AHC: Mississippi River as International Border

Pretty much as the tin says. With a POD no earlier than 1776, make it so that there are at least two countries that have a border along the Mississippi River.

Bonus points if the Ohio or Missouri Rivers are NOT borders.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Thing is that - as Jefferson famously and astutely noted - New Orleans is rather an important city. Whoever holds it can threaten the United States, it's important for trade... basically, the USA really wanted it. The Louisiana Purchase was actually a fluke, though. Jefferson was trying to get only the city of New Orleans, and free right of transit on the Mississippi (which the USA used to have, until Spain revoked the relevant treaty in 1798). So that could be a POD right there: Jefferson still wants New Orleans for the USA, Napoleon still grabs Louisiana off Spain and still wants to sell it, but Jefferson has more trouble getting Congress to agree to the Louisiana Purchase, since the USA already enjoys free right of transit on the Mississippi. Not many people wanted to buy all that distant hinterland. So say Jefferson eventually manages to buy only New Orleans. The rest stays vaguely French, until Napoleon is defeated, at which point the ownership of the territory becomes a point of pride for the mexican revolutionaries - and they eventually claim it for Mexico, agreeing to perpetually cede New rleans to the USA, and to make the Mississippi an international river with free transit for all.

The problem I see with that is that the USA had plenty of drives to expand west. Maybe not even actively, politically... but there were a lot of settlers just trekking west on their own. So it's rather hard to avoid Louisiana eventually being gobbled up by settlers. Maybe if Mexico saw that risk, and made it a policy to heavily settle Texas and the west bank of the Mississippi with Mexicans? Then the area would be more densely populated, harder to simply grab. If Mexican-American relations are also good in TTL, your desired outcome could come about.

Your scenario could be further aided by having Mexico agree to cede all claims north of the 42nd parallel to the United States. If the USA then dukes it out with Britain over Oregon as in OTL, the USA will get access to the Pacific anyway. This would both (somewhat) reduce the incentive to grab Mexican land, and ensure that the Missouri is no international border, per your request.
 
Thing is that - as Jefferson famously and astutely noted - New Orleans is rather an important city. Whoever holds it can threaten the United States, it's important for trade... basically, the USA really wanted it. The Louisiana Purchase was actually a fluke, though. Jefferson was trying to get only the city of New Orleans, and free right of transit on the Mississippi (which the USA used to have, until Spain revoked the relevant treaty in 1798). So that could be a POD right there: Jefferson still wants New Orleans for the USA, Napoleon still grabs Louisiana off Spain and still wants to sell it, but Jefferson has more trouble getting Congress to agree to the Louisiana Purchase, since the USA already enjoys free right of transit on the Mississippi. Not many people wanted to buy all that distant hinterland. So say Jefferson eventually manages to buy only New Orleans. The rest stays vaguely French, until Napoleon is defeated, at which point the ownership of the territory becomes a point of pride for the mexican revolutionaries - and they eventually claim it for Mexico, agreeing to perpetually cede New rleans to the USA, and to make the Mississippi an international river with free transit for all.

The problem I see with that is that the USA had plenty of drives to expand west. Maybe not even actively, politically... but there were a lot of settlers just trekking west on their own. So it's rather hard to avoid Louisiana eventually being gobbled up by settlers. Maybe if Mexico saw that risk, and made it a policy to heavily settle Texas and the west bank of the Mississippi with Mexicans? Then the area would be more densely populated, harder to simply grab. If Mexican-American relations are also good in TTL, your desired outcome could come about.

Your scenario could be further aided by having Mexico agree to cede all claims north of the 42nd parallel to the United States. If the USA then dukes it out with Britain over Oregon as in OTL, the USA will get access to the Pacific anyway. This would both (somewhat) reduce the incentive to grab Mexican land, and ensure that the Missouri is no international border, per your request.

If the Trans-Appalachian West had an issue with needing New Orleans, than the rest of the Louisiana Purchase was even more in dire need. Not to mention no one lived there besides native peoples outside of a couple fur traders.

Honestly, even if Mexico could somehow do that (I'd think places already meant to be buffers from Mexican strategic goals in the north--New Mexico and Texas would be more logical for any mass settlement), there would be so much distance from Mexico City to this new frontier that the region would fragment off and if not wholly annexed, end up as a US client state. But that would still technically fulfill the challenge, so...
 

Skallagrim

Banned
If the Trans-Appalachian West had an issue with needing New Orleans, than the rest of the Louisiana Purchase was even more in dire need. Not to mention no one lived there besides native peoples outside of a couple fur traders.

Honestly, even if Mexico could somehow do that (I'd think places already meant to be buffers from Mexican strategic goals in the north--New Mexico and Texas would be more logical for any mass settlement), there would be so much distance from Mexico City to this new frontier that the region would fragment off and if not wholly annexed, end up as a US client state. But that would still technically fulfill the challenge, so...

Very true. As I said, it's rather hard to avoid Louisiana eventually being gobbled up by settlers from the USA. A specifically pro-USA state - sort of like a very large Texas - that secedes from Mexico but doesn't join the USA could be the most realistic outcome, yeah. Since that place would likely secede from Mexico after lots of Americans have already moved there, so it's kind of like a daughter nation to the USA. If they stay independent but firmly allied to the USA, they might just hold out.
 

Deleted member 67076

Have the US war of independence come out like a Latin American war of Independence: longer, bloodier and with far more damage to property. The nation comes out with roughly the same borders but is far weaker and poorer, thus attracting less immigrants due to lower wages.

Then follow this up with the country imploding into 3 or 4 states, none rich or strong enough to take the Mississippi.

The new countries never manage to expand west, giving you multiple countries with a border at the Mississippi.
 
Very true. As I said, it's rather hard to avoid Louisiana eventually being gobbled up by settlers from the USA. A specifically pro-USA state - sort of like a very large Texas - that secedes from Mexico but doesn't join the USA could be the most realistic outcome, yeah. Since that place would likely secede from Mexico after lots of Americans have already moved there, so it's kind of like a daughter nation to the USA. If they stay independent but firmly allied to the USA, they might just hold out.

I think they'd secede from Mexico on their own assuming this Mexico is anything like OTL's. No Americans needed, although American trade would be a huge factor in influencing people's decisions, since they'd be far stronger linked to the US than to Mexico economically.

You also have to make an identity for these people so they don't just decide to vote and join the US at some point.
 
Too many butterflies to consider. However, if the Louisiana Purchase was limited to New Orleans or to the west bank of the Mississippi River with the remainder of land staying with the French. Then it is possible that after the independence of Texas from Mexico and the lack of will by the French that the Republic of Texas expands east to either the Atchafalaya River with the Red River being the northern border of the Republic of Texas. All pure butterfly speculation, but still and interesting question which was posed.
 

SRBO

Banned
Pretty much as the tin says. With a POD no earlier than 1776, make it so that there are at least two countries that have a border along the Mississippi River.

Bonus points if the Ohio or Missouri Rivers are NOT borders.

Like the St. Lawrence, it's a shitty border for most of it's course and everyone will try to own both sides of the middle and lower course
 
Top