DBWI: US doesn't get Baja California?

[naraht]

Mexico in 1848 had 6 territories, and the United States took the three that were contiguous with its territory:Neuvo Mexico, Alta and Baja Calilfornia. (it certainly wouldn't have gotten Aguascalientes, Tlaxcala or Colima which were basically surrounded by Mexican States). But Baja never was viewed as part of "expected" Manifest Destiny which almost exactly matched lands due west of what the United States owned at the Meridian of New Orleans...

Is there anyway that America can lose one of its three legs?

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by naraht

Mexico in 1848 had 6 territories, and the United States took the three that were contiguous with its territory:Neuvo Mexico, Alta and Baja Calilfornia. (it certainly wouldn't have gotten Aguascalientes, Tlaxcala or Colima which were basically surrounded by Mexican States). But Baja never was viewed as part of "expected" Manifest Destiny which almost exactly matched lands due west of what the United States owned at the Meridian of New Orleans...

Is there anyway that America can lose one of its three legs?

Don't forget Chihuahua and Sonora, too.

In any case, I don't see any big problems without Baja, other than perhaps losing Tijuana.....which does have about 750,000 people.

[Tallest Skil]

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

…other than perhaps losing Tijuana…..which does have about 750,000 people.

Yeah, thirty years ago, maybe. The tourism boom kicked that up to two million.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

Don't forget Chihuahua and Sonora, too.

In any case, I don't see any big problems without Baja, other than perhaps losing Tijuana.....which does have about 750,000 people.

Well, losing the mouth of the Colorado might have some impact on SW Utah. If that Baja senator (I forget his name) hadn't filibustered in the 30s due to the perceived damage to the Colorado River delta, the Colorado Dam would have been built, and I suspect there might actually be some civilization in central Alta. For sure, the Southern California region wouldn't have near as bad a water problem as it does now.

[Tsochar]

Yeah, BC isn't really important. It wasn't then, it isn't today. I can't think of any major effects.

[lloyd007]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

Well, losing the mouth of the Colorado might have some impact on SW Utah. If that Baja senator (I forget his name) hadn't filibustered in the 30s due to the perceived damage to the Colorado River delta, the Colorado Dam would have been built, and I suspect there might actually be some civilization in central Alta. For sure, the Southern California region wouldn't have near as bad a water problem as it does now.

The whole area is a rocky desert. Sure there are the tourist cities of Tijuana, Los Angeles, and the San Diego Naval Station, but the American South West is mostly unexploited scrubland for a good reason, the Colorado is the only major river and, for better or worse, wasn't exploited for much during the height of the US's industrial expansion and is now pretty untouchable aside from some minor draws for city usage (which is nothing compared to what it would have been if the water was used for agriculture), thanks to the various Wild Lands Acts (OOC: National Parks and etc.)

The only reason Southern ACA, BCA, and Sonora are becoming populous is thanks to air conditioning, which is the same reason Florida went from swamp filled green hell to the most populous state in the Southeast.

Still, Baja and Sonora, especially, had an enormous impact in North American politics with Santa Anna losing just enough land to be cast aside for the ascendancy of Benito Juarez and his implementation of the Mexican Miracle of the 1850's.

And then, of course, there was the 'technical' implementation of slavery in Baja and Sonora in the Compromise of 1850 despite the overwhelming hatred of the institution by the few who lived there (and it being a simple spit in the face for those people since slaveholding held no purpose in the desert.) The ambition of slaveholders in supporting William Walker's disastrous 'filibusters' that antagonized Mexico and CentroAmerica for nothing other All culminating in Mexico's alliance with the Union during the US Civil War and the 'Invasion' of Texas and Louisiana.

[King Gorilla]

Well there are certain to be some cultural changes. Baja has never been a wealthy or strategically important state. However, Baja was the first state to legalize gambling with Tijauna becoming known as the American Monaco. Baja has long been the place where Southern Californians could go for a weekend to enjoy the beaches, eat steak and cheap seafood, drink legal hard liquor, listen to latin jazz, and gamble away a week's wages.

[jycee]

Well the famous American Riviera would then be known as the Mexican Riviera as the land between San Diego and La Joya would all be Mexican. But aside from the tourist spots the US is loosing the mouth of the Colorado and two major naval outposts, San Diego and San Lucas (Cabo).

As it has been pointed out without the fillibustering of Baja Senators the Colorado Dam might have been sooner built populating SW area sooner.

However at the same time without San Diego the US wouldn't have had a reason to buy the Sonora territory from Mexico, thus the border would run through the Gila River.


OCC: Most seem to be forgetting that San Diego would be in Baja if the border between Alta and Baja California ran in a parallel line rather than dipping down about 1/2 degree to include San Diego in the US. From the perspective of someone in TTL San Diego would be a Mexican.

[lloyd007]

I'd actually fear for Mexico's future in a world where Santa Anna remained in power for however long he could keep it. Democracy and good government was very kind to Mexico and there's a good reason Juarez is #1 in every poll on ranking their Presidents. His administration actually showed a way out of the corruptocracies, tin pot dictatorships, and European Imperialist oppression that would swallow Africa and Asia.

Santa Anna was the definition of a tin pot generalissimo as bad as anyone who would pop up in the continual jungle wars and border conflicts of South America. A Mexico under Santa Anna would, imo, be hard pressed to resist France's ridiculous attempts to put Archduke Maximilian on the 'throne' of a new 'Mexican Empire' in the 1860's.

No nation's status as a modern first world country is assured. England and France almost intervened on Dixie's side during the USCW due to President Seward's abrasiveness and 'extremism.' If Dixie had gained independence the United Front against Euro Imperialism probably doesn't come into being and you get 'colonial' weighted trade deals for all as what happened to Qing China and the various subcontinent states that were puppets of Britain, for all.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by lloyd007

I'd actually fear for Mexico's future in a world where Santa Anna remained in power for however long he could keep it. Democracy and good government was very kind to Mexico and there's a good reason Juarez is #1 in every poll on ranking their Presidents. His administration actually showed a way out of the corruptocracies, tin pot dictatorships, and European Imperialist oppression that would swallow Africa and Asia.

I had an idea for a TL that never gets the reforms Juarez brought about, where Mexico keeps Baja-but by the 21st century is a drug-lord's paradise.

I wanted to bring them into the first Great War in this timeline, but couldn't think of a way for the Central Powers to entice them into it, and I think I had them in a civil war in that time period anyway. Too ASB?

[jycee]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

I had an idea for a TL that never gets the reforms Juarez brought about, where Mexico keeps Baja-but by the 21st century is a drug-lord's paradise.

I wanted to bring them into the first Great War in this timeline, but couldn't think of a way for the Central Powers to entice them into it, and I think I had them in a civil war in that time period anyway. Too ASB?

With a POD in the 1820s why would there be a Great War? And why would Germany still be in the Central Powers. A non-reformed Mexico would mean that it likely stays weak (even if it is larger territorially) for most of the late 1800s. Without the Mexican/US Bloc who would be there to bloc European incursions into Central and South America? The Brits and the Germans wanted Venezuela, the French tried to place the tin-pot Emperor Maximilian in Peru, and at more than one point Britain tried to establish colonies in Central America.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by jycee

With a POD in the 1820s why would there be a Great War? And why would Germany still be in the Central Powers. A non-reformed Mexico would mean that it likely stays weak (even if it is larger territorially) for most of the late 1800s. Without the Mexican/US Bloc who would be there to bloc European incursions into Central and South America? The Brits and the Germans wanted Venezuela, the French tried to place the tin-pot Emperor Maximilian in Peru, and at more than one point Britain tried to establish colonies in Central America.

I just picked "Great War" as a trope.
Germany being in the Central Powers was a coincidence, and them sending a line to Mexico was happenstance.

[lloyd007]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

I had an idea for a TL that never gets the reforms Juarez brought about, where Mexico keeps Baja-but by the 21st century is a drug-lord's paradise.

I wanted to bring them into the first Great War in this timeline, but couldn't think of a way for the Central Powers to entice them into it, and I think I had them in a civil war in that time period anyway. Too ASB?

Not at all, Mexico has had to deal with drug issues coming upward from Columbia, Peru-Ecuador and Venezuela for awhile, it's why the AFI is perhaps the most well equipped, well trained and funded governmental investigation bureau in the world after President Alvarez declared the 'War on Drugs' in his famous/infamous (depending on what side you're on) speech in 1971.

As for the European Colonial / Great Wars, if Santa Anna keeps the Mexican 'Nobility' in power for Maximilian to exploit and rule over in a French dominated Mexican Empire, I can see them joining the Central Powers, either that or keeping the Carlists out of said alliance by either having them lose in Spain or France going a different way after losing the Franco-German War (maybe Bismarck isn't able to talk the Kaiser down from outright annexing Alsace-Lorraine rather than just forcing a plebiscite). Although that would probably butterfly the whole war into something very different than GW1. Having the Republic of Mexico and Carlist Spain fighting on the same side IS ASB though.

[sum sine regno]

Originally Posted by lloyd007

Not at all, Mexico has had to deal with drug issues coming upward from Columbia, Peru-Ecuador and Venezuela for awhile, it's why the AFI is perhaps the most well equipped, well trained and funded governmental investigation bureau in the world after President Alvarez declared the 'War on Drugs' in his famous/infamous (depending on what side you're on) speech in 1971.

As for the European Colonial / Great Wars, if Santa Anna keeps the Mexican 'Nobility' in power for Maximilian to exploit and rule over in a French dominated Mexican Empire, I can see them joining the Central Powers, either that or keeping the Carlists out of said alliance by either having them lose in Spain or France going a different way after losing the Franco-German War (maybe Bismarck isn't able to talk the Kaiser down from outright annexing Alsace-Lorraine rather than just forcing a plebiscite). Although that would probably butterfly the whole war into something very different than GW1. Having the Republic of Mexico and Carlist Spain fighting on the same side IS ASB though.

It is called Colombia, Columbia is the English name for places from the province of British Columbia, to the District of Columbia of your USA, and of course the Columbia river.

If the USA didn't get greedy, I don't think the British would go whole hog on buffing my homeland up. Likely it would have taken 50-100 years to gain full freedom, rather than a few decades. I also doubt that the British would have attached the additional territories like in the Caribbean.