What would be the fastest-growing areas in the US today if Mexico would've kept Texas and Alta California?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#1
Had Texas failed to win its war of independence and had there been no Mexican-American War afterwards (thus ensuring that Texas, New Mexico, and Alta California would have permanently remained under Mexican rule), what would be the fastest-growing areas in the US today?

A lot of the US's population growth in real life occurred in the former Mexican territories (plus Florida, which was a part of Spain):





If the US never acquires the Southwest (or even Florida, though that's probably harder to achieve), what would be the fastest-growing areas in the US today?

Also, just how much less people is the US going to have right now in this scenario?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#2
FTR, it would also be nice if the US didn't acquire the southern half of Oregon Country in this scenario--though I don't know just how realistic that is and, in any case, it's not crucial for my scenario here.
 
Dec 2011
4,535
Iowa USA
#3
Great graphic there.

(Although it is REALLY depressing as an Iowa taxpayer that even PA and N. Dakota post better post'-'50 population growth. I blame the Minnesotans for making a really liveable big city to our North!)
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2011
4,535
Iowa USA
#4
In your alternate timeline is "Mexico per Futurist" one nation which includes Texas, or did Texas become a nation encompassing some large territory below the Rio Grande?

The clarification to this alternate would bear on my response to the OP, then. Thanks.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#5
In your alternate timeline is "Mexico per Futurist" one nation which includes Texas, or did Texas become a nation encompassing some large territory below the Rio Grande?

The clarification to this alternate would bear on my response to the OP, then. Thanks.
I would prefer it that Texas would remain a part of Mexico in this scenario. That said, though, I would highly encourage you to respond to both of these scenarios--as in, with Texas either remaining under Mexican rule or becoming independent but not joining the US afterwards. I want to hear your thoughts on both of these scenarios. :)
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#6
Great graphic there.
Thanks! :)

(Although it is REALLY depressing as an Iowa taxpayer that even PA and N. Dakota post better post'-'50 population growth. I blame the Minnesotans for making a really liveable big city to our North!)
Yeah, the existence of the Twin Cities in Minnesota might be a part of Iowa's low population growth rate. That said, though, Iowa simply doesn't appear to have many large cities or even large metropolitan areas. In other words, there just doesn't appear to be much appeal to Iowa for city-dwellers. :( Maybe if global warming ruins the southern part of the US, though, then Iowa would subsequently experience a lot of population growth.

BTW, it looks like the Obama Administration tried to encourage inner-city Blacks from Chicago to settle in Iowa: AFFH Preview: Obama's HUD Takes-Over Dubuque, Iowa | National Review Thus, I guess that not all hope is lost for Iowa! ;)
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#8
I would say the northwest and the areas around the Mississippi, aside from the south.
What if the US wouldn't have gotten southern Oregon Country either?

The areas around the Mississippi could certainly see a lot of population growth--though I doubt that the southern part of the Mississippi would since the Black Belt isn't exactly known for being a prosperous region (with the possible exception of Atlanta).

BTW, which parts of the south do you think are going to grow the fastest in this scenario?
 
Apr 2017
1,080
U.S.A.
#9
What if the US wouldn't have gotten southern Oregon Country either?

The areas around the Mississippi could certainly see a lot of population growth--though I doubt that the southern part of the Mississippi would since the Black Belt isn't exactly known for being a prosperous region (with the possible exception of Atlanta).

BTW, which parts of the south do you think are going to grow the fastest in this scenario?
Does Washington state not become part of the US in this?
The Caribbean coast and the south would be the prime real estate for this as they are the warmest. If you look at your growth map the fastest growth areas were in the sunbelt. The south would see a new wave of migration.
I would say Florida, the Caribbean coast, Louisiana and Georgia.
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2011
4,535
Iowa USA
#10
I would prefer it that Texas would remain a part of Mexico in this scenario. That said, though, I would highly encourage you to respond to both of these scenarios--as in, with Texas either remaining under Mexican rule or becoming independent but not joining the US afterwards. I want to hear your thoughts on both of these scenarios. :)
Well, recall the Maximillian/Carlotta adventures in Mexico?

I wonder, if American government applied pressure on Republic of Texas early in its existence, would Texas rely on loans from France also?

While Maximillian is less likely to become head of an independent Texas, would Texas be the greatest challenge to Monroe Doctrine?

In a scenario where immediately after the Union wins ACW the still mobilized army goes on to occupy some of Eastern Texas, and then offers olive branch to Texas and brings Texas into the American economic orbit, I would expect Kansas and Missouri to have experienced more population growth than in the OTL.

When would Union Pacific be built if San Francisco is either Mexican/Texan or possibly a Russian port? That is a new OP for you.. at no cost haha.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions