860.
Click to expand...

Um, how, exactly?

The Pacific Coast of North America is about as far as one can get traveling by sea from the UK ... so who's going to stop the Americans, traveling overland or by steamer to Panama and then north - the RCMP?

The World Rushed In is the title of JS Holladay's social history of the California Gold Rush, and it was not hyperbole...

It is worth noting that NONE of the European colonies on the Pacific Coast of North America amounted to much of anything population-wise; the reasons why are obvious.

Alaska, British Columbia, and California are farther away from Europe in terms of travel time (before the transcontinental railroads and steamships; forget the Panama Canal) than anywhere else in the world.

Cripes, Australia was closer to the UK in 1840 in terms of days at sea than British Columbia was.

And the only way the British could settle Australia was with convicts...

Best,
 

AussieHawker

Banned
TFSmith121 said:
Um, how, exactly?

The Pacific Coast of North America is about as far as one can get traveling by sea from the UK ... so who's going to stop the Americans, traveling overland or by steamer to Panama and then north - the RCMP?

The World Rushed In is the title of JS Holladay's social history of the California Gold Rush, and it was not hyperbole...

It is worth noting that NONE of the European colonies on the Pacific Coast of North America amounted to much of anything population-wise; the reasons why are obvious.

Alaska, British Columbia, and California are farther away from Europe in terms of travel time (before the transcontinental railroads and steamships; forget the Panama Canal) than anywhere else in the world.

Cripes, Australia was closer to the UK in 1840 in terms of days at sea than British Columbia was.

And the only way the British could settle Australia was with convicts...

Best,
Click to expand...

If Texas and California are Independent British aligned states then they could land in Texas and move cross country.
 

Panhomo

TFSmith121 said:
Um, how, exactly?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Is there no possible way the USA could be kept from expanding that far? Americans that do migrate to Oregon Territory are fine with becoming British, or an earlier civil war, or a stronger Mexico, or a resurgent Spanish Empire, or anything?
Or what about Americans valuing good relations with Britain over "manifest destiny?"

Even if it's not very likely could we assume it does happen somehow, what would the consequences be?
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Your statement that fewer Americans would be

Panhomo said:
I'm not sure. Is there no possible way the USA could be kept from expanding that far? Americans that do migrate to Oregon Territory are fine with becoming British, or an earlier civil war, or a stronger Mexico, or a resurgent Spanish Empire, or anything?
Or what about Americans valuing good relations with Britain over "manifest destiny?" Even if it's not very likely could we assume it does happen somehow, what would the consequences be?
Click to expand...

Your statement that fewer Americans would be "allowed into the Oregon Country" was what prompted the "who is going to stop them" question.

As far as the other possibilities, the historical evidence comes down to reality, and we know how that worked out.

In the 1800s, demographics and transportation costs, in terms of which power ends up dominating the continent, and pretty much any corner of it said power may be interested in, are overwhelmingly in the US favor.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Texas and California both WERE independent;

AussieHawker said:
He said in the original OP that Texas and California go Independent due to Britain.
Click to expand...

Texas and California both WERE independent (California for about a day, of course), but both joined the US - and those advocating independence in the first place were (generally) American emigres...

So that's pretty much a non-starter absent some vastly different history in the 1820s-40s, in North America generally, and Mexico specifically.

Best,
 

wannis

What about "no Louisiana Purchase"? If Louisiana had not been taken from Spain by Napoleon, or he hadn't sold it and it would have been returned to Spain at Vienna, that would at least have slowed down the Westward expansion of the U.S. I assume that the U.S. would have laid their hands on part of the West anyway (Mexican wars about Louisiana, not the Southwest, etc.), but the necessary conflicts might have delayed the expansions sufficiently that there would have been no Oregon trail, Britain might have claimed the entire Oregon area, etc.; further, change the constellations of U.S. politics in such a way that they're not ready to accept California (I assume something like the Gold Rush and the influx of American prospectors and settlers was bound to happen, but moving the date of this might change the dynamics between independence and joining the U.S., both in California and on the international scene.)
With no U.S. presence in Oregon and California, there wouldn't be much sense in an Alaska purchase (which also may be butterflied away by changes in Russia). The results would be a stronger British presence in the Pacific, a California Republic that would at least be a regional player, a longer Russian presence in America; if we still assume a Spanish-American war, Spain might keep its Pacific Island possessions (I assume the Philippines still would become independent, perhaps even around 1898). Would anyone force Japan open? If not, or if it happens in a different manner and at a different time, Japanese history will be quite different - it might still modernize, but it also might become a plaything of the colonial powers. If Japan still goes more or less like OTL, it might grab Alaska from Russia in TTLs *1905 war. Another possibility, if there is an equivalent to the October Revolution ITTL, would be a "Russian Taiwan" in Alaska, propped up by Western powers.
 
B-29_Bomber

B-29_Bomber

Banned
wannis said:
What about "no Louisiana Purchase"? If Louisiana had not been taken from Spain by Napoleon, or he hadn't sold it and it would have been returned to Spain at Vienna, that would at least have slowed down the Westward expansion of the U.S. I assume that the U.S. would have laid their hands on part of the West anyway (Mexican wars about Louisiana, not the Southwest, etc.), but the necessary conflicts might have delayed the expansions sufficiently that there would have been no Oregon trail, Britain might have claimed the entire Oregon area, etc.; further, change the constellations of U.S. politics in such a way that they're not ready to accept California (I assume something like the Gold Rush and the influx of American prospectors and settlers was bound to happen, but moving the date of this might change the dynamics between independence and joining the U.S., both in California and on the international scene.)
With no U.S. presence in Oregon and California, there wouldn't be much sense in an Alaska purchase (which also may be butterflied away by changes in Russia). The results would be a stronger British presence in the Pacific, a California Republic that would at least be a regional player, a longer Russian presence in America; if we still assume a Spanish-American war, Spain might keep its Pacific Island possessions (I assume the Philippines still would become independent, perhaps even around 1898). Would anyone force Japan open? If not, or if it happens in a different manner and at a different time, Japanese history will be quite different - it might still modernize, but it also might become a plaything of the colonial powers. If Japan still goes more or less like OTL, it might grab Alaska from Russia in TTLs *1905 war. Another possibility, if there is an equivalent to the October Revolution ITTL, would be a "Russian Taiwan" in Alaska, propped up by Western powers.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is it was in the Americans' best economic interest to acquire New Orleans because in foreign hands it risked strangling trade in the Trans-Mississippi area, as was done by the Spanish. Eventually the US is going to acquire it, and without New Orleans the rest of Louisiana is almost worthless.

You could even see the US allying with Britain against the French(who effectively controlled the Spanish) in order to acquire it, it was that important.

But you're right, no Louisiana would hamper the American push westward, even into the Trans-Mississippi area.
 
Peabody-Martini

Peabody-Martini

It's more likely that the Spanish or Mexicans depending on POD try to hang on to California, New Mexico and the Great Basin. The British could maintain their hold on Oregon as well. If the passes through the Continental Divide had been defended it would have stopped further westward expansion without military involvement. But that would have required cooperation between Spain and England.
 

wannis

B-29_Bomber said:
The problem with that is it was in the Americans' best economic interest to acquire New Orleans because in foreign hands it risked strangling trade in the Trans-Mississippi area, as was done by the Spanish. Eventually the US is going to acquire it, and without New Orleans the rest of Louisiana is almost worthless.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's why I assume that it would happen eventually, just with a delay.

B-29_Bomber said:
You could even see the US allying with Britain against the French(who effectively controlled the Spanish) in order to acquire it, it was that important.
Click to expand...
Well, I think that's unlikely so soon after the ARW and with the pro-French tendencies in the U.S. at that time. I'd rather think that without the purchase, the U.S. would still see New Orleans as being in friendly hands during the Napoleonic wars, but after Vienna, gradually tensions will build up, over New Orleans and probably also due to American settlers pushing into the lands on the West bank of the Mississippi without respecting Spanish authority.
B-29_Bomber said:
But you're right, no Louisiana would hamper the American push westward, even into the Trans-Mississippi area.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I assume even a delay of 20-30 years for the formal acquisition of Louisiana by the U.S. (probably after a short war with Mexico - I assume that independence of the Spanish colonies would not be significantly altered by the PoD, although there may be some butterflies) would significantly alter the dynamics in Oregon.
 

Bureaucromancer

On the Oregon front one of the ideas I have kicking around (though I've never thought of it in terms of keeping the US off the Pacific coast altogether) for a TL involving a BC border at the Columbia River involves immigration from India. Making it sensible it hard, but the high level idea is an HBC that commits to settlement early, seeing it as more important to keep Oregon British than extract every penny from furs in the short term and that starts bringing in Indians when they realize the limited appeal to European colonists. Following it up with earlier railways, and definitely a CPR built from both ends and with Indian rather than Chinese labour and I think there's some room for something very interesting.

The real trick is getting the justification for that initial impulse to bring in Indian settlers, and to do so early enough to avoid the Oregon Treaty (wrestling with this is the biggest reason I have yet to post anything on it actually).
 

Richter von Manthofen

TFSmith121 said:
Um, how, exactly?

The Pacific Coast of North America is about as far as one can get traveling by sea from the UK ... so who's going to stop the Americans, traveling overland or by steamer to Panama and then north - the RCMP?

The World Rushed In is the title of JS Holladay's social history of the California Gold Rush, and it was not hyperbole...

It is worth noting that NONE of the European colonies on the Pacific Coast of North America amounted to much of anything population-wise; the reasons why are obvious.

Alaska, British Columbia, and California are farther away from Europe in terms of travel time (before the transcontinental railroads and steamships; forget the Panama Canal) than anywhere else in the world.

Cripes, Australia was closer to the UK in 1840 in terms of days at sea than British Columbia was.

And the only way the British could settle Australia was with convicts...

Best,
Click to expand...

And assume the Brits are somehow NOT able to "settle" Australia with convicts. Far fetched byut what if Aussieland is discovered earlier and goes to France (maybe after the AWI) on the green table.

Britain is seeking another place for its convicts - the farther away the better ;) - OTL Oregon might make a good place.

First fleet 1787 had 500 (?) or more convicts, Oregon in 1850 (60 years after) was still at 12k. British West America might have much more population in 1850.

Immigration from and through the US (of TTL) might and will happen, but the question is if this settlers are insisting to be US citizens or if they are willing to become British subjects. IT might be Britain which takes California TTL from Mexico (maybe even allying with the US against Mexico).

I assume the slave question will be less "virulent" in this world (California and Oregon are either British or Mexican (California only). In consewuence the border between Britain and the US will run somewhere along the Rockies). Less "free" states... If a war between the states will happen it might run quite different. No californian Gold and Western troops (well not too many I assume) are a "blow" to the Union. Britain might even have interest to join in (nibbling a bit on the border). the Confederacy might be able to import/export through British Western America (lessen the blockade a bit).

Before I forget there might be a state of Deseret TTL.
 

The Gunslinger

Bureaucromancer said:
On the Oregon front one of the ideas I have kicking around (though I've never thought of it in terms of keeping the US off the Pacific coast altogether) for a TL involving a BC border at the Columbia River involves immigration from India. Making it sensible it hard, but the high level idea is an HBC that commits to settlement early, seeing it as more important to keep Oregon British than extract every penny from furs in the short term and that starts bringing in Indians when they realize the limited appeal to European colonists. Following it up with earlier railways, and definitely a CPR built from both ends and with Indian rather than Chinese labour and I think there's some room for something very interesting.

The real trick is getting the justification for that initial impulse to bring in Indian settlers, and to do so early enough to avoid the Oregon Treaty (wrestling with this is the biggest reason I have yet to post anything on it actually).
Click to expand...

You don't even need Indian settlers. Britain pushed for that being the border OTL. All it takes is America being a little more pre-occupied with Mexico to Britain pushing a harder claim for the Columbia being the border.
 
Clandango

Clandango

I only see the area filled with people from India if hey we're trying to do what the British and Dutch did in their colonies. Namely, take people from the East Indies and ship them over to Guiana en masse to work on hellish plantations after the slave trade was abolished. For Oregon you would get people more willing to go there due to the pioneering spirit. Might end up not wanting to join with Canada though.
 
B-29_Bomber

B-29_Bomber

Banned
wannis said:
Agreed, that's why I assume that it would happen eventually, just with a delay.


Well, I think that's unlikely so soon after the ARW and with the pro-French tendencies in the U.S. at that time. I'd rather think that without the purchase, the U.S. would still see New Orleans as being in friendly hands during the Napoleonic wars, but after Vienna, gradually tensions will build up, over New Orleans and probably also due to American settlers pushing into the lands on the West bank of the Mississippi without respecting Spanish authority.
Yes, and I assume even a delay of 20-30 years for the formal acquisition of Louisiana by the U.S. (probably after a short war with Mexico - I assume that independence of the Spanish colonies would not be significantly altered by the PoD, although there may be some butterflies) would significantly alter the dynamics in Oregon.
Click to expand...

Actually there was a significant Pro-Britain Political Block in the US at the time: the Federalists. They favored good relations because, at the time, Britain was America's biggest trading partner.

And as for France? Relations dampened due to the XYZ Affair and the naval conflict between the two in the 1790s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top