No Gadsden Purchase

What if the US never gets the Gadsden Purchase? How would this affect the development of American Southwest? And how would this affect Mexico?

300px-Gadsden_Purchase_Cities_ZP.svg.png
 
Arizona keeps the triangular bit of south Nevada, then.

I can't really see how they wouldn't get it, though. If not as OTL, then larger, later.
 
In my school boy days we were told the purpose of the Gadsen purchase was to provide a better route for a railroad to San Diego. Assuming that is true then presumablly more money is spent on a railroad further north on a more difficult route.

The other reason I've heard is the purchase had something to do with supporting one or another Mexican government with funds that could not be loaned.

I also notice the lucrative silver mines of the Tucson region came with the Gadsen purchase.
 
The purchase could conceivably be blocked on either the American or Mexican side.

On the American side, the Senate refused the ratify the first version of the treaty, and only narrowly ratified the revised version (33:12, three votes more than the 30 needed to ratify). You could firm up opposition a bit with a different Compromise of 1850: a better deal for the South could induce increased Northern bitterness and stronger opposition by Northern Senators to southern expansion, or a bigger compromise that also organized the remainder of the Lousianna Purchase into territories would make it so the North wouldn't need Southern support to get the Kansas-Nebraska act through and would thus be less restrained in blocking things Southern Senators wanted.

On the Mexican side, the obvious reason to refuse to sell would be national pride and a desire to avoid adding to the humiliation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. OTL, Santa Anna sold because he needed the money and because he feared the US would just seize the area in question if he refused to sell. Tone down his reason to fear a bit (triggered in part by a filibustering expedition by William Walker into Baja California -- kill off Walker earlier, and this isn't an issue), and reduce his need for cash (not sure how, but there's probably a way) and there's no reason for him to sell and risk the political fallout. Alternately, avert Santa Anna's return to power, and the alternate Mexican government would likely have different priorities than Santa Anna and the sale might not make sense to them.
 
The purchase could conceivably be blocked on either the American or Mexican side.

On the American side, the Senate refused the ratify the first version of the treaty, and only narrowly ratified the revised version (33:12, three votes more than the 30 needed to ratify). You could firm up opposition a bit with a different Compromise of 1850: a better deal for the South could induce increased Northern bitterness and stronger opposition by Northern Senators to southern expansion, or a bigger compromise that also organized the remainder of the Lousianna Purchase into territories would make it so the North wouldn't need Southern support to get the Kansas-Nebraska act through and would thus be less restrained in blocking things Southern Senators wanted.

On the Mexican side, the obvious reason to refuse to sell would be national pride and a desire to avoid adding to the humiliation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. OTL, Santa Anna sold because he needed the money and because he feared the US would just seize the area in question if he refused to sell. Tone down his reason to fear a bit (triggered in part by a filibustering expedition by William Walker into Baja California -- kill off Walker earlier, and this isn't an issue), and reduce his need for cash (not sure how, but there's probably a way) and there's no reason for him to sell and risk the political fallout. Alternately, avert Santa Anna's return to power, and the alternate Mexican government would likely have different priorities than Santa Anna and the sale might not make sense to them.

America could block it, I suppose, but Manifest Destiny was still quite strong at that point, you know.

Mexico, no matter the humiliation, needs money. If someone overthrows Santa Anna? Possibly - but I still think it's likely.
 
On the Mexican side, the obvious reason to refuse to sell would be national pride and a desire to avoid adding to the humiliation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. OTL, Santa Anna sold because he needed the money and because he feared the US would just seize the area in question if he refused to sell. Tone down his reason to fear a bit (triggered in part by a filibustering expedition by William Walker into Baja California -- kill off Walker earlier, and this isn't an issue), and reduce his need for cash (not sure how, but there's probably a way) and there's no reason for him to sell and risk the political fallout. ....

A earlier discovery of the silver lodes . If the Mexicans are certain the silver is there, but the US leaders unbelieving of the rumors then the attitude would be very different.
 

FDW

Banned
This would screw over San Diego, as it would make San Diego much harder to get to by rail, probably to the benefit the other four of the "big five" pacific metropolises (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle and San Diego). We might end up seeing one of the Minor ports growing far larger than OTL to take advantage of the gap in the market (Monterey/Santa Cruz is a fairly good bet, but they're rather close to the Bay Area, and would need a full continental railroad. Another bet would be Eureka/Acrata which had pretty decent rail connections that could be made better.).

Also, we wouldn't see the emergence of the city of Mexicali TTL, as much of the growth that happened in that area (which was due to the fact that it was on the RR that connected San Diego to the east) would probably be in the Yuma and Phoenix area (Phoenix actually gets wanked somewhat TTL, as it sits right on the international borderline and would benefit from it in a similar manner).
 
This would screw over San Diego, as it would make San Diego much harder to get to by rail, probably to the benefit the other four of the "big five" pacific metropolises (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle and San Diego). We might end up seeing one of the Minor ports growing far larger than OTL to take advantage of the gap in the market (Monterey/Santa Cruz is a fairly good bet, but they're rather close to the Bay Area, and would need a full continental railroad. Another bet would be Eureka/Acrata which had pretty decent rail connections that could be made better.).

Eureka/Arcata no way. It is too isolated and surrounded by mountains. There isn't any room for growth in the hinterland. The rail and road connections aren't great, and even still, they come up the coast from the bay area, not from the valley over the mountains.
 

FDW

Banned
Eureka/Arcata no way. It is too isolated and surrounded by mountains. There isn't any room for growth in the hinterland. The rail and road connections aren't great, and even still, they come up the coast from the bay area, not from the valley over the mountains.

Actually OTL, there was a line proposed between Eureka and Redding, but it came after the big rail boom. If this proposal came earlier, and connected to existing transcontinential line in Nevada, then Eureka could potentially advertise a more direct connection to the Pacific than The Bay Area and get tons of growth because of it.
 
Well I imagine that Mexico would be a rather more content place but Santa Anna would probably not be in power without the extra money. Northern Mexico, especially Sonora, would feel less betrayed by the central government and would probably be more developed and cooperative and have less strife developing their such as the inevitable cartels to come in the future.

As for the United States, I think the Eureka-Arcata line makes sense as FDW imagined it.
 

FDW

Banned
Well I imagine that Mexico would be a rather more content place but Santa Anna would probably not be in power without the extra money. Northern Mexico, especially Sonora, would feel less betrayed by the central government and would probably be more developed and cooperative and have less strife developing their such as the inevitable cartels to come in the future.

As for the United States, I think the Eureka-Arcata line makes sense as FDW imagined it.

Well, it would be Eureka-Acrata to around the vicinity of Winnemucca in Nevada, and would probably building about 400 miles of track. It would probably turn the Eureka area into a metropolis of around a million people, and considerably increase the size of Redding and other minor towns that it would through (Like Susanville).
 
Top