Expansion and Manifest Destiny without Louisiana

Hey Guys,

If the Americans (for some reason) were unable to buy/annex/conquer/own Louisiana and were unable to have mass amounts of settlers there, would the American people have settled elsewhere in large waves. Without being able to 'Go West' where could they have gone? Would they have begun to settle Florida in mass waves, and from there the Caribbean? Maybe even the East coast of New Spain (such as Yucatán perhaps).

Or without the huge land of Louisiana would the Americans have just dealt with their own internal 'problems' (i.e. The Natives).
 
Well Manifest Destiny was born from the USA's large immigrant population. If it couldn't secure the Mid West then it would probably become a far more sedate culture and fewer peopel would migrate there. Most people moving there in the 18th century were religious untouchables or war refugees. It all depends on their 'nationality' really (the term can only be applied loosely at this point).
Most were 'German' (again- used loosely) or Eastern European. One can only guess where they'd head, maybe Russia? The Tsars wanted skilled craftsmen and Catherine the Great et al accepted large numbers of German immigrants and settled them on the Volga and, of course, in St Petersburg. We'd therefore probably see a more cosmopolitan Russia. Oh, what an AH wet dream that is!
 
Hey Guys,

If the Americans (for some reason) were unable to buy/annex/conquer/own Louisiana and were unable to have mass amounts of settlers there, would the American people have settled elsewhere in large waves. Without being able to 'Go West' where could they have gone? Would they have begun to settle Florida in mass waves, and from there the Caribbean? Maybe even the East coast of New Spain (such as Yucatán perhaps).

Or without the huge land of Louisiana would the Americans have just dealt with their own internal 'problems' (i.e. The Natives).

Unable to buy/own ok, if the US can't buy it they will fight for it, via filibustering expeditions or a full on declaration of war. Against Spain I give them a victory, against Napoleonic France even money, against England not distracted in Europe a loss until the 1880s. With that being said, any war fought for Louisiana that ends in American loss starts a civil 10-20 years afterward. Yes Manifest Destiny, is started by the Mexican war but really it was the acquisition of Louisiana that got the idea rolling. Without Louisiana the sectional issues become much more prevalent, and are only exacerbated because of a loss.

Where do people go should the US lose? I think you still get Massive immigration to the US, because the bottom line is the US has the most freedom of press, religion etc. compared to anywhere else in the World in the 19th century.

They dealt with their native problem quite ruthlessly
 
Well, Louisiana might still have recieved those immigrants even if America did not possess it. Didn't most Latin American countries accept large numbers of German immigrants? As did English colonies.
 
Well, Louisiana might still have recieved those immigrants even if America did not possess it. Didn't most Latin American countries accept large numbers of German immigrants? As did English colonies.

there were large German and French ex-pat communities outside of San Antonio and Houston (large= likely less than 10,000 combined). Latin America did but I believe the numbers were not large until the 20th century. In order for Louisiana to get those immigrants, they have to want to go there. In a no US scenario, Louisiana remains in European hands with the issues that come with it.
 
More similar levels of immigration as OTL up until the 1840's-50's by which time the East COast is pretty densely settled, i.e. no possibility of a 'new horizon' just more of the same then bigger immigration to Australia, S. America and maybe even Africa.
 
I am assuming Napoleon chooses not to sell and Jefferson doesn't push the issue and the next president (probably still Madison) doesn't control filibustering at all and we fight a war with Napoleonic France and lose. Thats seems the most likely. After the Waterloo the land would return to Spain although it might be guaranteed by England (we lose to England & Spain but smash Spain into the ground)

Jefferson would be remembered more for his rhetorical accomplishments (Declaration) than his governing philosophies (so called) and the American Right loses a president to misquote and use for the their political purposes :p.
 
The problem here is that Napoleon really needed the cash the purchase would make. What I could see being offered up instead is all the territory above the 40th parallel to the US for 1/2 of what France got in OTL.

In the long run France could have made more money on all the goods passing through New Orleans than the money they got immediately for the whole territory. So, keeping everything below the 40th makes sense for their future finances.

An interesting thing could be France coming to possess Texas eventually and fighting a war with US settlers there. Of course, that is if the American settlers have a problem being under French rule.
 
In the long run France could have made more money on all the goods passing through New Orleans than the money they got immediately for the whole territory. So, keeping everything below the 40th makes sense for their future finances.

So, the US gets the MO-MS valley above the 40th. That puts them out to the continental divide in Montana. France has most of MO, KS, OK, AR and LA. Mexico has TX, NM, AZ, CA, NV, UT and western CO/WY. The US becomes less demanding over the Oregon territory and settles sooner for the 49th parallel, extending the US coast to coast and satisfying manifest destiny. The US would have an overall less ambitious attitude.

In OTL, the big wave of Germanic and Slavic immigration did not become strong until after 1870, so there would be no problem accommodating settlers before that time.

If Mexico does not invite Americans to settle Texas in the 1820's, there probably won't be a move for an independent Texas, especially with French territory in between. Does the French territory become another Quebec? Does Mexico remain coherent with Texas, California?

Suppose the US goes after the Mexican territory north of the 37th parallel. That gives us northern CA, San Francisco, etc., and the water resources needed to develop southern CA as it is today. In Mexican control, southern California area remains a more sparsely populated desert.
 
Once France lost Haiti Louisiana was "worthless" to them, as all it really provided to France was food farms for Saint Domingue (saving land there for cash crops). If you somehow let France keep Haiti (peace with L'Ouverture?) then the reasoning to sell "all that swamp and desert" is lessened.
 
Once France lost Haiti Louisiana was "worthless" to them, as all it really provided to France was food farms for Saint Domingue (saving land there for cash crops). If you somehow let France keep Haiti (peace with L'Ouverture?) then the reasoning to sell "all that swamp and desert" is lessened.
Just what I was going to say. Either a peace with L'Ouverture or simply have Napoleon not re-instate slavery.
 
Top