myr

Banned
If Napoleon was never born would US never succeed in manifest destiny? with no Louisiana purchase and peninsular war and resulting instability could spain populate Louisiana, Oregon and OTL American southwest With Catholics in order to counter US settlers before inevitably being removed from americas by US?
 
Last edited:
I think the Louisiana Territory would become American sooner or later. If it's not sold to the U.S., then it'll be Texas'd. Never underestimate the land hunger of 19th Century Americans.
 

myr

Banned
I think the Louisiana Territory would become American sooner or later. If it's not sold to the U.S., then it'll be Texas'd. Never underestimate the land hunger of 19th Century Americans.
how does america get Louisiana? Spain can bombard and blockade the East coast because without Napoleon Spain still has the third most powerful navy even after USN surpasses the Spanish navy they have to fight France too after bourbon restoration who would help their cousins in spain by the time USN can surpass France and Spain Territory west of Mississippi can be populated by Catholics by Spain incorporating them would not be supported by American electorate
 
I think the Louisiana Territory would become American sooner or later. If it's not sold to the U.S., then it'll be Texas'd. Never underestimate the land hunger of 19th Century Americans.
I know it's called "Manifest Destiny" but that doesn't actually mean it's literally destiny.

While I agree that American settlers will likely flood into the Louisiana region regardless, I don't necessarily believe that this will inevitably result in the territory being taken over wholesale by the US. Without Napoleon and the Peninsular War a lot of Spain's problems aren't exacerbated like they were in OTL so a war between the US and Spain won't be a guaranteed American win. Spain could call in colonial militias out of Mexico and the Caribbean, for instance, as well as their own navy, which outclassed the US at the time.
 
I've argued this before.
Spain most certainly can hold on to Louisiana. Doesn't mean it will, but it is NOT far fetched. In 1800, the territory was beginning to boom, especially New Orleans area.

The main point of migration from USA was either up the Mississippi river, or along the Ohio River Valley. Until the advent of Steamships, up the Mississippi was not really a thing. The terminus of the Ohio River is Missouri, which was controlled by Spain, and can easily continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The eastern bank of the Mississippi was mostly Indian Territory, with the main USA point of contact being Natchez. In 1800, USA was far from being land pinched. Almost everything west of the Appalachian Mountains was empty of whites, and would need to be filled/developed before the question of encroachment comes up. So, contrary to popular sentiment here, Spain can control migration into Louisiana for several decades.

Meanwhile, Spain was slowly developing Louisiana, including encouraging migration from USA and non Spanish Europe. Spain does not need to turn it into a densely populated powerhouse. They merely need it to develop enough to take on a Spanish Culture - likely a mixed latin/anglo one - with a sense of loyalty to Spain (or at least not antagonistic to Spain - people forget that animosity toward Mexico was the key ingredient of Texas Succession). No Napoleon means the world probably is not at war when the century turns, and Spain has a few decades to work with.

A Spain at peace elsewhere means USA cannot enforce its will for a long, long time. No War of 1812 means USA hasn't figured out how to produce a military capable of projecting power.

Manifest Destiny got a huge boost from USAmericans waking up to find the size of their country had doubled over night.

Once Louisiana was in hand, the USA immediately wanted Oregon Territory to go with it. No Louisiana means no dreams of the West Coast, because they have no way to get there other than by sea.
 
If Napoleon was never born would US never succeed in manifest destiny? with no Louisiana purchase and peninsular war and resulting instability could spain populate Louisiana, Oregon and OTL American southwest With Catholics in order to counter US settlers before inevitably being removed from americas by US?
I think you’re getting cause and effect mixed up here. America didn’t try to buy Louisiania because of Manifest Destiny. It tried to buy New Orleans for purely economic reasons, and ended up with all Louisiania. Manifest Destiny didn’t develop until decades later. The term wasn’t even coined until 1845, a year before war with Mexico, and under a president who was pushing hard for such a war. Manifest Destiny came about because of the massive territory brought by Louisiania, not the other way around.
 
I think the Louisiana Territory would become American sooner or later. If it's not sold to the U.S., then it'll be Texas'd. Never underestimate the land hunger of 19th Century Americans.

You're right, one should never underestimate the lang hunger of 19th century North Americans. But, at the same time, one should never overestimate their willingness or desire to simply up and rebel at the drop of a hat - that's the America Uber Alles trope. One cannot simply distill down the complexities that lead to the Texan Revolution and Revolution and use it to build a generalized rule to follow in all situations. One of the chief factors which lead to the Revolution (not the only one, certainly) was a political instability which existed within the new Mexican government post-independance - should whatever government rules over Louisiana be more stable, you're removing one of the key incentives for American settlers to rebel. Look at it this way - thousands of Americas also moved into Canada during this time and yet there wasn't an immediate attempt to overthrow the British government in that territory.

But let's look at the Texas situation again. Let's say that there IS a revolt against Spanish rule by American squaters. Their victory isn't a sure thing - even in the Texas situation, the Texas Revolution was a very close thing. And even if they DID secure their independence, it was never a certainty that Texas would be annexed by the United States - that also came very close to going the other way (and indeed, popular opinion over annexation was split both in the United States and in Texas itself).

And all of this is assuming that Spain retains control of Lousiana. It's just as likely that France holds it when the dust settles, or even that it (or large parts of it) are taken by Britain.

So, no - even in a situation where Spain regains control of Lousiana, and it's flooded with American settlers - there's absolutely no reason to assume that the United States would gain that territory. They COULD, and it may even be likely, but it's in no way an absolute certainty.
 
One cannot simply distill down the complexities that lead to the Texan Revolution and Revolution and use it to build a generalized rule to follow in all situations. One of the chief factors which lead to the Revolution (not the only one, certainly) was a political instability which existed within the new Mexican government post-independance -
Its largely forgotten (purposefully in some cases) that Tejanos, Mexican Texans, were one of the biggest drivers of the Texas Revolution, and without them it absolutely couldn’t have happened. But they lost the subsequent political struggle in Texas to the American settlers. And everyone forgets that Texas was not an isolated incident (whethee for nationalist reasons or to dismiss Texas as seceding over slavery). There were uprisings across Mexico. The difference was that Texas won.
 
It's just as likely that France holds it when the dust settles, or even that it (or large parts of it) are taken by Britain.
Possibilities, but not 'just as likely', IMO.

France regaining it was a Napoleon thing. Regardless of how the French Revolutionary Wars go, I don't know that dreams of renewed French glory in North America are on the table without him.

Britain depends on how the revolutionary wars go. IF the whole thing falls apart because of no Napoleon, there may be peace by the time 1800 rolls around, or Spain may have switched sides again, or angled more neutral (which it tried to do OTL, but wasn't allowed to by Napoleon France). Or, Britain may simply not see the desire/benefit to expend resources taking it.
 
Whether Louisiana is owned by Spain or France, there would eventually be a time when the power that holds Louisiana is distracted by either wars of independence or European great power wars. Europe had continent-spanning wars constantly, and the Coalition Wars by the monarchies lack a clear conclusion.

If the French Republic is defeated earlier than Napoleon, then enlightened despotism-based absolute monarchies continue only barely interrupted, without the example of Napoleon almost winning to make them find longterm peace more desirable. So monarchies continue to think small-scale provincial wars between interlocking alliances won't spiral into a years long one, which causes another continental war to happen by at least 1830, probably much sooner.

If the Republic lasts about as long or longer than Napoleon, then the Coalition Wars continue and a war between Spain and France would become inevitable eventually, or Spain siding with France would lead to interference from royalist powers leading to crisis of some form and then wars of independence in the colonies.
 
Last edited:

myr

Banned
Could Spainsh populate the region with Catholic settlers who adopt spainsh to counter American settlers?
 
Could Spainsh populate the region with Catholic settlers who adopt spainsh to counter American settlers?
The question isn't whether they can, but whether they can be bothered. This IMO is kind of the big question, does Spain want to hold the region more than the United States want to purchase New Orleans. And the US really, really wants to purchase New Orleans. Its highly possible that Spain eventually just sells the region because holding it isn't really doing anything, and the US is willing to pay a lot of money for that port, and without that port the rest is kinda worthless.
 

myr

Banned
The question isn't whether they can, but whether they can be bothered. This IMO is kind of the big question, does Spain want to hold the region more than the United States want to purchase New Orleans. And the US really, really wants to purchase New Orleans. Its highly possible that Spain eventually just sells the region because holding it isn't really doing anything, and the US is willing to pay a lot of money for that port, and without that port the rest is kinda worthless.
Spain never did that they never sold territory while they were capable of holding it
 
Spain never did that they never sold territory while they were capable of holding it
Florida.

The region was largely controlled by the Seminole, and the Us was makibg incusions, but Spain could still hold their main points of strength, but it wasn’t worth it.

So, region largely controlled by natives, limited strongpoints from which Spain could excercize power, a largely uncontrollable interior, and potential fighting between American soldiers and groups hostule to them in areas outside Spainish control. Sounds like a potential fate for Louisiania.

the point isn’t that it will happen of course, just that that is a route I see if Spain doesn’t, or can’t, build up power in Louisiana before troubles elsewhere make it no longer worth it.

Like… *tosses dart at wall of options* another European imperial war since there’s no Napoleon to shatter Europe’s status quo. Austria and Prussia go at it again, with Spain, France, the UK, and Russia all getting involved.
 

myr

Banned
Florida.

The region was largely controlled by the Seminole, and the Us was makibg incusions, but Spain could still hold their main points of strength, but it wasn’t worth it.

So, region largely controlled by natives, limited strongpoints from which Spain could excercize power, a largely uncontrollable interior, and potential fighting between American soldiers and groups hostule to them in areas outside Spainish control. Sounds like a potential fate for Louisiania.

the point isn’t that it will happen of course, just that that is a route I see if Spain doesn’t, or can’t, build up power in Louisiana before troubles elsewhere make it no longer worth it.

Like… *tosses dart at wall of options* another European imperial war since there’s no Napoleon to shatter Europe’s status quo. Austria and Prussia go at it again, with Spain, France, the UK, and Russia all getting involved.
That is a very very mistaken example Spanish sold florida only because American already controlled it and Spain itself was destroyed in a war recently while almost all of it's colonies were in full scale rebellion. Spain only gave up colonies when they had no other option. If they had backing of France in case it retains Bourbons they can hold until 60s when Union Navy was second only to the Royal Navy
 
Last edited:
By 1810-1820 the US had more people than all of the Spanish north American holdings put together, including everything north of Panama and the Caribbean and they just started settling areas west of the Mississippi and north of Louisiana.
For the Spanish to be able to rapidly settle the region requires huge amount of immigrants and a massive shift in policy which I don't think is likely.

The US in this scenario will become very anti-Spanish and possibly even more anti-Catholic than OTL so maybe you can divert Irish immigrants to Spanish lands but beyond that it won't change the fact that barring any major shift the situation becomes more and more unsustainable for the Spanish.
 
how does america get Louisiana? Spain can bombard and blockade the East coast because without Napoleon Spain still has the third most powerful navy even after USN surpasses the Spanish navy they have to fight France too after bourbon restoration who would help their cousins in spain
I'm not sure we can speak of a Bourbon restoration in a timeline with no Napoléon, but even if so . . . it is far from certain they would choose to support Spain over the US. Such a move would push the US into the British sphere of influence. I think it is more likely that France would remain neutral.
 

myr

Banned
ut even if so . . . it is far from certain they would choose to support Spain over the US.
But aren't they of same dynasty? They were mostly allied from war of Spanish succession until Napoleon who made them too weak to help each other
 
No Napoleon means no reason for the Louisiana Territory to be sold. The key reason he chose to take the transfer was so he could fund his campaigns. To go any further we'd need to know more about the scenario - who takes over France, if not Napoleon? We could maybe see some exchange of land, or even a war over it.
 
Top