Much higher Appalachians

Don't know whether to put this in pre-1900 or ASB, but since this involves a somewhat plausible change in prehistory, I'll put it here.

What if the Appalachian Mountains were about as high and rugged as the Rocky Mountains? There could be a couple of explanations for this: less erosion, volcanic activity, etc. Basically, how would a much rougher Appalachian range affect the colonization of North America? Would the presence of an nigh-impassable barrier make the St. Lawrence Seaway more important as the gateway to the Midwest? Would the East Coast become a backwater? And if there's volcanic activity, how would that affect development?
 
It's technically ASB, but your chances of getting a serious discussion there are low.
Both the Seaway and the Mississippi would be even more important than they were OTL.
The East Coast wouldn't be a backwater, because it was the first area to be settled. I imagine the different geography might lead to different settlement patterns, and possibly different borders and even different countries in existence. If the Mississippi is inaccessible to the US, it may be limited to the east coast and the great lakes region. Spain or France (whoever controls Louisiana) may have a stronger presence in North America. It may end up eventually becoming an independent nation similar to the US, or we might end up with an enormous Mexico. That would be interesting.
 
It would block rain clouds from the Atlantic into the interior, turning the prairies into deserts.

Most of our moisture here in the Mid-West comes from the Gulf of Mexico, not off the Atlantic.
 
the weather world wide would be different, like the effect of the himalayan mountains but not of exactly the same magnitude of course.
 
It would block rain clouds from the Atlantic into the interior, turning the prairies into deserts.

Prevailing winds blow eastward in the US.

Most of our moisture here in the Mid-West comes from the Gulf of Mexico, not off the Atlantic.
Exactly - if anything the interior of the continent would be wetter, since all clouds coming off the Gulf would flow North/East into the wall of the Appalachias and drop their rain. If anything the Seaboard would be in the rain-shadow and would be more parched, with occaisional drenchings from Hurricanes that stay East.

The mountains might make a natural border, with a seaboard nation from however settled there first, and an interior nation from however settled the mouth of the Mississippi first. There wouldn't be the same flow of settlers from the coast to the interior as happened in OTL. If settlement patterns are the same as OTL, then I see an English-speaking nation on the coast, and French speaking nation(s) wrapping around from the St. Laurent to Nouvelle Orleans.
 
Exactly - if anything the interior of the continent would be wetter, since all clouds coming off the Gulf would flow North/East into the wall of the Appalachias and drop their rain. If anything the Seaboard would be in the rain-shadow and would be more parched, with occaisional drenchings from Hurricanes that stay East.

The mountains might make a natural border,<snip>

These two points make me think that the east coast would be relatively unsettled, while the Mississippi Valley could be home to a thriving civilization instead of one in decline as OTL.
 
These two points make me think that the east coast would be relatively unsettled, while the Mississippi Valley could be home to a thriving civilization instead of one in decline as OTL.

The massively destructive effect of disease destroyed the Mississippian civilization, I thought.

Anyway, I think that the focus of European settlement would probably have been on the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. It would be the only entrance that anyone would know about to the interior for quite a while, and the only path to the rich fur lands (that presumably still exist?). So the settlement of North America might advance far faster into the interior of the continent, from the initially heavier settlement at the mouth of the St. Lawrence.

If the higher Appalachians produce a rain shadow then won't the east coast see more rain?

Settlement of the east coast anyway, since the English were looking for gold and not fur in Virginia, initially, and I don't see how the Rockies would prevent the introduction of tobacco.
 
Would a wetter, more highly populated environment be more suited for the generation and propagation of diseases? More nasty surprises for European explorers I expect. Could mean that the Gulf coastline could be somewhat akin to the West African coast in that respect.

The Amazonian Indians are said to have farmed extensively, could this mean *Mississippian civilization more closely resemble those guys? Or perhaps more advanced, a third center of civilization beyond Mexico and Peru. I wonder if the Spanish would be able to go three for three and conquer all the major native civilizations.
 
It's not ASB. It is just a very early geological divergeance. AS others have said, it would have a significant effect on the east coast climate, I tend to think that the Altalntic seaboard climate might be dryer. The western slopes of the mountains would force much of the mositure out of the predominantly west-east weather systems in north america, resulting in less precipitation in the eastern rain shadow. I'm not sure the Atlantic moisture would compensate for this.

The effect of increased rainfall along the eastern reaches of the Mississippi tributary system would add significant volume to the river system. Eastern north america west of the mountains would be wetter and more rainforesty, I imagine.

This might not affect indigenous cultural evolution too much as Archaic, Woodland, and Missisippian cultures evolved in the fairly moist eastern woodlands anyway. It might delay the worse effects of Anglo-American expansion by a generation or too, but affect little the conquest of Mexico and Spanish moves into the SW and SE USA.

It would affect European settlement and colonization of north america. It would greatly inhibit westward expansion from what would become OTL the initial 13 colonies. I agree with another poster who suggested that the St Lawrence River valley might see much more intensive colonization, and there would probably be more competition among the European powers for colonies at or near the mouth of the Mississippi and gulf coast area.
 
I don't think it would make that much difference. The Appalachians are made up of a bunch of mountain ranges, with rivers, valleys and passes in between. It's not like the early colonists literally climbed over the tops of the mountains. They were an obstacle, until the passes and gaps were found. Now granted, there are not that many passes - IIRC, most settlers heading west went through the Cumberland gap or via the Hudson/Mohawk valleys. There would still be passes and gaps, even if the mountains are higher. It might take longer, but I think they would still be passable.

I think the main trouble they had was with the natives who controlled the areas. With higher mountains, the natives may be able to control their lands more effectively, even with less numbers. This may give them much needed time to consolidate and advance.

There may be higher anounts of snowfall in the mountains, (there really is no permanent snowline now) and that may limit the mountain crossing season.

Not sure how much effect on weather there would be. Actually, I think the East coast might benefit. True, the jet stream moves west-east, and storms from the west would be dumped on the western Apps. But that affects mostly Winter weather when the jet stream is further south. A large part of our moisture comes from winds blowing off the Atlantic (at least in spring/summer/fall). With higher Appalachians, the cold winter winds from Canada would be blocked, or funneled through the Mississippi Valley, leaving the east coast much milder. In the summer, I think it may cool down a bit, and perhaps be even wetter. The moisture laden winds from the Atlantic dump their moisture on the Eastern slopes, leading to more rivers and a moister climate, maybe similar to Oregon/Washington.

The Mississippi Valley would probably be moister in summer, colder in winter, and more prone to tornados and thunderstorms than it is already.

Other effects- more disease (malaria especially), probably no possibility of an Erie canal, making Mississippi/St.Lawrence the only water access to the Midwest. Corn might travel earlier to the east coast due to better suited growing climate. Maybe even much higher native populations.

I'm hungry and rambling so I'll stop now.
 
Not sure how much effect on weather there would be. Actually, I think the East coast might benefit. True, the jet stream moves west-east, and storms from the west would be dumped on the western Apps. But that affects mostly Winter weather when the jet stream is further south. A large part of our moisture comes from winds blowing off the Atlantic (at least in spring/summer/fall). With higher Appalachians, the cold winter winds from Canada would be blocked, or funneled through the Mississippi Valley, leaving the east coast much milder. In the summer, I think it may cool down a bit, and perhaps be even wetter. The moisture laden winds from the Atlantic dump their moisture on the Eastern slopes, leading to more rivers and a moister climate, maybe similar to Oregon/Washington.
I was reading on warm and dry Foehn Winds yesterday, (sorry if Wiki is not reliable to you guys) and one example I found was the dryer than normal (for the E coast) Shenandoah Valley, perhaps there are more pockets of relatively dry regions along the leeward side of the higher than OTL mountain chain. Another possibility for this would be more fertile soils?
 
Top