The USA without a Pacific coastline?

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=69394

The op may wish to read this.

USA never reach the pacific.

The POD is 1812, and there is an independent texas, california, and new england republic.

Thanks, I'll read that.

So the general agreement seems to be that it would be possible for the US to be kept from the Pacific, especially if they get Louisiana later than OTL. How much would this affect the US? I think the majority of American industry and population has been in the east half, and Washinton and Oregon have relatively little economic value to the US compared to many other states.
 
You don't necessarily need to keep Americans out of the Oregon Territory, just make sure that they are happy enough living in a British-ruled territory. Keep in mind that the Colonial Office would need to provide the American settlers with guarantees to protect their economic well being, physical security and eventually grant them self-government, to keep them happy enough living under the Union Jack. Most settlers would be driven by economic self-interest, that is the availability of free land, and the ability to prospect for gold, and would probably care little if they were under British rule or American, as long as their rights and freedoms were protected.

It is often overlooked that throughout the 19th century, Americans were the second-largest immigrant group to British North America, often surpassing British immigration during certain decades. They constituted the majority of settlers in the Prairie Provinces and by 1914 the majority of the inhabitants in Alberta were American-born or had an American parent. In Saskatchewan they were a plurality and in British Columbia and Manitoba they were a large minority.

American Immigration to British North America
1781-1790 50,000 (Loyalists)
1791-1800 50,000
1801-1810 50,000
1811-1820 5,000 (2,500 black)
1821-1830 2,000
1831-1840 8,000 (5,000 black)
1841-1850 30,000 (5,000 black)
1851-1860 60,000 (20,000 black)
1861-1870 10,000
1871-1880 30,000
1881-1890 30,000
1891-1900 70,000
1901-1910 458,000
1911-1920 625,000
1921-1930 198,000

Most Americans who settled in Canada seemed happy enough with the protections granted to them by the government there (including British Colonial Governments) inasmuch as there was never a serious movement by these immigrants to join the United States. This was in contrast to Mexico where the government was a bit more dysfunctional. Likewise a great deal of British Subjects people moved from British North America and Britain (even the English speaking regions) to the United States and seemed content enough with their new homeland and its government, once again because they were provided with rule of law and stability.

Foreign-born immigrants formed a major part of the early settlers to California for instance, especially once the gold rushes began. Here again are groups that could settled a British West Coast and could probably care little if they are American citizens or British subjects as long as their economic well being could be assured.

Therefore, the British could fill the West Coast up with immigrants, much like the Americans did. There were little restrictions on immigration during this period, and I can't see Chinese, German or even Mexican immigrants caring much about what flag they're under. Even the Irish immigrated in large numbers to British Australia, New Zealand, Canada and England and Scotland during this period, so I presume they would not rebel unless their economic well-being was threatened.

Keep in mind that in 1850, one-fourth of California's population was foreign-born, by 1860 that number increased to 38.5% with China 34,935 being the largest source of immigrants, followed by 33,147 from Ireland, 20,919 from Germany, 17,262 from Great Britain and 9,150 from Mexico, and 5,437 from British North America.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Okay, but you're pushing the potential departure point from

And assume the Brits are somehow NOT able to "settle" Australia with convicts. Far fetched byut what if Aussieland is discovered earlier and goes to France (maybe after the AWI) on the green table.

Okay, but you're pushing the potential departure point from the mid-1830s (as in the OP's statement) to the 1780s; a differential of five decades is pretty significant.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Okay, but you're pushing the potential departure point from the mid-1830s (as in the OP's statement) to the 1780s; an differential of five decades is pretty significant.

Best,

True, but he said ONE potential POD was in the 1830...

Personally I think the 1830s are too late to keep the US away from the Pacific - At least with the Adams Onis treaty the US laid claims to "Oregon".
 
But I don't remotely agree.

because Naraic's link's sadly Space Bat. The British Army goes space bat taking New England and elsewhere (our reaction is NOT to reconquer it).

And when the British REALITY was that it was maybe the most tired war-tired public in history, so tired that it gave up Louisana and all its other aims, including drafting Americans to fight YOUR wars at sea.

Viriato, but isn't us outsettling Canada on OUR side?

And the thread's still said nothing to solve TFSmith121's problems.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
The main thing I'd comment is that "strategically important to the US" or even "strategically critical to the US" does not automatically mean that the US will get it - they may take a while to notice it's strategically important!
The US isn't guaranteed to be run by competents - nor is Mexico, say, guaranteed to be run by an incompetent - and there may be other priorities for various people at various times.

Let's take as an example... oh... the English garrison of Calais. It was strategically critical to England that that garrison be kept in top shape, and yet it wasn't - the eventual capture of Calais was basically a bit farcical.


So... Mexican-American War going badly for the US due to a more competent general in Santa Anna's place might be a good start.
 
The main thing I'd comment is that "strategically important to the US" or even "strategically critical to the US" does not automatically mean that the US will get it - they may take a while to notice it's strategically important!
The US isn't guaranteed to be run by competents - nor is Mexico, say, guaranteed to be run by an incompetent - and there may be other priorities for various people at various times.

But New Orleans, in particular, was recognized as being very important from day 1, so it would take intervening in the Revolutionary War itself to keep that from being recognized. Incompetents being in power, maybe, but that also seems a bit of a hard row to hoe looking at the historical Mexican versus American leaders.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure, but that was the one I was responding to,

True, but he said ONE potential POD was in the 1830...

Personally I think the 1830s are too late to keep the US away from the Pacific - At least with the Adams Onis treaty the US laid claims to "Oregon".

Sure, but that was the one I was responding to, since it actually had a date on it, etc.

I agree, the 1830s are too late. Push things to the 1700s, and many alternatives open up.

It is still hard to get away from the problem that in an era of sail, the northwestern coast of North America is about as far as one can get from Europe in terms of travel time in the Northern Hemisphere - hard to avoid that hurdle.

Best,
 
-British use the war of 1812 to settle the Oregon question in their favor in exchange for fishing rights on the Grand Banks and an end to impressment.

-Texas maintains independence as a British satellite, grows larger with immigration and secession of northern Mexican states after half-century of poverty and difficulty with settlement.

-California becomes independent after the Gold Rush brings in lots of Europeans, Americans, and fortune seekers. Republic of California takes up OTL California, Nevada, and later the Baja Peninsula.

-Prophetate of Deseret claims "worthless desert" encompassing the whole of the northern OTL Mexican Purchase east of Nevada and the Colorado River.

-Republic of Cascadia encompasses total of OTL Washington, Oregon, Idaho, western Montana, British Columbia, Yukon Territory, Alberta, Northwestern Territories, and later Alaska.

-Hawaii as British satellite with Pearl Harbor as equivalent to Singapore

-Empire of Mexico established as OTL Mexico minus its northernmost states (Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Tamapulias join Texas after thirty years as Republic of Rio Grande) and after British, French, and Spanish governments move in to collect debt. Juarez takes refuge in Arizona and New Mexico after California moves into the area post-independence, this triggers the Republican Wars that leave Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Durango, and Zacatecas as Republic of Mexico.

-American Civil War delayed ten years, it sees more bloodshed but less duration as crude machine guns, improved rail logistics, and semi-automatic weapons like the Winchester 1873 and Springfield Model 1870 tell the difference.

-World War I hits the North American continent hard as the West is won and lost. Deseret gains Nevada and southern Idaho, Republic of Mexico gains Baja, and Texas gains Chiahuahua. US forces take northern Idaho along with western Montana while rebellious forces in the American South leave the area in ruins, effectively preventing the opportunity to take more territory. Cascadia, which had only purchased Alaska 15 years befor ethe conflict, occupies most of Saskatechwan and trades it back in exchange for keeping "that damned icebox". Cascadia survives the most intact out of the Central Powers and proves surprisingly innovative in its industrialization and use of resources.

-World War II sees even more carnage in the Americas, especially as rogue elements take over parts of the West and borders shifting once again
 
Top