No Lousiana Purchase

In their favor, though, if you butterfly the easy purchase, is that Spain wasn't exactly a beacon of capable government in that era.

Pretty much here - the French Revolution has been butterflied, but that hardly butterflies the issues that caused the Revolution and other wars on the continent. It doesn't stop Louisiana from being a periphery territory for Spain and a vital one for the US.

I'd say a purchase, with Spain getting a much better deal than OTL, as Spain realizes that the US, if it really does want it, could likely take Louisiana and Florida as it stands - might as well sell it for a pretty penny to be used later.
 
Pretty much here - the French Revolution has been butterflied, but that hardly butterflies the issues that caused the Revolution and other wars on the continent. It doesn't stop Louisiana from being a periphery territory for Spain and a vital one for the US.

I'd say a purchase, with Spain getting a much better deal than OTL, as Spain realizes that the US, if it really does want it, could likely take Louisiana and Florida as it stands - might as well sell it for a pretty penny to be used later.

Remember that in OTL Spain offered Mexico a Dominion-esque relationship towards the end of their war for independence; I could see them doing that for their viceroys sometime in the 1800's if their empire didn't fall.
 
Remember that in OTL Spain offered Mexico a Dominion-esque relationship towards the end of their war for independence; I could see them doing that for their viceroys sometime in the 1800's if their empire didn't fall.

Possibly, but Louisiana is still pretty low population and, outside of New Orleans and Madrid, having self-rule might be difficult.

And Spain was always worried about losing Florida to the US in a war that, if the US was adequately prepared, Spain could do very little about. Of course, this was exacerbated by the US's possessions in Louisiana, but even absent that there are territorial disputes in the region, and at the time that Spain was worried, the vast majority of US population and power was still East of the Mississippi. All the US has to do is wait for a period of unrest in the early century, which will likely occur, and they can press hard on Spain.
 
I'm with the other posters. No French Revolution means that France likely can't/won't pressure Spain into retro-ceding the Louisiana back to them. And considering that in terms of navy, Spain was still in Europe's top 3 until the mid-19e century when it slipped to being in the top 5 IIRC.

Plus, no FRW means that there's no incentive to spark rebellions all over the Spanish New World . Sure, the ARW can fulfill the same role (in theory), but that America got it's independence could be seen as a long shot combined with a lot of luck by the Spanish colonies (America got help from France, Spain, the Netherlands; they rebel it'll be France backing Spain to put down the rebellion). I don't say Latin America WON'T break away from Spain, just that it won't occur as OTL.
 
Remember that in OTL Spain offered Mexico a Dominion-esque relationship towards the end of their war for independence; I could see them doing that for their viceroys sometime in the 1800's if their empire didn't fall.

That was Aranda's plan in the late 1780s already, Chatwaubriand dusted it off in the 1810s IIRC. So presumably, without a FRW we might see it get put into practice.
 
The northern part of the Louisiana Purchase, basically everything north of OTL St Louis at a minimum and west of there (draw a line due west to the Sierra Nevada mountains from there) and south of the US-Canada border has essentially zero white settlements. Assuming it remains Spanish territory you'll still have American mountain men going through there for hunting/trapping and settlers will follow them. Sure we know now there are silver and gold deposits in this area, but back then not at all. IMHO you'd see the same sort of infiltration of American settlers in to that space you saw in Texas, only with even fewer Spanish/Mexican folks living there a rebellion against Spain or simply the US claiming it and offering to pay some nominal fee. The UK can't really make much of a claim and make it stick, in the first half of the 19th century settlement settlement in Canada west of the Great Lakes was essentially nil except for Hudson's Bay waaay north and that was trading posts.

I would expect you'd see a more of less US-Canada like like today, a US-Spain line somewhere south of St Louis extending to the California-Nevada border, and the US Pacific coast being Oregon and Washington. by 1840 or so. After that, anything is possible. The US, if it does not get free transit through New Orleans may get grabby, and th California revolt may or may not happen... Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico may stay Mexican, or not.
 
The northern part of the Louisiana Purchase, basically everything north of OTL St Louis at a minimum and west of there (draw a line due west to the Sierra Nevada mountains from there) and south of the US-Canada border has essentially zero white settlements. Assuming it remains Spanish territory you'll still have American mountain men going through there for hunting/trapping and settlers will follow them. Sure we know now there are silver and gold deposits in this area, but back then not at all. IMHO you'd see the same sort of infiltration of American settlers in to that space you saw in Texas, only with even fewer Spanish/Mexican folks living there a rebellion against Spain or simply the US claiming it and offering to pay some nominal fee. The UK can't really make much of a claim and make it stick, in the first half of the 19th century settlement settlement in Canada west of the Great Lakes was essentially nil except for Hudson's Bay waaay north and that was trading posts.

I would expect you'd see a more of less US-Canada like like today, a US-Spain line somewhere south of St Louis extending to the California-Nevada border, and the US Pacific coast being Oregon and Washington. by 1840 or so. After that, anything is possible. The US, if it does not get free transit through New Orleans may get grabby, and th California revolt may or may not happen... Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico may stay Mexican, or not.

If there's no Louisiana Purchase America has no claim to Oregon and Britain will tell the American settlers to leave and make sure they're fair game on the way there. In northern Louisiana Spain likely does the same. These are people in hostile country with no political rights and land ownership that could be refused at the drop of a hat. The Texans were invited in, the Americans won't be here.
 
The northern part of the Louisiana Purchase, basically everything north of OTL St Louis at a minimum and west of there (draw a line due west to the Sierra Nevada mountains from there) and south of the US-Canada border has essentially zero white settlements. Assuming it remains Spanish territory you'll still have American mountain men going through there for hunting/trapping and settlers will follow them. Sure we know now there are silver and gold deposits in this area, but back then not at all. IMHO you'd see the same sort of infiltration of American settlers in to that space you saw in Texas, only with even fewer Spanish/Mexican folks living there a rebellion against Spain or simply the US claiming it and offering to pay some nominal fee. The UK can't really make much of a claim and make it stick, in the first half of the 19th century settlement settlement in Canada west of the Great Lakes was essentially nil except for Hudson's Bay waaay north and that was trading posts.

I would expect you'd see a more of less US-Canada like like today, a US-Spain line somewhere south of St Louis extending to the California-Nevada border, and the US Pacific coast being Oregon and Washington. by 1840 or so. After that, anything is possible. The US, if it does not get free transit through New Orleans may get grabby, and the California revolt may or may not happen... Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico may stay Mexican, or not.

That's just insane, the Mexicans welcomed American settlers into their sparsely populated northern lands, the Spanish and British certainly wouldn't do this. At best they wouldn't be hostile and at worst they will attempt to expel the settlers, something the US can do very little about; Spain is still strong and won't enter their period of decline for quite a while since the POD is seemingly no revolution.

You're also ignoring the fact that the US never wanted the whole territory in the first place, they only wanted New Orleans; if they somehow pull off a miracle and beat the Spanish [Or even funnier, if there still is a revolution and Napoleon, the British] they wouldn't take much. Manifest Destiny wasn't existent yet. With sturdy land holdings in North America and a land border to the colony, I doubt that Spain will even sell Florida.
 
I'm with the other posters. No French Revolution means that France likely can't/won't pressure Spain into retro-ceding the Louisiana back to them. And considering that in terms of navy, Spain was still in Europe's top 3 until the mid-19e century when it slipped to being in the top 5 IIRC.

Plus, no FRW means that there's no incentive to spark rebellions all over the Spanish New World . Sure, the ARW can fulfill the same role (in theory), but that America got it's independence could be seen as a long shot combined with a lot of luck by the Spanish colonies (America got help from France, Spain, the Netherlands; they rebel it'll be France backing Spain to put down the rebellion). I don't say Latin America WON'T break away from Spain, just that it won't occur as OTL.

Exactly, in this world I would expect that some colonies [Brazil and Argentina/Chile spring to mind] would break away, but they would be the US to the Spanish's Jamaica, Australia, and Canada. Revolution is hard and if the regions [New Spain being by far the most likely] are offered a Dominion-esque deal, likely just being separate kingdoms under personal union, then they will be more likely to take it.
 
Top