U.S. Doesn't stretch to the Pacific AHC

Find something to have the Californian settlers fall out with the federal government and refuse annexation. Then they can be the basis for settling up the coast and forming a United States of Pacifica, as Jefferson envisioned.
 
Have the Spanish successfully intercept the Corp of Discovery. They tried twice and in one instance only missed Lewis and Clark by two weeks.
 
With a PoD quite as late as 1800, it's really difficult for the British to win the War of 1812 so thoroughly that the US is confined east of the Mississippi - but it should be possible.

The US allies with Napoleon, or something stupid.

Once the US has started significantly settling the West (west of the Mississippi) it's hard to keep them out of Oregon country.

======

Hmmm...
Different idea. Jefferson decides he can't constitutionally do the Louisiana purchase. So there's an impediment there to westward movement, which allows Britain to settle the Oregon territory, and Spain/Mexico to settle California.
 
Britain and France remain in peaceful terms in 1803.

The french don't sell Florida, send many settlers, and ban US settlers' penetration on the territory.
 
Britain and France remain in peaceful terms in 1803.

The french don't sell Florida, send many settlers, and ban US settlers' penetration on the territory.

I think you mean Louisiana. It'll be hard for France to aggressively settle Louisiana so long as they are at war with the British. And a France that manages to beat Britain off is probably busy spending time trying to integrate its acquired territories. Francification of the European territories would be far more important than settling in Louisiana.
 
Yes I meant Louisiana.

France did not integrate territories by migration but by assimilation. It was very efficient at it. So it could assimilate Piedmont, the flaemish speaking part of austrian nethetlands and Rhineland suite quickly : 2 of 3 generations.

And it could settle Louisiana with incentives and a decent demographic growth.
 
The U.S. goes along more with the idea of sister republics Beulah's. May.be of the Napoleonic model where they then economically and politically puppet iced them, though it might be that they simply have it go a bit further than the early loose union they had, such as with the Californians and Texans not adopting the U.S. dollar, though using silver and gold coins that, like the Spanish real/dollar would be exchanged at the same rate as the U.S. ones. Then again, each state and bank issued their own notes before the Civil War and the federal government only dealt with coinage, I think.
 
going to need napoleon's help:
Step one: Spain does not trade Louisiana to France for Parma. Spain is constantly cowed by the US, so they leave the mississippi open to US navigation so the US has no reason to buy New Orleans, which is all it set out to do. Alternatively, you could have the US buy NO or take it by force from Spain. IMO, the Louisiana Purchase really added fuel to the fire of the notion of manifest destiny. confine it to NO removes a lot of this fuel. yes, US settlers are going to move west, but there'll be less of this grand notion that the US is destined to go coast to coast.
Step two: need a stronger Mexico. the strife of the independence war and the civil wars that followed put a hurting on the country. Maybe Iturbide stays loyal to Spain. Maybe Napoleon doesn't invade Spain, and the whole sudden impetus for the colonies looking for freedom doesn't explode, and Spain is a stronger country during the critical decades (it would help immensely if Ferdinand falls down a flight of stairs in 1800. would really help if he landed on Godoy). Maybe one of the Bourbon princes accepts a kingship. Maybe the royal family makes good on their escape to Mexico instead of handing the selves over for imprisonment by Nap. Maybe an independent Mexico finds independence in a less bloody manner and is better governed from the start. Knowing the OTL state of governing bodies of both Spain and Mexico in this timeframe, these options are highly unlikely, but they're not impossible. Bottom line is that Mexico had plenty of potential to be a strong country, but it imploded in the first half of the 19th century. a stronger, better Mexico means the US is not automatically winning any wars. OTL, the war was started out of greed over lands of what was seen as an easy target. if the target isn't so easy, the US may not be so greedy.If that's the case, bye bye west coast.
 
Top