USA Transcontinental Expedition without LA purchase

I'm considering some of the butterflies in a TL without Napoleon Bonaparte as he was in OTL. One I'm pondering right now is what Spain would do with the Louisiana territory if France had not taken it back. Then what the US would do if it could not purchase it from Spain as it did from France. Would the US still fund an expedition across the continent? Ideas/help anyone?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Spain could do about as much with Lousiana as it

Spain could do about as much with Lousiana as it did with Florida, Texas, New Mexico, and California, historically - not much.

Even without Napoleon, Spain was overextended in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and with the examples of the American and Haitian revolutions, Spanish America is not going to be far behind...

Until or unless any of the European powers were going to offer full political rights in the capital/metropoles to the elites in their Western Hemisphere colonies (which in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries is just about as ASB-ish as it gets), the European continental empires in the Americas are pretty much destined to crumble.

Best,
 
why would the US fund an expedition across territory that doesn't belong to it? and why would Mexico allow it?

Usual commentary here is that the US eventually encroaches and absorbs anything Mexico has that the US wants. that's a bit oversimplified, but not really outlandish.
 
Spain could do about as much with Lousiana as it did with Florida, Texas, New Mexico, and California, historically - not much.

Even without Napoleon, Spain was overextended in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and with the examples of the American and Haitian revolutions, Spanish America is not going to be far behind...

Until or unless any of the European powers were going to offer full political rights in the capital/metropoles to the elites in their Western Hemisphere colonies (which in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries is just about as ASB-ish as it gets), the European continental empires in the Americas are pretty much destined to crumble.

Best,

But that will take time. If Spain isn't attacked by Napoleon her position in America is much improved. America will likely push West, but the Spanish will probably push back. Probably a tougher fight to the Pacific for America in any case.
 
Without the Louisiana Purchase Spain never sells the claim to Oregon either which means that David Thompson's exploration could help cement British control over the whole of the territory.
 

Driftless

Donor
Spain could do about as much with Lousiana as it did with Florida, Texas, New Mexico, and California, historically - not much.

Even without Napoleon, Spain was overextended in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and with the examples of the American and Haitian revolutions, Spanish America is not going to be far behind...

Until or unless any of the European powers were going to offer full political rights in the capital/metropoles to the elites in their Western Hemisphere colonies (which in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries is just about as ASB-ish as it gets), the European continental empires in the Americas are pretty much destined to crumble.

Best,

But that will take time. If Spain isn't attacked by Napoleon her position in America is much improved. America will likely push West, but the Spanish will probably push back. Probably a tougher fight to the Pacific for America in any case.

One of the first friction points would be American settlers using the Mississippi as a highway and the certainty of their crossing the river for settlement on the western(Spanish) side. The Mississippi is 1400+ miles long - as the crow flies... and somewhere north of 2300+ miles of channel (it wanders a bit, even during the course of a single season).

To enforce the sanctity of that frontier would require an enormous commitment of resource on the part of the Spanish. As we see now days, even with a ton of modern technology and manpower, the much shorter Rio Grande is.... porous...
 
One of the first friction points would be American settlers using the Mississippi as a highway and the certainty of their crossing the river for settlement on the western(Spanish) side. The Mississippi is 1400+ miles long - as the crow flies... and somewhere north of 2300+ miles of channel (it wanders a bit, even during the course of a single season).

To enforce the sanctity of that frontier would require an enormous commitment of resource on the part of the Spanish. As we see now days, even with a ton of modern technology and manpower, the much shorter Rio Grande is.... porous...

I think Spain being able to retain Louisiana is... problematic. But America won't have the cakewalk she had OTL.
 

Driftless

Donor
I think Spain being able to retain Louisiana is... problematic. But America won't have the cakewalk she had OTL.

To be sure Spanish control, especially nearer to New Orleans was more secure. Farther north, that was real frontier, and local control - by anyone - was a temporary and variable condition, the chance for some level of conflict was probably high.
 
I'm guessing that sooner or later the Mexicans are going to get tired of their situation being tied to Spain and revolt. Something which I could well see the US, or at least factions therein, covertly supporting either in return for land concessions or simply because they see an independent Mexico as an easier target. Even if that doesn't happen expect to see war between the US and Spain simply because the Spanish have what the Americans want/think they should rightfully have, one way or the other they're manifest destiny-ing themselves to the Pacific coast.
 
To be sure Spanish control, especially nearer to New Orleans was more secure. Farther north, that was real frontier, and local control - by anyone - was a temporary and variable condition, the chance for some level of conflict was probably high.

I wonder if Spain won't see the writing on the wall and eventually sell northern Louisiana to the Americans at some point. Surely they'll realize that they can't really control it in any major fashion (but even more importantly, cheaply).

How does American politics change in this TL? The South is completely hemmed in by Spanish Florida and Louisiana...
 
minor butterflies could be big.

Obviously, no Napoleon is a major butterfly, but one of the ripples is the Jay treaty (1795). Sans Nap, the whole French revolution could be collapsing, which will affect Britain's willingness to negotiate with the US. The Jay treaty was a major reason Spain started to back down on US relations - giving up Natchez, for example, and wavering on the Mississippi navigation rights.

Also, you have to define an altered Napoleon. no Nap? or a different one. No Nap in Toulon may make for a completely different War of the Pyrenees. One of the generals went from Toulon to reorganizing the French army which then kicked butt on the Spanish. Spanish remaining in league with Britain also affects how much Britain is willing to back the US in conflicts with Spanish Louisiana.

Spain vs USA in 1790's/1800 with the Nap wars averted is a no brainer Spanish victory. I could picture New Spain keeping the southern zone, while the US gains the northern zone (or some of it. Britain is likely to freeze them out of the pacific northwest). New Spain was actually stronger than the US (or comparable) in that time frame, and was only torn asunder by the Nap invasion of Spain. They had also belatedly begun to strengthen the New Orleans region, and with time could have cemented their hold over the key mouth to the central water highway (Mississippi). The OTL kings of Spain doesn't lead to optimism, but it's not complete ASB to come up with a stronger New Spain with an altered Nap.
 
One of the first friction points would be American settlers using the Mississippi as a highway and the certainty of their crossing the river for settlement on the western(Spanish) side. The Mississippi is 1400+ miles long - as the crow flies... and somewhere north of 2300+ miles of channel (it wanders a bit, even during the course of a single season).

To enforce the sanctity of that frontier would require an enormous commitment of resource on the part of the Spanish. As we see now days, even with a ton of modern technology and manpower, the much shorter Rio Grande is.... porous...

A later example would be the advance of fur trappers, ore prospectors, traders, & settlers into Mexican territory of Tejas & Nuevo Mexico, or California.

Slavery goes West with a vengeance?

Have to check & see when slavery was terminated in Spains territories.
 
Without Napoleon perhaps Spain itself would be receptive to an offer to buy NO or even the whole Territory at some point or other? Perhaps to help with keeping control of places that had higher value to them.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The problem for Spain, however, is demographic

But that will take time. If Spain isn't attacked by Napoleon her position in America is much improved. America will likely push West, but the Spanish will probably push back. Probably a tougher fight to the Pacific for America in any case.

The problem for Spain, however, is demographic. Unless there are vastly different changes in Spanish policy (in Spain) regarding emigration from Europe to the Spanish empire in the Americas, there's not much chance to "compete" with the US in terms of population growth, and the distances between the US and western Europe and Spain and the Gulf and points south and west just make the cost differential that much more obvious.

There's a reason Austin et al got the concession they did in Mexican Texas; similar issues would arise in any Spanish Lousiana (as they did in Spanish Florida).

Best,
 
Top