Westward Expansion By the US Stops At the Mississippi River

Lusitania

Donor
I get that, but if there is a power that really isn't worth going to war with (Say the UK, yet again), then I can see the US gov. being "Uhh, no, otherwise we're going to go broke".

Frankly, I am of the opinion that Americans have that perception for the simple reason that they never faced an equal opponent (IMO), with the exception of 1812, which to this day is argued to be an American victory (if you invade . This smacks of a culture that hasn't really had to go "oh, we lost" (unlike all of Europe at some point or another).

Frankly as Canadians we are always mystified at the idea USA won. The USA declared war on Britain and then invaded British territory. It was defeated and forced to withdraw south. The British in turn invaded USA (not from Canada) and were forced to withdraw. Not because (US) defeated them but they failed in capturing their objectives and decided to not stick around.

So at best a draw. Neither a win for either. The only ones who gained from the war were the “Canadians” war seemed to solidify their identity separate from US.
 
Last edited:
Frankly as Canadians we are always mystified at the idea USA won. The USA declared war on Britain and then invaded British territory. It was defeated and forced to withdraw south. The British in turn invaded USA (not from Canada) and were forced to withdraw. Not because (US) defeated them but they failed in capturing their objectives and decided to not suck around.

So at best a draw. Neither a win for either. The only ones who gained from the war were the “Canadians” war seemed to solidify their identity separate from US.

I completely messed up that part of the post. I personally see it as a Canadian Victory - simply because, y'know.

Canada repelled the invasion.
 
The thing is that you seem to be in the idea that nations act rationally, the US like most nations doesnt always act in its best interest. Even in 1848 the US was willing to go to war offer Oregon/Columbia. To think the US wouldn't go to war to seize Louisiana just because of the British being there ignores America's psyche. Not all nations have the same mindset. Yes, the US is unique... because every single nation is unique and acts different. Just because the US would lose doesnt mean the US fails to start the war. There is no hindsight or foresight.

So the US is guarenteed from the moment it exists to be from coast to coast? nothing could stop it? I personally hate this deterministic view of American Expansion
 

Lusitania

Donor
So the US is guarenteed from the moment it exists to be from coast to coast? nothing could stop it? I personally hate this deterministic view of American Expansion

I agree nothing is set in stone but what I can see if that people living in the US or North America were much more mobile than Europeans. That being said the movement of people westward towards perceived empty space was almost guaranteed and only vigiliant military intervention or occupied lands would strere these people away.

That these people moved away from US but subsequently requested US “protection” that did not make it seem like it was a given. If the Spanish ir Mexicans had populated the northern territories with Spanish speaking people it would of detered some from migrating there or at least limited their migrationbto those regions.

If in this case French or British retained control of the US Midwest then they could of steered people and also charged a fee to cross or settle. There was no “right” to move.
 
It’s a bit late, but wanted to point out that Daniel Boone was an agent of New Spain, working to bring in settlers from the US. Boone was on the lam from the US where he was wanted on legal issues.

Settlers from the US doesn’t automatically equal unwanted and overthrow.
 

Lusitania

Donor
It’s a bit late, but wanted to point out that Daniel Boone was an agent of New Spain, working to bring in settlers from the US. Boone was on the lam from the US where he was wanted on legal issues.

Settlers from the US doesn’t automatically equal unwanted and overthrow.

Correct majority of the American settlers who migrated to upper Canada (Ontario) had no problem living under British rule. The issues within Mexico were different, lack of good governance and such. Also we need to consider the ratio of American settlers compared to “locals”. The places were they continued to be a minority they lived well. Those that chose to stay, in areas where they soon formed a majority they attempted to change the government to more their liking. This was the same for all races not only America.
 
It is not inevitable that the US extends beyond the Mississippi. with this POD, though, it is probable. Spain is the only country that has a shot at keeping/developing it if France doesn't want it. POD a couple of decades earlier and have Spain put a little effort into the place. Getting rid of Charles IV, and by extension Godoy, does wonders for the fate of Spain and the empire.

People always talk about Godoy and Charles IV as the worst things that ever happened to Spain but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot to back that up. Why would any other monarch/advisor put more effort into developing Louisiana? In any case, from what I've read Spain was doing fine in developing the place in OTL. I really wonder why more people don't blame Napoleon for pressuring Spain to sell Louisiana, illegally selling it, then horribly crippling Spain a few years later.
 
People always talk about Godoy and Charles IV as the worst things that ever happened to Spain but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot to back that up. Why would any other monarch/advisor put more effort into developing Louisiana? In any case, from what I've read Spain was doing fine in developing the place in OTL. I really wonder why more people don't blame Napoleon for pressuring Spain to sell Louisiana, illegally selling it, then horribly crippling Spain a few years later.
Charles is well known as being on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum, and relegated the actual ruling to others. Godoy's two periods of being top minister are nothing but one long disaster, entering wars that they usually lost (War of the Oranges being the lone exception). Sure, it was a tough row to hoe being Napoleon's neighbor, but Spain's actions were completely disastrous and ultimately led to Nap invading and manipulating Godoy. At the end, Godoy was actively betraying Spain, looking to join Nap in dividing Portugal in return for a small Kingdom (off the top of my head, I want to say the Algarve, but not sure). It's hard to defend a King/Minister duo who led the Spanish Empire into catastrophic destruction.

Why would any other Monarch put effort into Louisiana? Because it was a land worth developing and it gave a nice long buffer between the heart of New Spain and an expansionist US. Spain had a huge empire to manage, but they completely blew it regarding the northern reaches of New Spain. Louisiana was picking up steam when Charles/Godoy were hoodwinking into giving it back to France for an empty promise of Parma. My point was that IF Spain had kept it and put a little effort into it, LA could have paid dividends for them (or for Mexico, IF Mexico still breaks free and the empire falls apart, but then a more competent line of Kings in Spain might have kept the empire together) and they could have blocked the US expansion. It is almost ASB to expect much from the OTL Kings Charles IV and his son Ferdinand, but had more capable succession for Carlos III happened, it is not ASB to think New Spain could have held a border at the Misssissippi.
 
I also meant to add: sans a catastrophic event (such as Napoleon) Charles/Godoy probably would have muddled through. They wouldn't have a positive effect on the empire, but they probably wouldn't have destroyed it, either. They were caught up in a situation neither of them were capable of handling with any sort of competence. Over the eons, there have been a lot of rulers who made it through their reign without disaster, but who would have made a mess of it if an emergency arose. Charles had the bad fortune to be caught in a time where he needed to step up to the plate.
 
Frankly as Canadians we are always mystified at the idea USA won.
most of the few Americans who even know about the war and the handful of books I have that mention the subject don't regard it was a US win, they think of it as a wash... no changes to the status quo. One book I have claims that the war was a draw but the US won the peace...
Even in 1848 the US was willing to go to war offer Oregon/Columbia.
There were people who said that, but Polk and the US government in general were not willing to go to war over it; Polk wanted and got a negotiated settlement of the border.

As for the OP... there are couple of PODs that could get to it..
-Maybe the LA purchase never goes through, but in the chaos of Napoleon's fall, the US just seizes all the land east of the Mississippi river, including New Orleans; it has to be realized that the US really wanted ownership/complete access along the length of the entire Mississippi for shipping it's goods, and having NO held by a foreign power, even a friendly one, isn't good... relations change, and the US could be cut off from NO sometime in the future. At the same time, the notorious US Manifest Destiny would have to change from 'coast to coast' to 'the entire length of the Mississippi'....
-some set of circumstances allows the US to purchase just the LA Territory lands east of the Mississippi including NO. From what I've read, at the time of the purchase, the US wasn't really thinking of expanding beyond the Mississippi all that much, and it was the purchase that started such thoughts, making Americans want the OR territory, etc. In this POD, the US might be satisfied with having access to the entire length of the river.
 
Charles is well known as being on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum, and relegated the actual ruling to others. Godoy's two periods of being top minister are nothing but one long disaster, entering wars that they usually lost (War of the Oranges being the lone exception). Sure, it was a tough row to hoe being Napoleon's neighbor, but Spain's actions were completely disastrous and ultimately led to Nap invading and manipulating Godoy. At the end, Godoy was actively betraying Spain, looking to join Nap in dividing Portugal in return for a small Kingdom (off the top of my head, I want to say the Algarve, but not sure). It's hard to defend a King/Minister duo who led the Spanish Empire into catastrophic destruction.

Why would any other Monarch put effort into Louisiana? Because it was a land worth developing and it gave a nice long buffer between the heart of New Spain and an expansionist US. Spain had a huge empire to manage, but they completely blew it regarding the northern reaches of New Spain. Louisiana was picking up steam when Charles/Godoy were hoodwinking into giving it back to France for an empty promise of Parma. My point was that IF Spain had kept it and put a little effort into it, LA could have paid dividends for them (or for Mexico, IF Mexico still breaks free and the empire falls apart, but then a more competent line of Kings in Spain might have kept the empire together) and they could have blocked the US expansion. It is almost ASB to expect much from the OTL Kings Charles IV and his son Ferdinand, but had more capable succession for Carlos III happened, it is not ASB to think New Spain could have held a border at the Misssissippi.

Well known for being unintelligent by actual scholars or by laypeople? In any case, leaving ruling up to other people when you know you aren't equipped for it seems like a smart idea to me.

None of the wars the pair entered seem like particularly stupid ideas. Do you think other kings would have just ignored king-murdering Jacobins? Actually, after the Directorate overthrew Robespierre and demonstrated how powerful they were, Charles IV and Godoy did the smart thing and allied with them. Doubtless if they hadn't, people would be railing against them for being so regressive and stupid that they wouldn't take the obvious practical option. Other than that, the pair could have hardly predicted that Napoleon would come to power and embark on his disastrous and unprecedented foreign policy. They had to play along with Napoleon because Napoleon was extremely powerful and right next to Spain. Again, if they had turned against Napoleon prematurely, people today would probably be trashing them for forcing Napoleon to invade and destroy the Spanish Empire.

How is it "actively betraying" Spain to join an ally in invading a country that you've had multiple recent wars with? Yes Godoy got a part of Portugal as his kingdom but if the partition of Portugal had succeeded, it would still have been great for Spanish interests.

I'm not saying Godoy and Charles IV were geniuses but I really don't see how getting rid of them "does wonders" for the fate of Spain. What policies do you think other rulers should have done in their situation?

There are plenty of places worth developing-like New Spain itself, the most important colony in the Spanish Empire. Louisiana never repaid the cost of governing it and caused a lot of headaches for Spain. If France hadn't illegally sold it to the US, the sale of Louisiana would have been a great idea because it would have given the benefits of a buffer for the valuable colonies while avoiding the costs and headaches of governing it. Given that the Directorate had been trying to obtain Louisiana since 1795, it was perfectly reasonable to think that France wouldn't blatantly violate a treaty with an ally and sell it. In fact, it was only Napoleons terrible decision to invade Haiti and try to restore slavery that crushed his plans for a North American trade empire. If he hadn't done that, there would have been no motivation to sell Louisiana. Why should a different Charles IV put any more effort into Louisiana than Charles III did? I'm not saying that Spain holding onto Louisiana and fending off the US at the Mississippi is impossible. I just don't think the answer lies in replacing Charles IV and Godoy. If France hadn't wanted Louisiana and had actually acted like a reasonable ally, I don't see why Spain couldn't hold onto Louisiana just fine.
 
Without the Louisiana Purchase, there would be no Manifest Destiny. The territory they had would have sustained the US for generations. If the US acquires Florida and New Florida, the Mississippi River becomes a border for its entire length, though New Orleans remains part of New France. Without the LA territory, the US does not have the same incentive to get involved with Texas.
 
the Mississippi River becomes a border for its entire length, though New Orleans remains part of New France.
I don't see that situation staying that way for long... without NO, the rest of the Mississippi river traffic is essentially at the mercy of whatever foreign power owns the city. Which is why the US wanted it in the first place. Sooner or later, the US is going to try and take the city if they can't buy it...
 
OK. The U.S. can buy or otherwise take the east bank of New Orleans. There is no reason why the west bank can't remain part of a different jurisdiction (New France, New Spain) and the river becomes an international border with port facilities to serve two countries. Naturally, there would be treaties to keep commerce moving on the river and to keep the country on the west from "stealing" the flow by widening the channel to the Atchafalaya basin.
 
OK. The U.S. can buy or otherwise take the east bank of New Orleans. There is no reason why the west bank can't remain part of a different jurisdiction (New France, New Spain) and the river becomes an international border with port facilities to serve two countries. Naturally, there would be treaties to keep commerce moving on the river and to keep the country on the west from "stealing" the flow by widening the channel to the Atchafalaya basin.

The biggest problem is that nobody lives there and the majority of people who would want to live there would rather join the United States.

I doubt grabbing the Atchafalaya would be much of a concern for decades, since the reason it is becoming the main channel is that people removed a major logjam, the "Great Raft", a good ways upstream. Flood control efforts in the 19th and 20th century helped accelerate the process. And of course, the Mississippi was poorly understood river for much of the 19th century. Once you do grab the Atchafalaya, you will drown a good deal of land and towns along the river and have to construct an entirely new port, plus you're probably causing an international incident. It doesn't help that how the Corps of Engineers fights the Atchafalaya from becoming the main channel is a needless fight against nature that costs an insane amount of money--if two countries are involved, maybe they'd work out a better system.
 
The biggest problem is that nobody lives there and the majority of people who would want to live there would rather join the United States.

If you mean on the west bank of the Mississippi, there's always the Natives. A significant number were already fleeing the American Southeast by 1800, crossing the river and settling west of it. Either of Spain or France (maybe Spain since they did tried OTL in east Texas) could create a buffer state by encouraging more natives to move.
 
OK. The U.S. can buy or otherwise take the east bank of New Orleans. There is no reason why the west bank can't remain part of a different jurisdiction (New France, New Spain) and the river becomes an international border with port facilities to serve two countries. Naturally, there would be treaties to keep commerce moving on the river and to keep the country on the west from "stealing" the flow by widening the channel to the Atchafalaya basin.


How could you be considered to be stealing what would already be a natural process. Clear the log jams on the Atchafalaya and the river will take the course that is naturally the shortest, and by extension the steepest, relative route to the sea. Without improvements it would already have occured.
 
Top