Hi everyone! This is my first time posting here, but I´d like to see your thoughts on this scenario, which I think seems more or less pretty feasible. Though the POD is pre 1900, many of the questions I ask are related to post 1900 consequences, so not sure if this is in the right place...

Either way, in this scenario, the US never reaches the pacific coast. The easiest way of this occuring I think would be the combination of 2 different POD. On the one hand, Mexico keeps California (Mexico wins mexican american war?), and on the other, the UK getting the pacific northwest instead of the US (Spain and Russia also had claims, but I think the British gaining this territory is the most feasible).
So, the main points worth discussing here are:

1-How feasible is this scenario at all?

2-Can the US still become a superpower without a pacific coast?

3-How would a Mexican California and a British (later Canadian) pacific nortwest develop differently from OTL?

4-Would Canada and Mexico sharing a border much change their relationship with eachother years down the line? Also, Mexico and Canada being bigger, and the US being smaller than OTL, how would this affect the power relations between both countries and the US

5-Alaska. Without a pacific coast, I doubt the Russians would sell it to the US. They weren´t really on good terms with the British, so, would they sell Alaska at all? If so, to who? UK? Mexico? Japan even?

6-Hawaii. Without the US expanding into the Pacific, would Hawaii succumb to another european power? If so, to which? Or could an independent Hawaii survive? I read somewhere that Hawaii tried to strengthen ties with Japan round the 1870s, without the US, could this have lead anywhere?

9-Spanish American war. I´m pretty certain the Spanish American war would still happen in this TL, however, I can´t see the americans ever reaching the Philippines. Thisitself raises many points, perhaps even worthy of their own thread:

9.1- Would the Philippine independence movement succeed without US involvement, or would they remain a Spanish colony
9.2- If they remain a Spanish colony, would this affect the Spanish civil war at all further down the line?
9.3- Ifit remains Spanish, and the war still happens, and Franco still wins, what does this mean for ww2? Could we see Francoist Spain pushed to the allies side by a Japanese invasion, or would Japan respect the quasi axis colony?

10-ww2. And of course, on the subject of ww2, without a pacific coast, there can be no pearl harbour. Is there any way a US without a pacific coast can enter ww2? Even if it did, their involvement might be almost exclusively european. Does this guarantee a Japanese victoryin the pacific? Whacould this look like?

Theres a lot of points I know, and maybe it isnt feasible discussing them all on one thread, but any thoughts at all are welcome! Thanks in advance! :D
 

Philip

Donor
This is my first time posting here

Welcome.

Though the POD is pre 1900, many of the questions I ask are related to post 1900 consequences, so not sure if this is in the right place...

Pre-1900 is correct. POD determines the forum when the consequences run past the division.

Mexico keeps California (Mexico wins mexican american war?)

I don't see Mexico keeping California even if Mexico wins the MAW. The population was not supportive of the Mexican government, and the immigrants of the mid 19th Century are not going to help this. Maybe California ends up independent or a British protectorate.

UK getting the pacific northwest instead of the US

I'm not sure i see this happening either. The British have better things to do than squabble with the US over Oregon. Working out an agreement where both maintain a Pacific coast and don't upset mutual trade is beneficial to birth parties. Maybe if you move the POD back to 1815, otherwise the US claim is too strong to simply force the matter.

Without the US expanding into the Pacific, would Hawaii succumb to another european power?

Probably a British protectorate. Maybe Japanese depending on how East Asia develops.

Spanish American war

There may be a SAW, but it will be vastly different than OTL's SAW. Be nice to the butterflies.
 
Hi everyone! This is my first time posting here, but I´d like to see your thoughts on this scenario, which I think seems more or less pretty feasible. Though the POD is pre 1900, many of the questions I ask are related to post 1900 consequences, so not sure if this is in the right place...

Either way, in this scenario, the US never reaches the pacific coast. The easiest way of this occuring I think would be the combination of 2 different POD. On the one hand, Mexico keeps California (Mexico wins mexican american war?)...
Clay wins the 1844 election, so no Mexican War.
, and on the other, the UK getting the pacific northwest instead of the US (Spain and Russia also had claims, but I think the British gaining this territory is the most feasible).
The Hudson Bay Company was very active in the Oregon country.
So, the main points worth discussing here are:

1-How feasible is this scenario at all?

Quite plausible.
2-Can the US still become a superpower without a pacific coast?
Yes.
3-How would a Mexican California and a British (later Canadian) pacific nortwest develop differently from OTL?
California would be flooded with outsiders when gold was discovered. That would quickly lead to Californian independence, as California is too far from Mexico's heartland for strong control.
4-Would Canada and Mexico sharing a border much change their relationship with eachother years down the line?
Obviously.
Also, Mexico and Canada being bigger, and the US being smaller than OTL, how would this affect the power relations between both countries and the US
5-Alaska. Without a pacific coast, I doubt the Russians would sell it to the US. They weren´t really on good terms with the British, so, would they sell Alaska at all? If so, to who? UK? Mexico? Japan even?
Russian settlement in Alaska was truly minimal, and of no benefit to Russia. It would be sold at the first reasonable opportunity to Britain, to become part of Canada. While Russia and Britain were at odds in the middle 1800s, by 1874 relations were good enough for Queen Victoria's son Prince Alfred to marry Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, daughter of Tsar Alexander II. I could see the Tsar unloading Alaska by making it Maria's dowry.
6-Hawaii. Without the US expanding into the Pacific, would Hawaii succumb to another european power? If so, to which? Or could an independent Hawaii survive? I read somewhere that Hawaii tried to strengthen ties with Japan round the 1870s, without the US, could this have lead anywhere?
The American influence in Hawaii was derived initially from missionaries and visiting seafarers, both from the eastern US. There was contact with California, but not much migration from there, nor any great commerce. So it would be diminished but not eliminated ITTL. Most probably, Hawaii becomes a British protectorate, and eventually independent again. The question is whether the Hawaiian monarchy would survive, especially given the severe demographic impact of white contact.
9-Spanish American war. I´m pretty certain the Spanish American war would still happen in this TL...
A Spanish American War, yes, but not the same conflict as OTL. Probably a much earlier SAW, driven by US support for Cuban independence from Spain, and leading to US annexation.

, however, I can´t see the americans ever reaching the Philippines. Thisitself raises many points, perhaps even worthy of their own thread:

9.1- Would the Philippine independence movement succeed without US involvement, or would they remain a Spanish colony
Independent - or possibly a possession of Germany (which IIRC tried to buy the Philippines) or Japan (which might seize them). Japan might intervene to bring about independence, then make the Philippines a satellite state.

10-ww2. And of course, on the subject of ww2...

20th century history would be radically different, so there is no point in bringing up WW II.
 
Hi everyone! This is my first time posting here, but I´d like to see your thoughts on this scenario

Quite the humdinger of a post, and well thought out to boot. Welcome.

1-How feasible is this scenario at all?
The US's continental expansion must've seemed quite unlikely in 1787. So I agree a monocoastal USA is not a big stretch. That said, I think the proposed 1846 PoD is too late. Americans were already setting up shop and lickin' their chops at Alta California and Oregon before the MexAm War. The outcome is feasible, but you have to shift the causes away from Manifest Destiny about a generation or two earlier.

2-Can the US still become a superpower without a pacific coast?
Nope. The two oceans are critical to superpower status. And recall that, without western seaports, the Yankee clippers plying the Pacific are going to be basic Ferenghis; traders, but not colonizers. This ultimately undercuts the American drive to build a canal and "liberate" Panama from their Colombian countrymen. Later, when Germany and Britain (inevitably) clashed in the 20th C, the US might join in as a result of German submarine tactics, but there'd never be a Japanese enemy in the 30s or 40s to distract Brother Jonathan (this is a no-Uncle Sam TL, after all) from engaging in Europe. Finally, you're probably gonna have a world where the Monroe Doctrine is a forgotten paragraph from the late Napoleonic Era.

3-How would a Mexican California and a British (later Canadian) pacific nortwest develop differently from OTL?
It's probably just my bias suspecting that the Oregon area is going to be a separate country from Canada. Not unlike how India and Pakistan diverged or Kenya and Tanganyika stayed separate when they were respectively decolonized. Oregon (or probably Columbia, thereby confusing everybody about Colombia) would probably end up a Commonwealth nation comparable to Australia in population and political heft.

California's more interesting. Given the USAian propensity to breed like rabbits and spread like kudzu, it may well turn into a polyglot nation, with non-equal parts of Mexican, British, American, Californio, Amerindian, French, German, Chinese, and Russian influences. A true pidgin nation. If they can avoid the pitfalls that other Latin American nations, maintain a liberal republic, and avoid caudilloism, it could be a truly impressive regional power.

Here's an intriguing wiggle. Commodore Perry in your timeline has less incentive to open up Japan so radically. I won't assert "no Yankee gunboats = no Meiji Restoration" but you might easily delay the industrialization of Japan. That means a stronger Russia in the Pacific. Butterflies aplenty here.


The last thing to consider is North American Wars. Would British Oregon and Polyglot California ever fight over their borders? Maybe not at first, but disputes seem inevitable. If there's still a Mormon explosion in the 1840s (perhaps even bigger as NY's Burned Over District would be more central to the American economy than in OTL) I suspect an entirely novel nation-state like Utah would be cut down eventually by Mexican, US, a/o British forces. If California doesn't persecute them too, they might join the California jumbled republic.
 
The ability of the USA to reach the pacific depends on one specific man, who isn't even an American.... Napoleon Bonaparte. Kill Napoleon Bonaparte before he sells the Louisiana Purchase and the chances of the US not reaching the Pacific go *way* up. Once
1) Louisiana is sold to the USA,
2) Lewis and Clark explore to the Pacific,
3) Spain gets *wrecked* by Napoleon in the Peninsular Campaign.
4) Britain must keep one arm behind its back in any fight against the USA in order to keep them from joining Napoleon, then the chances of the USA reaching the Pacific get very close to 100 percent.

With a POD after the Treaty of Ghent (ending the war of 1812 with the same borders as before the war), then some remaining piece of the USA *will* reach the Pacific. Yes, the Pacific border could consist of *only* the OTL state of Oregon if everything goes badly for the USA, but that southern Border or Oregon won't be with Mexico, it will be with an Independent California.

With no Louisiana Purchase, the USA probably ends up "doing a Texas" with massive immigration of people who consider themselves American taking places like Missouri, but it means that access is *much* slower.

As a comparison, as far as I'm concerned *Pennsylvania* spent most of the 19th Century more militarily powerful than Mexico.
 
Top