bm2617@eve.albany.edu wrote:
> 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, it includes Oregon and Washington,
> the border with Canada is similar to OTL.
>
> With a shorter west coastline, will the US be as strongly involved in
> Pacific affairs? Will Hawaii end up British or even French? Does the
> US, presuming the Spanish-American was still breaks out, go after the
> Phillipines? Or does a US which is feeling it's oats decide it needs
> better Pacific access, and the Nicaraguan canal gets built?
>
> Californian gold: how important to the US economy in the 19th century?
> How long before the better deposits were mined out OTL?
>
> California agriculture: not so important in the 19th century, but by
> 2006 California produces something like half of the countries fruits,
> vegetables, and nuts. Is the US in this TL importing more food, or are
> they producing more crops in other parts of the country?
>
> The film industry: without California, where does the US film industry
> go once it departs New York and New Jersey in search of sunnier skies
> and un-unionized labor. Ray Speer once suggested Texas, but I don't
> know how seriously to take that. (Is Texas part of the US in this TL?
> You decide, but in the spirit of "minimizing changes", I would suggest
> so.)
>
> California was also the US testbed for the automobile/urban sprawl/fast
> food way of life. With California not in the US, is our modern suburban
> supersized roadrage lifestyle fundamentally changed in any aspect, or
> is the tranformation an inevitable one and at most slowed by a few
> years by Ray Kroc having to find another way to break into the bigtime?
>
> The inhabitants of Mexican or independent California may or may not
> treat Japanese immigrants poorly, but it won't reflect on the US either
> way. However, the inhabitants of Oregon and Washington (still two
> states in this TL?) will hopefully fill in for the Californians and do
> their bit for lousy trans-Pacific relations.
>
> The trans-continental railway will by necessity trend northward, which
> Southerners will not be happy about. Speaking of unhappy Southerners, I
> am assuming we won't butterfly away the US civil war if California
> stays out of the US, but what sort of effect will this have on the
> outlook of Confederates-to-be, aside from likely efforts at
> filibustering in the area? For one thing, my current residence of
> Albuquerque will probably not have suffered a Confederate invasion, the
> plan to detatch the territory between Texas and the Pacific and join it
> to the Confederacy being dependent on the notion of local support.
>
> 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?
>
> Best,
> Bruce
The U.S. was trying to find a way to get a port on the West Coast long
before and long after Texas went independent. Note the source.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v018/n1/article_4.html
THE EARLY SENTIMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CALIFORNIA: AN ACCOUNT OF
THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN INTEREST IN CALI- FORNIA, 1835-1846 I
"On August 1, William A. Slacum, a purser in the United States Navy,
wrote a letter to the President which, according to Adams, "kindled
the passion of Andrew Jackson for the thirty-seventh line of latitude
from the river Arkansas to the South Sea, to include the river and bay
of San Francisco, and was the foundation of Forsyth's instruction to
Butler of 6 August, 1835." 41
These instructions mentioned by Adams give the first official attempt
of the United States to secure from Mexico any part of her territory on
the Pacific. The chief object, as expressed by Forsyth, was to obtain
possession of San Francisco Bay which had been "represented to the
President" 42 as "a most desirable place of resort for our numerous
vessels engaged in the whaling business in the Pacific, far superior to
any to which they now have access." 43 No definite sum which Butler
was authorized to offer was specified in the dispatch, but Adams places
it as $500,000. 44 It should also be noted that Forsyth expressly
disclaimed any desire to secure territory south of San Francisco. 45 "
41. Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348. The name of the writer here is given as
Slocum, but this is plainly an error. This particular letter
unfortunately has disappeared from the files of the State Department
where Adams saw it in 1843, but from the correspondence still on record
there can be no doubt that the name Slacum is correct. See Forsyth to
Ellis (mentioning Slacum's name), April 14, 1836; Ellis to Monasterio,
March 8, 1836; &c., &c.; also Slacum's Report in Reports of Committees,
25 Cong., 3 cess., No. 101, pp. 29-45. Slacum, we learn from the
documents cited, was made a special agent of the government to the
Pacific coast to investigate conditions there, and especially the
progress of the Russians and of the Hudson's Bay Company.
42. Perhaps by Slacum, yet Adams's testimony regarding the powerful
influence of Slacum's letter of Aug. 1st is somewhat weakened by the
fact that Jackson had instructed Forsyth to enlarge the scope of
Butler's negotiations as early as July 25. Memoirs, XI, 361-362.
43. H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 sess., No. 42, pages 18-19.
44. Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348.
45. "We have no desire to interfere with the actual settlements of
Mexico on that coast and you may agree to any provision affecting the
great object of securing the bay of San Francisco and excluding
Monterey and the territory in its immediate neighborhood . . ."
Forsyth to Butler, as cited.
|
