Until the 1840s,the USA's territories did not reach to the
Pacific Ocean,with modern California being Mexican and Oregon
and Washington being claimed by Britain,despite settlers and
claims by people from the States.

The POD might need to be closer to the 1818 treaty than the
1846,but what could bring about a USA that never grew west
of the Louisiana Purchase,and what effect would that have on
the world afterward?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 12/21/23 12:18 AM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Until the 1840s,the USA's territories did not reach to the
> Pacific Ocean,with modern California being Mexican and Oregon
> and Washington being claimed by Britain,despite settlers and
> claims by people from the States.
>
> The POD might need to be closer to the 1818 treaty than the
> 1846,but what could bring about a USA that never grew west
> of the Louisiana Purchase,and what effect would that have on
> the world afterward?

There were important US statesmen who thought that the Oregon Country
could never be a functional part of the US; though to be sure they
didn't know about railroads or telegraphs yet. So it's not totally
implausible.

Two things would be needed, IMO. First, aggressive British settlement
in Oregon, such that the whole area is dominated by British traders
and settlers. Second, no Mexican War, so the US never annexes
California. If the Texas Revolution fails, or the Republic survives
as an independent state, that would take care of that issue.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:51:24 -0600, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>There were important US statesmen who thought that the Oregon Country
>could never be a functional part of the US; though to be sure they
>didn't know about railroads or telegraphs yet. So it's not totally
>implausible.
>
>Two things would be needed, IMO. First, aggressive British settlement
>in Oregon, such that the whole area is dominated by British traders
>and settlers. Second, no Mexican War, so the US never annexes
>California. If the Texas Revolution fails, or the Republic survives
>as an independent state, that would take care of that issue.

If Texas is not part of the United States how long could the
Confederacy expect to survive without Texas?

Or would this "butterfly away" 180 as well? It would almost certainly
cancel Lincoln's presidency. (Which was probably the narrowest US
election victory ever given it was a 4 way race)

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 2:55:53 AM UTC, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:51:24 -0600, Rich Rostrom
> <rros...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >There were important US statesmen who thought that the Oregon Country
> >could never be a functional part of the US; though to be sure they
> >didn't know about railroads or telegraphs yet. So it's not totally
> >implausible.
> >
> >Two things would be needed, IMO. First, aggressive British settlement
> >in Oregon, such that the whole area is dominated by British traders
> >and settlers. Second, no Mexican War, so the US never annexes
> >California. If the Texas Revolution fails, or the Republic survives
> >as an independent state, that would take care of that issue.
> If Texas is not part of the United States how long could the
> Confederacy expect to survive without Texas?
>
> Or would this "butterfly away" 180 as well? It would almost certainly
> cancel Lincoln's presidency. (Which was probably the narrowest US
> election victory ever given it was a 4 way race)
>
As of 1845, Texas was recognised as an independent country by nations such as Britain and France. The POD appears to be WI it never joins the US and limps along until 1860/1. Would the remaining states which seceded in OTL be more or less likely to do so if Texas were not a part of the US? I feel that, in that scenario, *Texas would be friendly to the *CSA. Indeed, *Texas would already have what the *CSA would dearly like to have - international recognition as an independent country. Can one imagine a situation where, rather than Texas becoming part of the CSA, the CSA becomes part of the internationally-recognised sovereign country of Texas? It would probably need an amendment of the Texian constitution, but that might be do-able.

I don't think that the absence of [the four Texan electoral votes which Breckinridge received on OTL] would make that much difference to the 1860 election.

(Can't quote Graham,charset issues)

In OTL Oregon became a state in 1859,so there still needs to be
a prevention of that for the USA to have no Pacific coast if
Texas stays an independent state as of 1860...and a Republic
of Texas that is merely friendly to the Southern states of the
USA is likely not to want to get involved on the battlefield
against the military of the USA even if the Rebels want to
enter into confederation with it.Their independence would be
at risk and getting entangled might even stir up revanchist
Mexicans.

Also,if Utah remains Mexican,where do the Latter-Day Saints
go after the unpleasantness at Nauvoo,assuming that is not
butterflied away?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 4:20:39 AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
> (Can't quote Graham,charset issues)
>
> In OTL Oregon became a state in 1859,so there still needs to be
> a prevention of that for the USA to have no Pacific coast if
> Texas stays an independent state as of 1860...
>
Agreed
>
> and a Republic
> of Texas that is merely friendly to the Southern states of the
> USA is likely not to want to get involved on the battlefield
> against the military of the USA even if the Rebels want to
> enter into confederation with it.Their independence would be
> at risk and getting entangled might even stir up revanchist
> Mexicans.
>
I think that I have read that the Republic of Texas imported almost everything other than raw materials from the USA (presumably mostly from the states that ended up in the CSA). Given its financial situation in 1845, I do not see its dependence on such imports decreasing by 1860. I feel that *Texas might not see neutrality in the *ACW as an option. Regarding battlefield operations, I think that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Mississippi_theater_of_the_American_Civil_War#Texas_and_Louisiana was less significant than most theaters of the ACW in OTL.
>
> Also,if Utah remains Mexican,where do the Latter-Day Saints
> go after the unpleasantness at Nauvoo,assuming that is not
> butterflied away?
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:51:24 -0600
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On 12/21/23 12:18 AM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Until the 1840s,the USA's territories did not reach to the
>> Pacific Ocean,with modern California being Mexican and Oregon
>> and Washington being claimed by Britain,despite settlers and
>> claims by people from the States.
>>
>> The POD might need to be closer to the 1818 treaty than the
>> 1846,but what could bring about a USA that never grew west
>> of the Louisiana Purchase,and what effect would that have on
>> the world afterward?
>
>There were important US statesmen who thought that the Oregon Country
>could never be a functional part of the US; though to be sure they
>didn't know about railroads or telegraphs yet. So it's not totally
>implausible.

>Two things would be needed, IMO. First, aggressive British settlement
>in Oregon, such that the whole area is dominated by British traders

Alternately, Russia expands it's presence on the west coast more
than it did. If memory serves, the last settlement in California
became Spanish / Mexican in the 1840s (iirc). There was an annual
'festival' where the Spanish Authorities would request the transfer of
the Russian assets, the Russians would reply that 'as they had not yet
received Imperial permission they could not. You understand Imperial
bureaucracies, what can we do?'
And then the festival would start with feasting dancing and the
usual.

>and settlers. Second, no Mexican War, so the US never annexes
>California. If the Texas Revolution fails, or the Republic survives
>as an independent state, that would take care of that issue.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 12/21/23 8:55 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> If Texas is not part of the United States how long could the
> Confederacy expect to survive without Texas?
>
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!

If there is no Mexican War and no acquisition of Texas and
California, the entire course of US history in 1845-1860
is radically changed.

If Texas annexation is for some reason off the table,
the election of 1844 is very different. Clay may well
be elected, with a whole raft policy consequences.

There could still be a Crisis of 1850, because the Missouri
Compromise restricted slavery to a small fraction of the
Louisiana Purchase, much of which was reserved as the
Indian Territory. After 1836, there's only Florida to be a
new slave state, whereas Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
Kansas will become free states. With parity all but
impossible, Southerners may just give up that fight.

If independent Texas survives, one might see many "hot"
pro-slavery men move there, taking a lot of slaves
with them, draining away much pro-secession energy.

So the Whig Party might soldier on, with them and the
Democrats both accepting the position that slavery may not
expand to new states, nor be interfered with in existing
states.

One might see Stephen Douglas elected President, or Lincoln
going to the Senate.

> Or would this "butterfly away" 180 as well? It would almost certainly
> cancel Lincoln's presidency. (Which was probably the narrowest US
> election victory ever given it was a 4 way race)

Hardly. Lincoln had a 10% margin over his nearest opponent
in popular votes, and over 30% margin in electoral votes.

1844, 1876, 1916, 1960, 1976, and 2000 were all much closer.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/21/23 8:55 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> If Texas is not part of the United States how long could the
>> Confederacy expect to survive without Texas?
>>
> Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!
>
> If there is no Mexican War and no acquisition of Texas and
> California, the entire course of US history in 1845-1860
> is radically changed.
>
> If Texas annexation is for some reason off the table,
> the election of 1844 is very different. Clay may well
> be elected, with a whole raft policy consequences.
>
> There could still be a Crisis of 1850, because the Missouri
> Compromise restricted slavery to a small fraction of the
> Louisiana Purchase, much of which was reserved as the
> Indian Territory. After 1836, there's only Florida to be a
> new slave state, whereas Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
> Kansas will become free states. With parity all but
> impossible, Southerners may just give up that fight.
>
> If independent Texas survives, one might see many "hot"
> pro-slavery men move there, taking a lot of slaves
> with them, draining away much pro-secession energy.
>
> So the Whig Party might soldier on, with them and the
> Democrats both accepting the position that slavery may not
> expand to new states, nor be interfered with in existing
> states.

Would abolitionists never gain traction?
> One might see Stephen Douglas elected President, or Lincoln
> going to the Senate.
>
>> Or would this "butterfly away" 180 as well? It would almost certainly
>> cancel Lincoln's presidency. (Which was probably the narrowest US
>> election victory ever given it was a 4 way race)

The most famous/fractious four-way race was 1824,
when the leader in electoral AND popular votes did
not win.
> Hardly. Lincoln had a 10% margin over his nearest opponent
> in popular votes, and over 30% margin in electoral votes.
>
> 1844, 1876, 1916, 1960, 1976, and 2000 were all much closer.
>

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 1/26/24 12:12 AM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Would abolitionists never gain traction?

Even after the OTL election of 1860, abolitionism
was still widely regarded as a dangerous fringe
movement. The Republicans distanced themselves
from it as much as possible. Lincoln in his First
Inaugural disclaimed any intention of enacting
general emancipation, and the Republican-controlled
Congress passed the Corwin Amendment.

If the South does not declare secession to protect
slavery, and stops trying to force slavery on western
territories, abolitionism would remain fringe, and
not "gain traction for a long time.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.