New Reality Seeds

[AlexanderHowl]

I think that it would be possible to keep the equivalent of the area of modern Louisiana. The Anglo settlers would probably pass north of the Louisiana Republic, as slavery would be illegal in the Louisiana Republic and the settlers would probably not want to lose their slaves, and settle in Texas. Alternatively, they would charter a ship to the coast of Texas, as the Mexican Republic wanted settlers for its northern territories.

An interesting question would be what would be the fate of Texas? If the Louisiana Republic allied with the Mexican Republic, I doubt that the Texas. would have received the necessary support from the USA. Without support, the Texans would have likely been ground to dust by the Mexican Republic.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I think that it would be possible to keep the equivalent of the area of modern Louisiana.

Oh, I agree. I just thought that a North American equivalent of Hong Kong or Singapore would make a cool place to adventure in.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Oh, I agree. I just thought that a North American equivalent of Hong Kong or Singapore would make a cool place to adventure in.

Removing the USA from any possible allience with Britain in WWI would suggest that like Hong Kong, New Orleans would be returned to The USA later. A Britain that had to deal with a hostile America would be weaker. You'd have a German or Russian dominated Europe in the twentieth century.

[dcarson]

The US would be much less tied to world trade. Both the midwest and the Great lake states trade has to pass a possibly hostile power's territory. Wonder if they would try harder to get the west coast of Canada as US territory instead of splitting it by treaty. Given how the Louisiana Purchase went and probably a lack of Gadsden Purchase would the purchase of Alaska even be thought of.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by dcarson

The US would be much less tied to world trade. Both the Midwest and the Great lake states trade have to pass a possibly hostile power's territory. Wonder if they would try harder to get the west coast of Canada as US territory instead of splitting it by treaty. Given how the Louisiana Purchase went and probably a lack of Gadsden Purchase would the purchase of Alaska even be thought of.

With the loss of navigation of the Mississippi the possibility of the USA being a continental nation would be nil. The European powers would have sought to own and/or manipulate the separate North American states just as the played the Latin American off against each other. Theodore Roosevelt said that "We didn't get rid of a weak Spain to replace it with a strong Germany." Which suggests that if Britain had won the Battle of New Orleans, Germany would have gotten the Americas as their prize.

The lost of New Orleans allowed Britain to win the 20th century world wars. Or at least be on the winning side.

[AlexanderHowl]

Why would Germany be guaranteed anything? Without an expanding USA to immigrate to, many Germans who left Germany during the 19th century would have likely stayed put, meaning that you would have had a number of different people born in each location (5 million Germans immigrated to the USA from 1850 to 1930). During the same time period, large numbers of British and Irish also immigrated (3.5 million and 4.5 million respectively), meaning that those people would have gone somewhere else.

A weaker USA would have likely resulted in a stronger Canada and a stronger Mexico (though there is a good chance that either California and/or Texas would have become independent nations, even if the first Texas Republic was crushed). Immigration from Europe would have been spread out more evenly, as there would not be one place of massive opportunity, and the indigenous populations may have fared marginally better (the USA was notable in its abuses). You could have even seen an earlier manifestation of NAFTA when Canada became a dominion in 1867.

Without the threat of shipping rebellious slaves down to Louisiana (and with Louisiana being a safe area for former slaves), you may have even had an early emancipation of the slaves in the USA as there would have been more escaped slaves and more slave rebellions. Without the Trail of Tears, the indigenous peoples of the USA would have been stronger, and they would have likely remained politically more powerful. By WW I, the area that is the USA could have been held by nine different nations (the Alaskan Dominion, the California Republic, the Canadian Dominion, the Kingdom of Hawai'i, the Louisiana Republic, the Oregon Dominion, the Second Mexican Republic, the Second Texas Republic, and the USA), all of whom could have been connected through trade and diplomacy.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

With the loss of navigation of the Mississippi the possibility of the USA being a continental nation would be nil.

I'm not sure that really matters all that much though. To the extent it limits development of the Ohio valley it may weaken the US a little bit, but not much south and west of St Louis matters a lot to American power in the 19th century. Except for California it arguably still doesn't. And its not like anybody holding New Orleans has an interest in *closing* the river traffic. It is after all the thing that makes the city worth having in the first place. Does it matter a lot who Midwestern shippers pay their transit fees to?

The lost of New Orleans allowed Britain to win the 20th century world wars. Or at least be on the winning side.

Eh, the War of 1812 was fought in OTL, and didn't keep the US from eventually allying with Britain. It's not like New Orleans was the sort of integral part of the US that will be inspiring irredentist movements to get it back. One more bit of neighboring British territory doesn't seem likely to change much. Certainly not in comparison to the way a big chunk of potential cotton growing territory already under British influence competing with and blocking expansion of slave holding states is going to.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

A weaker USA would have likely resulted in a stronger Canada and a stronger Mexico (though there is a good chance that either California and/or Texas would have become independent nations, even if the first Texas Republic was crushed).

Read up on the History of Mexico, sectional revolts seeking independence were and still are a constant of Mexican history. The Nations of Central America, with the exception of Panama, were all part of Mexico. Mexico in the early 20th century only held on to the Quintana Roo because the USA intervened to help them. Not that long ago the Chiapas was in revolt. Remove the USA and the Monroe Doctrine, and Mexico, like much of Latin America, would be broken up into small colonies and ruled from Europe.

Immigration from Europe would have been spread out more evenly, as there would not be one place of massive opportunity, and the indigenous populations may have fared marginally better (the USA was notable in its abuses). You could have even seen an earlier manifestation of NAFTA when Canada became a dominion in 1867.

As the Italians put it in the 1890-1960 period. Those who go to the United States return with money and their health. Those that go to Argentina return with no money but they have their health. Those that go to Brazil return with neither their money or their health. Climate and opportunity decided who got the immigrants. Mexico's hot climate and Canada's cold climate would have still been against them.

[AlexanderHowl]

But what of the Italians who go to the Republic of California or the Oregon Dominion? Anyway, with much less of a continent, it is not like the USA will be very welcoming to immigrants, so the USA would have limited immigration even more than it did. The Italians would have had to have gone somewhere else, perhaps Argentine or Chile, where the climate was not as deadly as Brazil.

[adm]

Without the US Transcontinental Railroad, or the Panama Canal, Oregon and California probably will not see a major population boost, they are too far from Europe. California's population doesn't really start seriously growing until WW II, with the various factories built to support the war effort against Japan, even the California Gold Rush didn't add that much lasting population, the gold was taken out of the ground so quickly by mining methods like hydraulic mining that significant amounts were gone by the end of the US Civil War. The mostly male, or "working girl" towns would disappear overnight when the local gold veins were worked out. Once the miners had their fortune they went back home; or more typically, missed their chance at gold this time, they chased the next gold strike rumors.