wrote in message
news:1148618812.238432.32910@g10g2000cwb.googlegro
ups.com...
> Take it as a given. Perhaps no Mexican-American
war, or one in which
> Texas failed to break away on it's own and the
US didn't annex
> territories past the Rio Grande. Perhaps
California is still part of
> Mexico, perhaps it's an independent state. Find
your own rationale,
> unless you believe it is Inescapable (Possibly
Manifest) Destiny that
> the San Fernando valley be governed from
Washington, D.C. in any TL
> where the US fails to break up early on.
>
> What are the effects of this on the US? Let's
assume that the 19th
> century US by the 1870's is otherwise fairly
similar to OTL: it's had a
> civil war in which the North won,
That's quite difficult. If the Mexican Cession
isn't acquired, there's no Wilmot Proviso, no
fight over the position of slavery in the
Southwest, and no Popular Sovereignty territories
to create a precedent for the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Nor would any Pacific railroad need to pass
through Kansas as it would be much further north.
In short, all the issues thta led to the formaton
of the Republican Party and the ensuing Civil War
are on the back burner.
[snip]
> Of course, if Calfornia is not in the US,
there's a good chance Nevada
> isn't either: and where else might something
like Las Vegas come into
> existence?
If California isn't in the US, then Nevada almost
certainly isn't. Those intervening territories
like New Mex, Utah etc were acquired because they
were on the direct route between US and
California, not for their own sake.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
It is so stupid of modern civilisation to have
given up believing in the
Devil, when he is its only explanation.
Ronald Knox.
|
