What if Arizona had a coast?

[Skallagrim]

@Bear Ribs ...you're referencing an article about a town in Texas.

I'm sorry, but I can't really take that seriously. You want to be right, but you want to be right to the point where you're just going off trying to find an article to "prove your point"... not even checking whether the article is about the right place. In the right state. On the correct side of the Rocky Mountains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Isabel,_Texas Port Isabel became an important cotton-exporting port before the American Civil War. The harbor, town and lighthouse all were fought over and exchanged hands during the Civil War.

Small Town History 1302 Project: Port Isabel, Texas

Texas, it says there. Twice.

T E X A S

So, no. The town we're talking about wasn't a major cotton-exporting location. And the fact that the garrison in much-more-important Yuma further North was five guys, as you've helpfully cited, kind of demonstrates how unimportant the site was.

You're also wrong about when Port Isabel ceased operation. You reference the point when all riverboat traffic on the Colorado ceased; I was stating when Port Isabel was closed. That was in 1879, a year after the rail-road connecting California to Yuma was opened. Even the English wiki article states that:

Port Isabel was abandoned by 1879, its shipyard being moved to Yuma, Arizona.

That was a yard to build... river boats, to be clear. And when I say "yard", I mean... one dock. For those river-boats. Because sea-faring vessels couldn't go up the Colorado.

(You may cite a Spanish explorer going up the river, but might we consider the standard practice of lowering a rowboat and taking that up-river for an in-land expedition? That makes a bit more sense than the alternative, I'd say.)

Notice the complete lack of actual references.

Spanish Wikipedia you mentioned but failed to ever quote

And let's be honest: this is just needlessly snippy. You linked the wiki page yourself. I assumed that clicking on "Español" would be within your capabilities. Was my faith misplaced?


At this point, can we end this debate? The moment at which you outright refer to the wrong town in your haste to be "right" kind of settles it, in my opinion.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Well you're right, I mixed up my sources so I have to take the L. I concede the argument.

 

[Skallagrim]

Well you're right, I mixed up my sources so I have to take the L. I concede the argument.

I respect that a lot.

There are people on this site who will just outright refuse to do that.

 

[Cherico]

I would like to note that mexico is generally pretty crap at building things up and northern mexico was more or less left to rot or had resources dragged away into the core mexico city territory for generations. The area we are talking about is at the perfery of mexico and as for northern mexico its taken quite a while for it to get where it is today.

I think you could get a port there a harbor there but its not going to be a major port. There are a lot of minor ports in the world minor coastal cities out there and this area is capable of having a smallish one if you had the investment.

 

[Skallagrim]

I would like to note that mexico is generally pretty crap at building things up and northern mexico was more or less left to rot or had resources dragged away into the core mexico city territory for generations. The area we are talking about is at the perfery of mexico and as for northern mexico its taken quite a while for it to get where it is today.

I think you could get a port there a harbor there but its not going to be a major port. There are a lot of minor ports in the world minor coastal cities out there and this area is capable of having a smallish one if you had the investment.

It's certainly true that if we had a more stable Mexico that has reason to invest more in the North, we'll almost certainly see a port town there.

The perfect set-up is actually what's suggested in this thread. Mexico discovers California gold early on, and this helps Iturbide's Empire stabilise economically and politically, while boltering Mexico's demographic and economic strength. It simultaneously adds more ability to do things in the North and more reason to do so. Given such circumstances, there will be considerable interest in exploring the Colorado basin, if only to see if there isn't any more gold to be found there. Meanwhile, this is all happening before major rail-roads become viable, so that alternative is off the table, too.

Since the axis is North-South here, it's concevable that even after a "Great Sonora Rail-Road" (or whatever) is built along the coast, going from the mouth of the Colorado to (say) Puerto Vallarta by ship may still be more convenient. Because the journey will cover comparable distances in that case, instead of the rail being a very short distance and the ship having to go around a long-ass peninsula.

So, yeah. Mexico that finds Californian gold early and profits greatly = port established at the mouth of the Colorado.

I think it'll eventually face inevitable decline once good transport alternatives become available, mainly because it's just not a good location (going further North, or arriving from the North, is just a damned hassle). But it'll be established in time to keep on existing.

 

[Cherico]

Still I think an actual coastline would benefit the Arizona economy