How does the lack of a Gadsden Purchase affect the ACW?

So, suppose that either the US government is uninterested in the purchase of more territory in the southern border or that the mexican government is more reluctant to give up even more territory to the gringos. How does such a lack of a proper connection between southern Arizona and southern California affect the southwestern theater of the American Civil War? IOTL, Were there any important supply lines that passed through the Gadsden Purchase territory?
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine there being much difference, as the transcontinental railroad wasn't finished until 1869. Maybe the war in the west progresses slightly slower, but California wasn't too significant to the war effort, at least not the way something like New York was.

- BNC
 
So, suppose that either the US government is disinterested in the purchase of more territory in the southern border or that the mexican government is more reluctant to give up even more territory to the gringos. How does such a lack of a proper connection between southern Arizona and southern California affect the southwestern theater of the American Civil War? IOTL, Were there any important supply lines that passed through the Gadsden Purchase territory?
its uninterested not disinterested (which means unbiased)
 
Well, it could have some difference, correct me if i'm still wrong. Even if a railroad wasn't completed IOTL, perhaps some supply convoys would have to be diverged towards a more northern path ITTL. How much delay does such a detour cause and how would it affect the role of Texas in the war?
 
If somehow a botched non purchase was an embarrassment to Secretary of War Davis (who was "lead" on this otl), that might effect things a few years later.
 
California contributed so small and insignificant role in the war that it matters not. The only reason for the purchase was as a consolation to the South showing US commitment to a future southern route for another transcontinental RR. With the Civil War such a promise is moot, and if I remember correctly the eventual route of a southern RR would not even end up passing through the Purchase. Texas was also insignificant through the main course of history. These ideas of Texas and California affecting the Civil War and being needed is anachronistically putting their current situation back in time.
 
California contributed so small and insignificant role in the war that it matters not. The only reason for the purchase was as a consolation to the South showing US commitment to a future southern route for another transcontinental RR. With the Civil War such a promise is moot, and if I remember correctly the eventual route of a southern RR would not even end up passing through the Purchase. Texas was also insignificant through the main course of history. These ideas of Texas and California affecting the Civil War and being needed is anachronistically putting their current situation back in time.
So the most it could do would be extending the fight across the mexican border a slight bit more?
 
Without the Gadsden Purchase does AZ and NM stay as one state possibly holding on to the Las Vegas portion?
 
Honestly it doesn't effect 19th century history that much, it might effect the Apache wars and Tombstone is in the area so that silver is going to Mexico. So fewer immigrants and less people in Arizona. We might see actual fortress built to stop the raiding. From what I can tell it is the Yuma river, which would be seen as the Rio Grande eventually. A natural border.
 
A failed Gadsden Purchase in 1853 could very well have knock on effects of garnering more support from the South for Walker's expedition to Sonora-Baja. There was a lot of unrest in northern Mexico during Santa Anna's latter reign. Furthermore there were several cross border incidents in the latter 1850s that a pro-South Buchanan may have exploited to create a new casus belli. It's not hard to imagine northern Democrats and remnant Whigs going along with what is perceived as a sop to the South in return for a free Kansas.

Thus, no Gadsden could easily become an even larger "purchase" just few years later.

Even better have the Second Mexican-American War begin in 1860 due to the Cortina Troubles. The North, angry that once again the nation is embroiled in a war to expand slavery, still elects Lincoln. (Possibly even Seward if they're ticked enough.). And you get a three way war where Northern and Southern troops have to choose sides while already deployed in the field.

Benjamin
 
A failed Gadsden Purchase in 1853 could very well have knock on effects of garnering more support from the South for Walker's expedition to Sonora-Baja. There was a lot of unrest in northern Mexico during Santa Anna's latter reign. Furthermore there were several cross border incidents in the latter 1850s that a pro-South Buchanan may have exploited to create a new casus belli. It's not hard to imagine northern Democrats and remnant Whigs going along with what is perceived as a sop to the South in return for a free Kansas.

Thus, no Gadsden could easily become an even larger "purchase" just few years later.

Even better have the Second Mexican-American War begin in 1860 due to the Cortina Troubles. The North, angry that once again the nation is embroiled in a war to expand slavery, still elects Lincoln. (Possibly even Seward if they're ticked enough.). And you get a three way war where Northern and Southern troops have to choose sides while already deployed in the field.

Benjamin
The original plan for the purchase was in fact much larger, it included more of Sonora and all of Baja California. Santa Ana was all for it because he wanted as much cash as possible to build a larger military. To paraphrase a saying- he was willing to cut off his nose in order to strengthen his hand. Doesn't make sense to us today that he'd sell of a big chunk of land for cash to strengthen his military against US incursions, the very people he was selling the land to. But in his perspective he felt he was losing the land regardless, and better to lose it in his terms and have a better shot in the future. It was the US that limited what was bought.

Las Vegas almost certainly is going to Nevada. Callville is the head of navigation on the Colorado (as far upstream as steam boats can reach) and Nevada being a state and the thinking of the time that states deserved "sea access" pretty much assured that the triangle we associate now with Las Vegas would go to Nevada. At the time it was all about Callville and the Colorado River.

After the Mexican-American War New Mexico was proposed as an immediate state, at this moment the Texas border had not been determined and California similarly was going for immediate statehood and working on its borders, and you had Deseret as well. New Mexico proposed to be roughly the eastern half of Arizona and much of southern Colorado, along with Oklahoma panhandle and Texas panhandle. As with all big state proposals (such as California's original proposal to be Pacific to Rio Grande; and Texas proposal of Rio Grande; and Deseret of Los Angeles to Denver) this wasn't approved despite the President's agreement and pushing for it. A New Mexico with Arizona in my opinion leads to the northern border shifted south to be in line with the Missouri Compromise line (Texas' northern border instead of the current border in line with Oklahoma's northern border), this along with Nevada getting Las Vegas makes a greater New Mexico more in line in geographic size with other states. This small strip (same proportion as Oklahoma's panhandle) gives some extra land to Colorado and Utah making that state and future state bigger just enough and greater New Mexico just small enough as to not worry people as California and Texas did. Colorado's extra-legal predecessor the "state" of Jefferson in fact did claim that strip. The problem for Utah is that Congress at this time hated Mormons and hated Utah; giving them extra strip will lead to Nevada being pushed east a bit more probably, Nevada had been given several moves east to take Utah land three times already just as punishment to Utah and to make Nevada larger.
 
Top