# 157-year-old Land Grab **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 2, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/157-year-old-land-grab/288073 "2005-02-02T23:38:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rufus\_Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@Rufus\_Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rufus_Xavier)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/157-year-old-land-grab/288073/21 "2005-02-04T23:44:46Z")
Overlooked so far in this interesting discussion is the fact of the discovery of gold in Central California, which coincidentally ocurred just 10 days before the signing of the treaty that ceded CA to the USA. How much do you suppose the Gold Rush might have empowered Mexico, had California remained Mexican? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/157-year-old-land-grab/288073/22 "2005-02-04T23:44:59Z")
Like I said…agricultural. No way would Mexican California be the fifth-largest economy in the world. And yes, **CBEscapee** , I’m saying that Mexico could not have exploited the natural wealth of California to any degree near what the United States was, and is capable of. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/157-year-old-land-grab/288073/23 "2005-02-04T23:51:14Z")
> [@Rufus Xavier](#): > > Overlooked so far in this interesting discussion is the fact of the discovery of gold in Central California, which coincidentally ocurred just 10 days before the signing of the treaty that ceded CA to the USA. How much do you suppose the Gold Rush might have empowered Mexico, had California remained Mexican? Empowered? No. Destroyed? Quite possibly. The Gold Rush would have either prompted the United States to immediately annex California, or set up another Texas, with hordes of gringos heading west to get rich, then chafing under “foreign” rulers. Mexico of the 1850’s had almost zero industry, and didn’t possess the military or the infrastructure to handle such an influx of people as the Gold Rush represented. Toss into the equation the railroad barons, who never would have built the Trans-Continental railroad if California remained Mexican. Without Stanford, Huntington and the rest, California would have remained rancheros. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/157-year-old-land-grab/288073/24 "2005-02-05T04:12:40Z")
Awww man. I thought this said 157 year old land CRAB. Lame. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/157-year-old-land-grab/288073/25 "2005-02-05T04:33:50Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Like I said…agricultural. No way would Mexican California be the fifth-largest economy in the world. And yes, **CBEscapee** , I’m saying that Mexico could not have exploited the natural wealth of California to any degree near what the United States was, and is capable of. You would have fit in well with the gringos of the time who bought into the whole Manifest Destiny bullshit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/157-year-old-land-grab/288073.md?page=1)