Discussion:
U.S. Senate accepts 15 million Gadsden Purchase
Add Reply
t***@go.com
2017-10-09 22:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I just read the thread a little while ago
on the Mexican-American War and how Mexico
went through an array of Presidents and coup
de etat's throughout the war and how the U.S.
created the commission to accept the final
treaty on behalf of Mexico at the end of the war,
based upon the idea that Mexico was conquered
and so it could appoint anyone it wanted to
represent Mexico to sign the treaty.

By 1853 however Santa Anna had become president
of Mexico again and was looking for money from
the U.S. and the U.S. was considering a southern
route for a transcontinental railroad and wanted
dropped a treaty clause concerning U.S. liability
for Comanche and Apache raids from U.S. territory
into Mexico also.

The U.S. offered an array of packages for a purchase
ranging from 15 million to 50 million for varying
amounts of land. Santa Anna agreed to the 15 million
package to help finance improvements in the Mexican
military, however the northern States in the U.S. did
not want any additions to slave territories.

The U.S. Senate rejected the 15 million version by a
small number of votes, however it approved a 10
million version involving a smaller land transfer.

I have been unable to find any maps on the internet
however showing the 15 and 50 million versions, or
other versions in comparison with the 10 million
version that was finally agreed upon by both Santa Anna
and Mexico and the U.S.

Does anyone have any links to maps showing all six
initial proposals ranging from 15 million to 50
million that were given to Santa Anna in comparison
with the final 10 million that was accepted?

As another issue, what if Mexico had initially agreed
to sell the disputed territory between Texas and Mexico
when the U.S. annexed Texas rather than went to war
over it? Would California have eventually revolted?
Would the U.S. never have gotten the rest of what is
in our time line's U.S. southwest besides Texas? I
recognize that Mexico cycled through a lot of presidents
during that time period. Is it feasible that one of
them could have agreed to a sale of disputed Texas
territory without getting deposed? Could most of
them have agreed to it without any more risk of getting
deposed than already happened anyway? Or if one
of them agreed would the next one go to war anyway?
Robert Woodward
2017-10-10 05:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <56d566d3-be67-4dda-9c4f-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@go.com wrote:

<Snip>
Post by t***@go.com
The U.S. offered an array of packages for a purchase
ranging from 15 million to 50 million for varying
amounts of land. Santa Anna agreed to the 15 million
package to help finance improvements in the Mexican
military, however the northern States in the U.S. did
not want any additions to slave territories.
The U.S. Senate rejected the 15 million version by a
small number of votes, however it approved a 10
million version involving a smaller land transfer.
I have been unable to find any maps on the internet
however showing the 15 and 50 million versions, or
other versions in comparison with the 10 million
version that was finally agreed upon by both Santa Anna
and Mexico and the U.S.
I believe that the 50 million version included all of Baja California
(and probably enough of Sonora to reach the east coast of the Gulf of
California).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Chrysi Cat
2017-10-11 12:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Woodward
<Snip>
Post by t***@go.com
The U.S. offered an array of packages for a purchase
ranging from 15 million to 50 million for varying
amounts of land. Santa Anna agreed to the 15 million
package to help finance improvements in the Mexican
military, however the northern States in the U.S. did
not want any additions to slave territories.
The U.S. Senate rejected the 15 million version by a
small number of votes, however it approved a 10
million version involving a smaller land transfer.
I have been unable to find any maps on the internet
however showing the 15 and 50 million versions, or
other versions in comparison with the 10 million
version that was finally agreed upon by both Santa Anna
and Mexico and the U.S.
I believe that the 50 million version included all of Baja California
(and probably enough of Sonora to reach the east coast of the Gulf of
California).
Wow. That's a huge chunk of OTL-Mexico's economy that she never has
after 1853 (and an extra slavery-required territory, which is why it
would never have had a chance of being passed). But if you could get
ASBs to force the passage...well, if you thought Mexico was poor in
_this_ TL...

...it also assures an actively-irredentist (as opposed to OTL's
situation where the government isn't, but over half the
citizenry--especially the ones living outside their own borders--are)
Mexico during the mid-XX century, which will do whatever she has to to
pay for an army that can get the Californias 'back' and, should there
still be Bolshies without Lenin, one very likely to actively go
Communist in order to get Red Army assistance in doing so. Before that,
I think Zimmermann can't send his telegram because knock-ons eliminate
him from existence, but should there be an analogue, it may be accepted
because the government may feel that if it can't reclaim either the
Cession or the Baja, then the country might as well *be* entirely
conquered by the Gringo (this then raises the question, of course, of
what the US would do upon utterly destroying Mexico's military--IOTL, by
this point, the average American citizen doesn't want any more
Hispanophones, which incidentally means that Mexico probably wouldn't
have been *much* worse off in the 1916-1927 period *had* she acted on
the Telegram *in this TL* than she actually wound up. A reasonable
side-WI: let Mexico City be aware of this and accept the Telegram. Where
do things go, aside from 'probably a whole lot less AEF presence in
France'?).

And it may or may not mean that L.A. isn't the home of motion
pictures--would Ensenada have made for a better studio site, were it
within the US? It's certainly even further from NYC and Edison's
attorneys (he's before the PoD--though his school years aren't-- and
notoriously tried to maintain a monopoly on cinema). [La Paz is even
further, but Sur is probably overpopulated for its water supply even in
OTL, and nonetheless almost people-free compared to the rest of even
North America].

And if Arizona doesn't reach all the way to the gulf, it might allow any
21st-century Cannabis States to be a lot more comfortable threatening a
second secession should a neo-prohibitionist majority have DC--OTL,
they're separated by a whole lot of land that's more comfortable under a
modified St. Andrew's cross *now* than it was *when the south was
actively rebelling*.

Conversely, if Arizona *does* reach all the way to the gulf, it's
probably still stuck acting as though it were a landlocked state for
most of the XX Century because of the aforementioned very hostile
Mexico. The Gulf will *not* be an American lake, and its entrance is too
narrow to feel comfortable bringing shipping to the Colorado River Delta
if the sides of the gulf's entrance belong to mutually-hostile powers.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Yeechang Lee
2017-10-12 17:57:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chrysi Cat
Wow. That's a huge chunk of OTL-Mexico's economy that she never has
after 1853
Baja California was so unpopulated that its two halves did not gain
statehood until the 1950s and 1970s, respectively. Tijuana, Juarez,
and other cities along the border are only large because of proximity
to the US; the rest of northern Mexico is empty desert
(<Loading Image...>). A
more-southern US border means such cities would be further south,
that's all.
Post by Chrysi Cat
...it also assures an actively-irredentist (as opposed to OTL's
situation where the government isn't, but over half the
citizenry--especially the ones living outside their own
borders--are)
Mexicans aren't going to be more irredentist for the US owning more
empty desert than in OTL.
Post by Chrysi Cat
And if Arizona doesn't reach all the way to the gulf, it might allow
any 21st-century Cannabis States to be a lot more comfortable
threatening a second secession should a neo-prohibitionist majority
have DC
US states aren't going to threaten secession over marijuana
legalization.
--
geo:37.783333,-122.416667
Loading...