I have been wondering about this idea for a little while, and I'm trying to use it in a potential TL. So what if the US wasn't able to reach the Pacific. Like if Texas chose to remain independent (as out there as it might be) and Britain was able to gain it's entire claim in Oregon. The US is then boxed in but then what really happens to the concept of Manifest Destiny? Does the US sort of let it go, or do they begin something similar to state sponsored filibustering to try and gain it through other means? Or would it be something between the two?
Manifest Destiny if the US Could Not Reach the Pacific
- Thread starter Kendall Hart
- Start date
The US either steamrolls Texas or goes around them due to the Louisiana Purchase, and then burns its way through Mexico. This just means that the US border with Mexico would be a bit farther south. The US after it became a unified nation (so basically after 1815) simply needed to get to the Pacific, lest they become vulnerable. If you want something like a USA-in-exile-turned-United-States-of-North-Africa, you're gonna need a POD with the Founding Fathers or at least in the 1700's.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Most likely, the US re-orients south and anchors itself along the Caribbean and/or the Mississippi River.-St. Lawrence system rather than a cross-continental closed market. Expansionist energies are diverted to gaining possessions among the Caribbean Isles or taking Eastern Canada, resulting in a more outward facing geo-political stance rather than a hemispherical, isolationist position both for economic reasons (Greater cash-crop/export production primarily intended for the European market) and practical (Having to conflict with European powers, rather than newly-independent or Native American states, will require dealings with potential allies, rivals, ect.)
If they are rebuffed in both Texas and Oregon, then Manifest Destiny is probably dead on arrival.
One would think that if the British are locking them out of Oregon, then they're strong enough to defend Canada.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Manifest Destiny is a pretty phrase meaning Greed. The US did not need the west. They simply wanted it. In the absence of a power resisting their encroachment, they were going to grab it by hook or by crook. Britain did the US a favor by adopting a strategy of partnership of trade instead of competing for territory. Napoleon did the US a favor by hoodwinking Spain and regaining Louisiana and then selling it to the US. Charles IV and Godoy of Spain did them a favor by being imbeciles incapable of competently running a country. and finally, Mexico did them a favor by turning out to be a weak country. All these favors add up to a perfect storm allowing the US to develop the notion that they deserved to go coast to coast. They seized on the notion that they were divined to gain the coast, when they were nothing of the sort, and would do just fine if they were confined to east of the Mississippi. They would be a strong regional power, perhaps even a world power. Just not the superpower of OTL
Alternately, the Rockies could prove to be a stronger border than they anticipated and stop there, though Mississippi would be an interesting border to and the effects pn natives and neighbors
A US with a border at the Appalachians is a strong regional power. A US with a border at the Mississippi is a world power. A US with 1815 borders is a superpower. There's just so much land and resources (oil, coal, iron, etc.) that the US can have a massive population and economy and exert a global pull, especially in the Western Hemisphere where the US will have a major influence in Latin America. If the US can't get the Pacific, then I'd imagine they'll be doing a lot in Mexico and Central America to find a way around it. The Caribbean too will likely have even stronger US influence than OTL, and earlier.
The Mississippi as a border would be such a pain, given that with every major flood (or especially earthquake) the river can easily leave bits of land laying on the wrong side of the river. Or the fact you can start an international incident by saboteurs blowing a levee on the opposite bank during a flood (as often was attempted OTL) and causing major flooding on that side while leaving your side unscathed, or just suspected saboteurs being shot by militia guarding the river as tended to happen during Mississippi floods.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
If you view Anglo-American relations like they were IRL: in isolation and essentially bi-laterial, then yes. But as I mentioned, such a U.S would be forced to participate more broadly in European affairs, and could seek to gain concessions in/take parts of the more settled and valued region as part of that policy with the support of European allies/during periods of crisis for the Pax Britannica.