Non-expansionist US

[mattw101]

Was continental expansion and the ideal of manifest destiny (if not the actual term itself) inherent to the US by 1783?

I'm looking for circumstances after the revolution whereby the US would not seek to expand accross the continent. I'm thinking this will have to include no Louisiana purchase (preferably more because the Americans lack the motivation as opposed to a larger French precense), and a lot less immigration to the US, as a smaller popular means less land is needed.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Well, what about a TL where Louisiana is sold to the British instead of the Americans. We now get super-Canada and the Americans can't expand even if they want to.

 

[Lord Grattan]

There was certainly a thurst for westward expansion ingrained in the American psyche before 1783. Mike Stearns said, certainly Louisiana becoming part of British North America instead of the US would put the breaks on America's westward expansion. Another possible timeline would see Pontiac and later Tecumseh more successful and the natives in general make better use of european weapons and war tactics to keep settlers out. Imagine a chief telling a US General, "this treaty will only be signed with your blood" or "If settlers come into our land, their blood will be on your hands."

 

[Bulldawg85]

Underlying causes

There was certainly a thurst for westward expansion ingrained in the American psyche before 1783.

One of the underlying causes of the ARW was the expansion. The British had tried, and failed, to restrict the settlers to the eastern side of the Appalachians and leave the Indians everything west to the Mississippi.

 

[Philip]

The British had tried, and failed, to restrict the settlers to the eastern side of the Appalachians and leave the Indians everything west to the Mississippi.

'[L]eave the Indians everything west to the Mississippi' sounds a bit altruistic. The British wanted to restrict the colonial expansion so that they would not have to pay to defend the colonies against the Native Americans.

 

[cow defender]

what if it became tradition to create new republics in the west instead of adding to the united states.

 

[Dave Howery]

so, the US would be limited to the original 13 colonies? It would never amount to much if so, and would be overshadowed by Canada and Mexico.... I'd think the latter would be a real world power, if they could fix their political problems... between oil, gold, and silver, Mexico would be rich... instead of massive immigration to the US, maybe you'd see massive immigration to Mexico from Catholics across Europe....

 

[Ofaloaf]

Wouldn't America still try to expand some way, if not westwards? Say by trying to go for the Antilles or Cuba, perhaps?

 

[HueyLong]

The West past the Appalachians is already open. The Mississippi is no great barrier. The only real barrier would be the Rockies and the British Northwest.

 

[Wendell]

Have the Americans buy only the area around New Orleans, and then allow them to take Florida later, and the young republic may see its growth limited perpetually, especially if one or more well organized states is formedby another power in the rest of Louisiana Territory.

 

[HueyLong]

Past the Mississippi (excepting Texas) could not produce a formidable power.

 

[Wendell]

Past the Mississippi (excepting Texas) could not produce a formidable power.

The U.S. could be influential, but just less so with 1844 borders.

 

[HueyLong]

But while the trans-Mississippi West cannot produce a power, then there are going to be people settling on the other side. And they will come from America.

Once the US is independent, it is going to go to at least the Rockies.

 

[Wendell]

But while the trans-Mississippi West cannot produce a power, then there are going to be people settling on the other side. And they will come from America.

Once the US is independent, it is going to go to at least the Rockies.

At that point, Texas could be virtually inevitable. However, it's difficult for the U.S. to get Texas without the Southwest, and, at that point, part of the Northwest.

 

[mattw101]

How about no 'Third Treaty of San Ildefonso', so Louisiana territory remains split between Britain and Spain, with the Spanish bit later becoming part of Mexico? Maybe the British part would join in the rebellion though (or be so sparsely populated/garrisoned that it wouldn't matter), if not the Americans would probably try to invade it à la Canada.

 

[Umbric Man]

What Mattw said.

That said, if you're aiming for as much of the Treaty of Paris borders as much as possible, taking the Floridas is inevitable. Clark virtually single-handedly won the old northwest areas for us; so if you want just the 13 colonies you'd have to keep him from succeeding in the Revolution.

 

[AirshipArmada]

We should make a distinction between America the nation expanding Westward and American settlers expanding Westward.

Way back when Spain held the Mississippi region they actually encouraged English settlers to move west. These settlers often didn't care what flag they were under, but just wanted land. So you could have a Spanish or French region inhabited by English speaking peoples (whose loyalty is what??). I think it would be easy to have a TL where America stays small, but it is hard to have a timeline where the settlers don't move west. Either way it is bad news for the Indians.

 

[cow defender]

We should make a distinction between America the nation expanding Westward and American settlers expanding Westward.

Way back when Spain held the Mississippi region they actually encouraged English settlers to move west. These settlers often didn't care what flag they were under, but just wanted land. So you could have a Spanish or French region inhabited by English speaking peoples (whose loyalty is what??). I think it would be easy to have a TL where America stays small, but it is hard to have a timeline where the settlers don't move west. Either way it is bad news for the Indians.

my thought was in similar vein, even if the americans rebel in these territories (a la texas) they could stay independent and create new republics. The american expatriots, i think, will always be loyal to themselves first, so whatever is to their benefit will be done.

 

[Dave Howery]

so... is America expanding to the Mississippi river? Or is it staying just in the original 13 colonies?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

How about no 'Third Treaty of San Ildefonso', so Louisiana territory remains split between Britain and Spain, with the Spanish bit later becoming part of Mexico? Maybe the British part would join in the rebellion though (or be so sparsely populated/garrisoned that it wouldn't matter), if not the Americans would probably try to invade it à la Canada.

If the Spanish bit becomes part of Mexico, it'll go faster than you can say "Me-who?" The President Jefferson, an avowed Franco-phile, was prepared to form a military alliance with Britain to fight France for the port city, and Britain generally favored/allowed any US interest that kept the US's views away from Canada. Mexico, which couldn't even control its own lands and distinctly lacked a naval tradition needed to maintain forces so far away, would be distinctly at a disadvantage.

I've written a few long posts on the topic of the US's need for New Orleans, but it can simply be put that the US needed unlimited/guaranteed right of deposit in New Orleans for its west-of-appalachians lands (which were considerable even then), and even Jefferson made New Orleans the immediate Grand Strategy of the young United States; the Louisiana Purchase was intended for the port only, not the entire territory (even though that was near-useless without the port).

Any power who holds New Orleans that holds the US will likely see the US seek British acceptance/aid/alliance in order to take the port. Any power who is allied with Britain may easily see the US try, especially in the case of Spain where it already has enough troubles with Florida and the rest of its empire. The only power who the US might absolutely not attack would be Britain, except that (a) the US proved that it would attack less than a decade later, (b) New Orleans doesn't serve British interests in the area but is a cost to defend, and (c) holding New Orleans is likely to spur more conflict with the US, not less. Which is bad from the British point of view as it costs money to defend lands from a nation who would otherwise be a big trading partner. (That it would also be bad from the US PoV if it failed is irrelevant; we know that the US would attack Britain (1812), and US interests are secondary to British interests).