WI : XIXth Century USA remaining just East Coast as a migration prospect (vs Argentina)

So I'm continuing with my pondering on a TL with the US limited to its 16 East Coast states (if my math is correct) and basically being thwarted in its attempt to enact Manifest Destiny.

If they were less big as in OTL (but still sizeable : over 1 million km² for the whole east coast) would they still be a prime prospect to migrate to the New World and start a new life for Europeans?

As Argentina was also a strong nation of immigration at the time, would it represent a more viable prospect ITTL and could that be enough to even tip the overall balance of power towards it?

Also, would that mean that the Italian migrants would all favour Argentina ITTL and more generally, what other demographics could be persuaded to switch to alternatives to the US?

Would Canada and Mexico get higher influxes of migrations? Would there be other alternatives (Cuba, West indies...) ?

Plenty of questions...
 
That's hard to say, since the 19th century US remaining just the East Coast is going to serious impact American politics and could imply that the US is far poorer and less developed than OTL. But assuming the same level of prosperity the OTL 19th century East Coast had, then the US would definitely still be a major destination for immigrants. Wages were higher in the US during the 19th century than Latin America, it's still a huge country (with much better terrain than Argentina), and it's among the most developed countries in the world. Everything from Baltimore north will remain a major immigration destination.

The US would be much weaker than OTL, but would still easily qualify as a great power and without a doubt the most powerful state in the New World.
 
It depends on the POD why the US is limited to that, when the US got independence it included land that became 26 states from the get go. You have to explain why it lost that land, or why the East Coast states managed to keep their "to the Pacific" border claims. Former case pretty easy to see why immigration would be less, large native state nearby would probably spook people from immigrating, in the latter case, immigration would still happen until quite late in the process
 
But assuming the same level of prosperity the OTL 19th century East Coast had

Yes, I work from the assumption that there is still a full industrialisation happening with Pennsylvanian coal, petroleum and iron exploitation and also similar development in New Jersey and Maryland.

My POD (which is a tad ASB) is based on Tecumseh's confederacy being successful in the North and the Five civilised tribes being successful in the south (apart from the Seminole), so anything West of the Appalachians and the Alabama River is off limits and the USA retain that status quo (which I know is super unlikely) while continuing to develop the East Coast... And slowly preparing for a reconquista that would start in the 1900s.
 
My POD (which is a tad ASB) is based on Tecumseh's confederacy being successful in the North and the Five civilised tribes being successful in the south (apart from the Seminole), so anything West of the Appalachians and the Alabama River is off limits and the USA retain that status quo (which I know is super unlikely) while continuing to develop the East Coast... And slowly preparing for a reconquista that would start in the 1900s.

The question is who's protecting them, when as it was, the US easily overwhelmed them in the early 19th century. If it's the British, then I'd expect the US to maintain an anti-British foreign policy. If it's anyone else, then the US might as well have already won, since France doesn't have the power projection in North America to beat the US and no one else even comes close to the threat which Britain and France could pose..
 

Lusitania

Donor
One of the simplest and easier explanations would be a 1783 POD where Britain retains the Ohio valley as part of BNA. It then able to fill the land with British settlers and even those Americans who move into the area accept being part of BNA just like the Americans who migrated to Canada iOTL. The secound POD is where napoleónic France able to retain control of Haiti and therefore does not sell French Louisiana to USA. French settlers from 1800-1820 plus French troops form enough of control to retain control of French Louisiana.

Lastly France does allow Americans to cross its territory for a fee on their way to Oregon. In the 19th century British able to retain control over part of Washington state the rest of Americans in Oregon and California join together to form the republic of California. Mormon free stare also appears and Texas becomes independent. While Mexico retains control over lands between Texas and California.

Otherwise unless there is magic wall you cannot limit American expansion westward.
 
Last edited:
The secound POD is where napoleónic France able to retain control of Haiti and therefore does not sell French Louisiana to USA. French settlers from 1800-1820 plus French troops form enough of control to retain control of French Louisiana.

I was thinking of a TL where the Coureurs des Bois and the Bois Brûlés cultures are much more widespread, leading to a more populated Louisiana in better terms with native tribes (the Natchez are not wiped out and better relationship with the Chickasaw). Since the Americans don't make the gains of OTL in late XVIIIth century, there is no Louisiana Purchase and the Southern part of Louisiana goes for independence around the same time as Haiti (partly influenced by the slave uprising and partly by exiled French revolutionaries).

Lastly France does allow Americans to cross its territory for a fee on their way to Oregon. In the 19th century British able to retain control over part of Washington state the rest of Americans in Oregon and California join together to form the republic of California

I had precisely an idea along those lines (apart from the Brits) with an Oregon Trail and California Trail crossing Louisiana.
 
Top