Napoleon-less world = Jackson-less world?

So I did some thinking. Andrew Jackson basically went into politics based off his fame in the War of 1812. So without a Napoleon (and without a subsequent War of 1812 and Battle of New Orleans) would a world where the French Revolution went without a masterminded Corsican result with one less Andrew Jackson in American politics?
 

maverick

Banned
But without New Orleans he doesn't become a national figure...

And can't get the support of Pennsylvania, which was key to he becoming a viable national candidate in 1824
 
He was already notorious in Tennesse as a duelest and was a brigadier general. He'd likely win local renown as an Indian fighter and enter the national stage eventually as a Senator.

Wheither that would get him the Presidency is another story. Guess that butterflies away Winfield Scott's war reputation, William Henry Harrison's presidency too.

Not to mention the European powers won't be taking America seriously for awhile longer.
 
without Napoleon getting France into a war with Britain, things might get tense with the USA. America really wanted to get New Orleans, and asked Napoleon to sell the city several times; in OTL, Napoleon sold NO and the whole LA territory because he thought the Brits would take it anyway. Without Napoleon and war with Britain, the US is likely to have less luck in this...
 
Well, without Napoleon, Lousiana and New Orleans would most likely remain Spanish for some time. Spain's declining around this time, so perhaps the Spaniards sell New Orleans to a growing United States.

The other option regarding Louisiana would be to wait for the Spanish Empire to fall around 1820. A la Texas, Americans would continuously journey to the capital of Louisiana in a filibuster attempt, but take some time for a revolution to actually erupt. Say perhaps in the early 1830s, Louisiana goes into full revolution, a pro-American government takes power and Louisiana enters the Union.

Of course, I doubt they'd split the entire country into thirteen states to begin with, so Louisiana would be one enormous state. This would bring into question whether or not it should exist as a slave/free state. Perhaps splitting it into a North Louisiana (capital in St. Louis?) and a South Louisiana.
 
Well, without Napoleon, Lousiana and New Orleans would most likely remain Spanish for some time. Spain's declining around this time, so perhaps the Spaniards sell New Orleans to a growing United States.

The other option regarding Louisiana would be to wait for the Spanish Empire to fall around 1820. A la Texas, Americans would continuously journey to the capital of Louisiana in a filibuster attempt, but take some time for a revolution to actually erupt. Say perhaps in the early 1830s, Louisiana goes into full revolution, a pro-American government takes power and Louisiana enters the Union.

Of course, I doubt they'd split the entire country into thirteen states to begin with, so Louisiana would be one enormous state. This would bring into question whether or not it should exist as a slave/free state. Perhaps splitting it into a North Louisiana (capital in St. Louis?) and a South Louisiana.

But the Spanish American revolutionary wars were caused by the dissolution of central Spanish power in Madrid during the Napoleonic Wars.

Without the Napoleonic wars to throw Spain into chaos, there is no devolution of power to the colonies and no resentment over Spain trying to grab it back post war.

Thats not to say that the Revolutionary wars in Spanish America won't happen, but they'll happen later and Spain might do better.
 
True, but even then Spain was declining as a great power. Even Great Britain in OTL wasn't able to defeat the US in two colonial wars. I suspect even an uninjured Spanish Empire could hold off the US. Logistics alone would make it hard.
 
True, but even then Spain was declining as a great power. Even Great Britain in OTL wasn't able to defeat the US in two colonial wars. I suspect even an uninjured Spanish Empire could hold off the US. Logistics alone would make it hard.

What two colonial wars? If you mean the War of 1812, America didn't win that war and Britain was distracted by Napoleon. The War of 1812 was always a sideshow for Britain.

Yes, Spain was a declining power, but there had been some bourbon reforms and you might see Spain keep more of her empire.

I am not doubting that Spain was going to lose her empire, but the Napoleonic wars GREATLY accelerated its decline in the Americas.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Spanish colonial America lasted decades more before collapse.
 
The War of 1812 was a push. Britain was wore out fighting in her front yard, she really didn't want to spend any more energy chasing the American lapdog that was running around in her back. Even so, the war did win the US a certain amount of prestige.

But without the War of 1812 or the Napoleonic wars that means eventually the US and the Spanish Empire are going to come to blows. The whole notion of the Republic of West Florida may actually take a more defenitive shape.

Spain would be in a position to provide some real resistance though, and I doubt she'd lose Mexico in the 1820's if she weren't still reeling from the Napoleonic wars. But Spanish Florida and Lousiana? Only a matter of time before the US annexed them, sent in settlers to rebel, or outright took them by force.
 
The War of 1812 was a push. Britain was wore out fighting in her front yard, she really didn't want to spend any more energy chasing the American lapdog that was running around in her back. Even so, the war did win the US a certain amount of prestige.
Agreed, America did win for itself much needed prestige and even far more patriotism for itself (some at the time called it the second war of American Indendence)

But without the War of 1812 or the Napoleonic wars that means eventually the US and the Spanish Empire are going to come to blows. The whole notion of the Republic of West Florida may actually take a more defenitive shape.

I'm not sure about blows. With American settlers always moving into Louisiana, you might just see the Spanish willing to sell the land to the Americans. It would help cut down on administrative costs for a land that was probably getting harder to administrate and it'd help get Spain's own finances in order. Though I doubt the sell date would 1803, it'd probably be within a decade of that...

Spain would be in a position to provide some real resistance though, and I doubt she'd lose Mexico in the 1820's if she weren't still reeling from the Napoleonic wars. But Spanish Florida and Lousiana? Only a matter of time before the US annexed them, sent in settlers to rebel, or outright took them by force.

Mexico and some other areas Spain probably will be able to hang onto all the better.
 
But the Spanish American revolutionary wars were caused by the dissolution of central Spanish power in Madrid during the Napoleonic Wars.

Without the Napoleonic wars to throw Spain into chaos, there is no devolution of power to the colonies and no resentment over Spain trying to grab it back post war.

Thats not to say that the Revolutionary wars in Spanish America won't happen, but they'll happen later and Spain might do better.

Could the Carlist wars have about the same effect?
 
Could the Carlist wars have about the same effect?

Maybe, but Isabella isn't going to be born until the 1830's, so I doubt she will exist in this timeline. If she and her sister don't exist, or Ferdinand has sons, you'd avoid the first Carlist war in its entirety...

On the other hand, the longer Spain holds onto her American holdings, the more likely spanish american nationalists will take advantage of any unrest at home.
 
Top