The Great American Desert- Yay and Nay

JSmith

Banned
So the idea of The Great American Desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Desert

played a role in American history. What became a fairly popular notion of a desert in the middle of the continent help disuade many from back East from coming out here in great numbers at first. Gold was what really brought them out.

But suppose it went either way?

1. There is a Great American Desert-what happens?

2. The term and idea of The Great American Desert never catches on-what happens?
 
Last edited:
It was considered a desert because people thought the land was unfit for agriculture. And until they started tapping the aquifers they were right. The definition of desert changed over the course of the 19th century from a treeless space to an arid one. I'm a little unclear on what you're asking. Are you saying WI there really was a desert in the modern sense or WI people realized they could farm it earlier?
 
If there really was a desert in the modern sense there then the US army might have made more use of camels.
 
A desert would be a much more significant obstacle to colonization of the West Coast than the plains were. In the early 19th century the plains were considered to be in the same league as the Sahara so that gives us an idea of the scale of the hypothetical desert. Imagine a country on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa trying to rule/settle lands south of the Sahara but with a sea route 14,000 miles long. I doubt that the US would ever be able to establish control over anything west of the desert.
 
If the idea of the desert never becomes popular a lot of the settlement that went out to the coast would go to the plains instead.
1) The plains tribes would be pushed out earlier. Possibly the most resistance would be by the tribes on the coast so the Indian wars would be focused on the West Coast instead of the plains.
2) Fewer American settlers in California and the Pacific Northwest. This would have major repercussions for if these territories end up in the hands of the US or Britain/Mexico
3) If the plains are settled and turned to agriculture sooner that's a lot of food being produced ITTL that wasn't OTL. Also, the soil would be depleted by exhaustive farming methods sooner so a Dust Bowl analogue would happen earlier. Same with the water, if farming starts sooner then the water runs out earlier.
 

katchen

Banned
Stephen Long called the Great Plains "The Great American Desert" because he was from "back east" and didn't know any better. Nor did just about anyone else living in the US at the time.
The best antidote to the "Great American Desert" meme is settlers who damn well know the difference between steppe and desert, between land that can be farmed and land that can only be grazed because they have lived on such land. In a word: cossacks.
I got the idea for an ATL of Texas cossacks reading James A Michener's novel "Texas".(which was actually commissioned by former Texas Governor Hal Clements in the 80s). Michener writes that Sam Houston sent letters to Texas as early as the 1820s when Texas was still part of Mexico telling of free land that was available just by pacing out the perimeter, firing a pistol in the air and registering it,( meanwhile getting baptized a Catholic, a requirement which was waived when Texas became independent in 1832). Letters and land patents for Texas land were reaching as far as the German Zollverein by the late 1820s. It would not have been that much of a stretch for these letters (or similar letters telling of available land in the United States itself) to cross the border into the Russian Empire despite Tsarist censorship and for cossacks, even on the far frontier such as the Terek or the Ural, to get wind of it. And for some to split off from their Tsarist registered units and make their way with their families over the border into the Ottoman Empire and take ship from there to Istanbul, Marseilles and from there, New Orleans, most likely.
Cossacks would not for a minute believe what anyone told them about "Great American Desert" It would remind them too much of Tsarist disinformation to keep them in their place. And after fighting Napoleon and Circassians and Chechens, Comanches and Sauk and Lakota would not faze cossacks. Indeed, cossacks would make interesting American settlers and cowboys. :)
 

JSmith

Banned
If the idea of the desert never becomes popular a lot of the settlement that went out to the coast would go to the plains instead.
1) The plains tribes would be pushed out earlier. Possibly the most resistance would be by the tribes on the coast so the Indian wars would be focused on the West Coast instead of the plains.
2) Fewer American settlers in California and the Pacific Northwest. This would have major repercussions for if these territories end up in the hands of the US or Britain/Mexico
3) If the plains are settled and turned to agriculture sooner that's a lot of food being produced ITTL that wasn't OTL. Also, the soil would be depleted by exhaustive farming methods sooner so a Dust Bowl analogue would happen earlier. Same with the water, if farming starts sooner then the water runs out earlier.
Another small change leading to a substainially different American history.
 

JSmith

Banned
In a word: cossacks.
I got the idea for an ATL of Texas cossacks reading James A Michener's novel "Texas".(which was actually commissioned by former Texas Governor Hal Clements in the 80s). Michener writes that Sam Houston sent letters to Texas as early as the 1820s when Texas was still part of Mexico telling of free land that was available just by pacing out the perimeter, firing a pistol in the air and registering it,( meanwhile getting baptized a Catholic, a requirement which was waived when Texas became independent in 1832). Letters and land patents for Texas land were reaching as far as the German Zollverein by the late 1820s. It would not have been that much of a stretch for these letters (or similar letters telling of available land in the United States itself) to cross the border into the Russian Empire despite Tsarist censorship and for cossacks, even on the far frontier such as the Terek or the Ural, to get wind of it. And for some to split off from their Tsarist registered units and make their way with their families over the border into the Ottoman Empire and take ship from there to Istanbul, Marseilles and from there, New Orleans, most likely.
Cossacks would not for a minute believe what anyone told them about "Great American Desert" It would remind them too much of Tsarist disinformation to keep them in their place. And after fighting Napoleon and Circassians and Chechens, Comanches and Sauk and Lakota would not faze cossacks. Indeed, cossacks would make interesting American settlers and cowboys. :)
A fascinating idea. Please let us know if you do more :)
 
The other thing is that dryland farming really requires a steel plow, and a reaper. Doesnt have to be Deere and McCormick, but you need those tech advances to farm more than river bottoms.
 
A desert would be a much more significant obstacle to colonization of the West Coast than the plains were. In the early 19th century the plains were considered to be in the same league as the Sahara so that gives us an idea of the scale of the hypothetical desert. Imagine a country on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa trying to rule/settle lands south of the Sahara but with a sea route 14,000 miles long. I doubt that the US would ever be able to establish control over anything west of the desert.
If it were an actual desert whilst France have bothered to claim it with their Louisiana territory? I could see the Spanish claiming it simply to fill in the map but when the French take Louisiana back again I doubt they would want it, that could lead to a slightly smaller Louisiana Purchase with the new US border going up to the eastern edge of it. At that point if you've got a desert that's what looks like roughly a couple hundred miles wide and then the Rocky Mountains behind that then as you say it's going to be a major barrier to travel and settlement. Does west of the Rockies stay Spanish/Mexican and British to the north in Oregon, or does the US simply grab even more of what is modern day Mexico as a way of going around it? I could see a lot of the Native tribes moving to the desert and Rockies as a kind no man's land that whilst technically different nation's territory is considered worthless enough to just be ignored.
 
Captain Jack said:
If the plains are settled and turned to agriculture sooner that's a lot of food being produced ITTL that wasn't OTL. Also, the soil would be depleted by exhaustive farming methods sooner so a Dust Bowl analogue would happen earlier. Same with the water, if farming starts sooner then the water runs out earlier.
I'm looking at the "desert" zone as the parts of Colorado & Texas (& elsewhere, as far north as Saskatchewan) that created Dust Bowl conditions. If they're never plowed, you never get Dust Bowl. (The only reason they were was because settlers arrived in a period the land was wet. It's normally much drier, completely unsuited to farming.:rolleyes:)
katchen said:
In a word: cossacks.
...cossacks would make interesting American settlers and cowboys. :)
:cool::cool:

That would be great.:cool:
 
Last edited:

JSmith

Banned
Also does anyone know of any timelines here or elsewhere that touch on this topic in some way ?
 
Top