In article
<3a8c13c6-2785-4078-b8b6-09b19b689f8b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 1:46 pm, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <f78f4877-13c1-496b-852f-1ad338338...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >
> > kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > This ain't just bad humor. This is like putting a turban
> > > bomb on Mohammed:
> >
> > >http://tinyurl.com/24f325
> >
> > > So much for Swedish booze in my martinis.
> >
> > De duktiga Svenskar! (Those clever Swedes!)
> > They are just a bit out of date, is all. That map was almost accurate
> > until gold was found east of Sutters Fort (now Sacramento) in 1848 and
> > California became a state.
> >
> > I am sure that someone will opine that nothing has really changed
since
> > then, border or no border, but that would be incorrect...
> >
> > You really have a problem, though. With the vodka, I mean. Boycotting
> > Absolut because of a silly ad, boycotting Ketel One because it's
Dutch,
> > Grey Goose may not be acceptable because it's, hmm, French. You are
> > missing out on the good stuff.
> >
> > K
>
> But, the discovery of gold in California certainly
> could not have had anything to do with the out-
> come of the Mexican American War, since it
> happened only a couple of weeks before the
> signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on
> Feb 2, 1848. I would like to point out to every-
> one here that on that day Mexico agreed to
> an unconditional surrender, by which it conti-
> nued to exist as a sovereign entity strictly at
> the benevolence of this great country. Another
> interesting factoid in connection to this peroid
> of American history is that had the Civil War
> happened 10 - 15 years earlier, Mexico would
> almost certainly not exist today, because the
> Southern states would not negotiate with the
> Mexicans, and Mexico's annexation by the
> Confederacy would almost surely have turned
> the tide in its favor. As a student of alternative
> history, I find that eventuality sort of interesting.
> Don't you?
I am not suggesting the the discovery at Coloma was the cause of Mexico
losing California. The gold was a catalyst to form California as a
state. Until that happened the actual control and power over the region
was divided between US armed forces, local mayors and large landowners
such as Vallejo.
What is alternative history, anyway? Is it a series of assumptions "what
ifs" or is it a systematic revision of history to reflect your own views
and attitudes? Maybe it's both, but I am not at all sure if I agree with
your *****sment of the Civil War. Mexico would have been a reluctant
ally at best and I doubt that the Southern ways of the day ie slavery
would have lasted much longer anyway. So what is there to pine after in
Confederacy?
K
|
