USA without the Southwest?

Bytor

Monthly Donor
In our universe, the parts of the United States that used to be part of Mexico provided a lot of mineral and agricultural wealth for the developing economy of USA. So how crucial were those resources?

I'm not really interested here in whether person A gets person a gets elected over person B, or the progress of a timeline like we normally do in a what is, just the broader implications.

Was the true wealth of something like California that resource wealth that is contributed to the union? Or was the true wealth the people and the economic activity they still would have carried out?

For example, if you were to take the population number of OTL USA in the 1890s, but put that in an ATL USA that does not have Texas to California, would this ATL USA have an economy equal to OTL USA at the same time. Simply because it has the same number of people? Let's call that our Benchmark for the purpose of this discussion.

Or does the lack of that territory and those resources mean this ATL USA is economically weaker, and by how much? Does this eventually prevent the United States from being the global power that we know it to be today and after World War One? Or does it just delay the rise of the USA has an economic power? (Natural resources like mineral deposits in oil are arguably just as extensive in the old Louisiana Territory and north of the 42nd parallel as they are in the southwest, just more difficult to get at.)
 
Countries don’t fight for territory and resources if it doesn’t matter. Expansion of good habitable land and the economic opportunity that comes with it is a critical pull factor for immigration. 102 people came over on the Mayflower. They have 35 million descendants. That’s pretty astonishing when the English population only grew 10 times in a comparable time period.

If you want to calculate how much material benefit Spain got from all the gold and silver of the New World it would be miniscule. But that created conditions to fill two continents with people of Spanish descent.
 
I'd wager ITTL that one of the port cities of Oregon or Washington would make up for losing San Francisco. Though settlement patterns in the northern states might get notable butterflies from such a change in railroads, immigration trails, ect.
 
the gold in CA was rather important. Plus, I've read that the huge silver finds in NV were rather crucial in funding the north during the ACW. So a big POD there...
 
If this happens, you basically butterfly the entire western genre as we know it away.

It's probable that Americans would still settle in the Southwest even if it remained part of Mexico. There would not be much to stop most of the same people from moving since the OTL frontier was already dangerous and involved encroaching on native land. Plus, Northern Mexico was still a frontier as well.

There might still be a familiar 'mythology of the West' or ITTL the 'Wild North', but with significantly larger Hispanic influences, bigger focus on northern Mexico, and a bigger focus on Oregon.

Also a lot more African American slaves will escape to freedom in Mexican Texas right across the border from Louisiana and Arkansas.

the gold in CA was rather important. Plus, I've read that the huge silver finds in NV were rather crucial in funding the north during the ACW. So a big POD there...
If the Gold Rush occurs later and not in US territory, there is definitely slower railroad development, which also slows the Second Industrial Revolution in the US but probably only by a few years max considering the bulk of industrialization occurring in the east.
 
Last edited:
In this timeline, does Mexico also keep Texas or only the territories it lost in the war with the USA?

There were lots of Yankees moving into Texas and California before 1845 and that has to be addressed. It was an important part of why these areas were annexed by the USA. The Mormons founded Deseret when it was still Mexican territory.

How are we treating Mexico ITTL? Nineteenth centry Mexico presumably is a more functional place. Does it keep the Yankee immigrants out? Absorb them become half Anglo in culture?

Lots of oil and minerals in California and Texas so whoever gets them gets a big power boost even if these places don't get settled.
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
In this timeline, does Mexico also keep Texas or only the territories it lost in the war with the USA?

There were lots of Yankees moving into Texas and California before 1845 and that has to be addressed. It was an important part of why these areas were annexed by the USA. The Mormons founded Deseret when it was still Mexican territory.

How are we treating Mexico ITTL? Nineteenth centry Mexico presumably is a more functional place. Does it keep the Yankee immigrants out? Absorb them become half Anglo in culture?

Lots of oil and minerals in California and Texas so whoever gets them gets a big power boost even if these places don't get settled.

As I said in my initial post I'm not really interested in timeline-specifics but rather the broader implications. At most a weeding out of potential timelines in this multiverse rather than coming up with a specific Mexico does this, then the USA does that, then, then, then…
 
Was the true wealth of something like California that resource wealth that is contributed to the union? Or was the true wealth the people and the economic activity they still would have carried out?
Probably a mix of A and B. Take a look at Germany in the 19th century. They certainly had plenty of people to spare and their economic activity eventually made Germany a great power, but they lacked the necessary resources to become a continental hegemon like the US or Russia. This lack of land and resources would become the bane of quite a few German economists, politicians, and eventually, a certain megalomaniac dictator.

Unlike Germany, however, the US already had a lot of land to spare. I would argue that most of the US's economic growth in the 19th century was driven primarily by the Midwest, Pennsylvania and New York, while growth began to shift to the Southwest in the 20th century (and now seems to be drifting into other areas). Without the Southwest, economic growth might continue to an extent in regions where growth was not as strong IOTL, such as the Pacific Northwest.

However, the lack of Texas and California, which were heavy producers of oil and other commodities, would impact American economic potential in the 20th century considerably. You might see more offshore drilling in the Gulf but I'm not sure if that would be enough to make up for it. Even today, the United States is the largest producer of oil in the world (a point that is often missed due to the fact that America still manages to consume more than it produces). This would certainly not be the case without the Southwest, and the US would probably be even more adventurous in foreign affairs than it already is today to secure vital resources.

(Natural resources like mineral deposits in oil are arguably just as extensive in the old Louisiana Territory and north of the 42nd parallel as they are in the southwest, just more difficult to get at.)
That is a crucial point. Current technology makes oil production in the Great Plains viable, but that technology would have come 60-70 years too late for the US to produce unprecedented amounts of machinery and vehicles for WW2 and to get out of the Great Depression.
 
Last edited:
Top