No Manifest of Destiny

[Redem]

WI the u.s never had expansionism and it's frontier had stay relatively the same than the one it had after the American revolution. Would the southern states still separate ? would the u.s still have become a super power ?

 

[Superdude]

Its Manifest Destiny.

Ok, so no Louisiana purchas is my bet for this one.

 

[Wendell]

Its Manifest Destiny.

Ok, so no Louisiana purchas is my bet for this one.

I disagree. The term was not coined until after the said acquisition was made. The U.S. was destined to grow anyway.

 

[Faeelin]

I disagree. The term was not coined until after the said acquisition was made. The U.S. was destined to grow anyway.

Destined by whom? Almighty Providence?

US expansion was pretty probable, sure. But if the Brits had grabbed Louisiana, or a Napoleonic superstate ruled from Warsaw to Lisbon, then I can see the US being hemmed in pretty easily.

 

[Wendell]

Destined by whom? Almighty Providence?

US expansion was pretty probable, sure. But if the Brits had grabbed Louisiana, or a Napoleonic superstate ruled from Warsaw to Lisbon, then I can see the US being hemmed in pretty easily.

A John Sullivan, or John O'Sullivan, I don't remember which, who was a journalist, iof I remember correctly. He should not be confused with the General from the War of Independence. The journalist was from New York, and made his comments around the time of the Texas annexation.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Destined by whom? Almighty Providence?

US expansion was pretty probable, sure. But if the Brits had grabbed Louisiana, or a Napoleonic superstate ruled from Warsaw to Lisbon, then I can see the US being hemmed in pretty easily.

Destined by geopolitics at least. It had a booming population, and the indian tribes to the west and other European colonies in the Western Hemisphere pretty much didn't. Its far enough removed from Europe that it would be a pain for any European power to interfere or briefly check. The Atlantic Ocean forms a barrier that isolates America from others and others from America. Its much like the Russian state, it expanded into a 'void' of any other possible rivals.

 

[Wendell]

Destined by geopolitics at least. It had a booming population, and the indian tribes to the west and other European colonies in the Western Hemisphere pretty much didn't. Its far enough removed from Europe that it would be a pain for any European power to interfere or briefly check. The Atlantic Ocean forms a barrier that isolates America from others and others from America. Its much like the Russian state, it expanded into a 'void' of any other possible rivals.

I agree completely.

 

[SkyEmperor]

Just because the American prolplr were destined to expand west, doesn't mean the U.S. government had to follow. Texas, California, and Utah all had brief periods of self rule before they were annexed. What happened in each case was that: the americans showed and agreed to live by local laws. The americans decided they didn't like local laws, wanted a government more like the one they left. The americans rose up (almost always with U.S. aid), and overthrew the local colonial power. the U.S. snapped the new republics up.
Suppose the U.S. hadn't snapped up the new nations, and had left them to fend for their own. The powers probably would have formed a beneficial alliance, and created a trade bloc, but never become an offical nation.

 

[Wendell]

Just because the American prolplr were destined to expand west, doesn't mean the U.S. government had to follow. Texas, California, and Utah all had brief periods of self rule before they were annexed. What happened in each case was that: the americans showed and agreed to live by local laws. The americans decided they didn't like local laws, wanted a government more like the one they left. The americans rose up (almost always with U.S. aid), and overthrew the local colonial power. the U.S. snapped the new republics up.
Suppose the U.S. hadn't snapped up the new nations, and had left them to fend for their own. The powers probably would have formed a beneficial alliance, and created a trade bloc, but never become an offical nation.

Once the U.S. went to the Rockies, it wanted a Western outlet. Just look at the agreement(s) over Oregon.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Just because the American prolplr were destined to expand west, doesn't mean the U.S. government had to follow. Texas, California, and Utah all had brief periods of self rule before they were annexed. What happened in each case was that: the americans showed and agreed to live by local laws. The americans decided they didn't like local laws, wanted a government more like the one they left. The americans rose up (almost always with U.S. aid), and overthrew the local colonial power. the U.S. snapped the new republics up.
Suppose the U.S. hadn't snapped up the new nations, and had left them to fend for their own. The powers probably would have formed a beneficial alliance, and created a trade bloc, but never become an offical nation.

'prolplr'?

The US wasn't destined to expand westward. There just wasn't anyone to stop them. American settlers settled in California and Texas, in many instances they were invited, and quickly became the majority. In both states the Mexican government had stipulated that the settlers had to convert to Catholicism. What works in favour of the American settlers is that both California and Texas are very far from Mexican authority and sparsely populated. It can also be shown that in both states Mexican citizens joined in the rebellion against Mexican authority since they also had grievances against the Mexican government.

What the US government is able to provide is safety and stability which the Mexican government couldn't. The Texians rose up against the abuse of authority by Santa Ana and the Californios favored annexation by either the US or Britain since they were neglected by Mexico City.

 

[Wendell]

'prolplr'?

The US wasn't destined to expand westward. There just wasn't anyone to stop them. American settlers settled in California and Texas, in many instances they were invited, and quickly became the majority. In both states the Mexican government had stipulated that the settlers had to convert to Catholicism. What works in favour of the American settlers is that both California and Texas are very far from Mexican authority and sparsely populated. It can also be shown that in both states Mexican citizens joined in the rebellion against Mexican authority since they also had grievances against the Mexican government.

What the US government is able to provide is safety and stability which the Mexican government couldn't. The Texians rose up against the abuse of authority by Santa Ana and the Californios favored annexation by either the US or Britain since they were neglected by Mexico City.

Also, both California and Texas were sparsely populated at the time that the Americans moved into those areas.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Also, both California and Texas were sparsely populated at the time that the Americans moved into those areas.

A+ for reiterating what I already said, first paragraph, fifth sentence.

 

[Wendell]

A+ for reiterating what I already said, first paragraph, fifth sentence.

Oops Sorry about that