Say that the Revolutionary War goes better for the Americans and they manage to get Canada at the peace treaty. However, for whatever butterfly-related reason (maybe Mexico is stronger and more stable for some reason), the Mexican-American War never happens, meaning that the US doesn't take OTL's Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Califormia, et al. Whad difference would this make to the US' development compared to OTL? How would the slavery issue play out? Would the US c. 2023 be stronger or weaker than its OTL counterpart?
WI: US takes Canada, but doesn't take land from Mexico
- Thread starter Fabius Maximus
- Start date
I would say yes, Russian already wanted out and barely could defend it. Could get it for more money ITTL
I would argue that has more to do with the west being more consolidated instead of split into as meny states as the east coast, for example a united north east or great lake rust belt state I would argue would have similer or greater influance then otl California. Or inversely if california was more like the east coast it would be split into more states which would have less influence seperated https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
Last edited:
dcharles
Banned
California has about as many people as NY, PA, and NJ put together. One California or six, it's a big state with a lot of money and people, and the US is going to be less well off and powerful without her.
The United States would have been better able to exploit the land of Canada in the 19th century
Are you butterflying away Texas independence? Texas borders were the excuse for the war but not the cause. James Polk had the vision that the future of the US was in trade with Asia, not Europe. The real goal was the ports of Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. You can delay things, but the tension is there.
maybe an earlier ACW... the south isn't going to be happy about all those free states being added to the union. Plus, without the gold and silver of CA, NV, etc, the US is likely to be somewhat poorer.... The US is still a 'coast to coast' nation, but the west coast is a lot shorter....
Either Texas remains part of Mexico, or it secedes but forms its own state rather than becoming part of the US. TTL's America would still have Seattle, so it would be able to trade with Asia, although perhaps it would be more European-focused than IOTL.
Isnt using modern data really anachronistic? Canada and CA's development would be highly different with the former being part of the US and the later not
dcharles
Banned
I don't think so. Maybe you can imagine ways for California to be poorer. But for Canada to be almost twice as rich? Nah.
Yeah I could see that
But at that point its just hypotheticals rather than anything solid
dcharles
Banned
It's based on the solid fact that Canada is very, very cold and people would rather live in California.
GDP of CA is made by people, not the land itself. You think CA would have such GDP as part of Mexico? Industries that are located in California IOTL would simply move elsewhere.
prani
Banned
Nobody wanted to live in California until the widespread use of air-conditioning, yeah parts of California are ideal for livin' a good life but not the entire state.
dcharles
Banned
Yes, and people find the Canadian environment harsh, because it is cold.
In 1940, well before the widespread use of air conditioning, California was the 5th most populous state in the US. So plenty of people wanted to live there.
And both of you are missing the point. I said several posts back that you can conceive of ways to make California poorer. It's immaterial. The question is not whether California would be richer or poorer. It's whether the US would be "stronger" minus the Mexican Cession but plus Canada. Since you can't make Canada richer than Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah put together--since, alas, it isn't even close to as rich as California alone--the answer is a definitive no.