WI: US gets the Baja Peninsula in the Mexican Cession?

Teshuvah · Oct 27, 2012

While reading How the States Got Their Shapes, I stumbled upon a very interesting little factoid. Apparently, during negotiations for ceded Mexican territory after the Mexican-American War, President Polk demanded the Baja Peninsula and almost got it. The Mexicans managed to hold onto it by the skin of their teeth, only by giving up San Diego and drawing the boundary just below it.

But what if the Americans had been more insistent, and the Mexicans had given in and ceded the Baja Peninsula? Would California be divided into two states? What sort of long-term effects would improved American and reduced Mexican access to the Pacific have?

-AYC

Codae · Oct 27, 2012

So who controls the mouth of the Colorado in this scenario?

thekingsguard · Oct 27, 2012

You may well see the attempt that very nearly split California in OTL go ahead - So we'd have a state of Colorado below the 37th.

Teshuvah · Oct 28, 2012

Codae said:
So who controls the mouth of the Colorado in this scenario?

*checks*

It's now entirely within the US. Butterflies, anyone?

-AYC

Teshuvah · Oct 28, 2012

Bump for more responses.

-AYC

Tallest Skil · Oct 28, 2012

AYoungContrarian said:
But what if the Americans had been more insistent, and the Mexicans had given in and ceded the Baja Peninsula? Would California be divided into two states? What sort of long-term effects would improved American and reduced Mexican access to the Pacific have?

We were more insistent. If Gadsden hadn't been such a COMPLETE IDIOT and the negotiations gone more amicably, we would own everything north of Tampico.

Moron. Not you! Him. Ticks me off.

You can read more about Mexican purchases in How The States Got Their Shapes Too. Made me furious at him.

Teshuvah · Oct 28, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
We were more insistent. If Gadsden hadn't been such a COMPLETE IDIOT and the negotiations gone more amicably, we would own everything north of Tampico.

Moron. Not you! Him. Ticks me off.

You can read more about Mexican purchases in How The States Got Their Shapes Too. Made me furious at him.

He did manage to get a big chunk of Sonora a few years later, so maybe that makes up for it.

At any rate, I'm not an expansionist or a nationalist of any kind, so I don't have anything invested in this discussion besides idle curiosity.

-AYC

The Kiat · Oct 28, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
We were more insistent. If Gadsden hadn't been such a COMPLETE IDIOT and the negotiations gone more amicably, we would own everything north of Tampico.

Moron. Not you! Him. Ticks me off.

You can read more about Mexican purchases in How The States Got Their Shapes Too. Made me furious at him.

I would have tried for everything north of the South Pole, including the Falkland Islands. No, especially those islands.

jycee · Oct 28, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
We were more insistent. If Gadsden hadn't been such a COMPLETE IDIOT and the negotiations gone more amicably, we would own everything north of Tampico.

Do you mean Gadsen or Tirst?

By the time of the Gadsen purchase, it was clear Mexico would insist in keeping Baja and the mouth of the Colorado at a very high cost. Hell it was Santa Anna who was, once again, in power and giving anything more than a small tract of dessert to build a railroad woul infuriate Mexicans tremendously.

At the time of the Mexican American war, Trist might have been more insistent and gain Baja and some other Northewestern territories - Sonora, Chihuahua and Coahuila most likely.

The idea of the the straight border from Tampico to the Pacific, while it was the goal of many in Polks administration, and perhaps of Polk himself, would have ended up with the US swallowing more Mexicans than they could handle. After all large part of the war, and the toughest resistance (outside Mexico City) the US faced, was in Monterey, Victoria, and Tampico. Even in the lightly populated Sonora and Sinaloa, Yañes managed to thrawt Stocktons landing during the war and Walker's expedition later on. As far as the expansion of slavery goes; Texas in OTL became a slave state because there already was slavery. But forcing slavery into the Mexican territories will not be that easy and will likely face very strong resistance from both the local Mexicans and the North. Tensions will likely erupt sooner than in OTL. At this time with the bickering between slave and free states the addition these territories would break the US into pieces later on.

Ace Venom · Oct 28, 2012

Well, I'm not going to paint as much of a bright picture as some others here.

Annexing Texas wasn't such a big deal in the end because it already had slavery. The only big deal was the northern border, which was settled by the Compromise of 1850. I have my doubts the anti-slavery politics of the time would permit the slave power to be transcontinental (Chesapeake Bay to Gulf of California). While certainly feeding the slave power Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja California would be within the spirit of the Missouri Compromise, so would have been the splitting of California and the designation of New Mexico Territory as a slave territory. The fact that the Wilmot Proviso and not the Missouri Compromise was applied to New Mexico Territory makes me wonder if the ACW would not have erupted sooner if the Mexican Cession pushed further south of the Gila and Rio Grande Rivers. Then there's the real question of whether or not the people living in Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja California would have wanted slavery there. It's a strong likelihood that they wouldn't want it.

Tallest Skil · Oct 29, 2012

jycee said:
Do you mean Gadsen or Tirst?

THAT'S it, that's who I mean. Tirst.

…would have ended up with the US swallowing more Mexicans than they could handle.

I disagree with that.

…Yañes managed to thrawt... …Walker's expedition later on.

Walker pulled out when the Mexican military proper was on its way.

But forcing slavery into the Mexican territories will not be that easy…

Oh, I never intended that.

… the addition these territories would break the US into pieces later on.

What?

Teshuvah · Oct 29, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
What?

I think he was saying that the issue of slavery would become much more pressing with even more territory for the US. If you add in Sonora, Chihuahua, and Coahuila, it becomes a very messy situation, indeed.

-AYC

Blackfox5 · Oct 29, 2012

AYoungContrarian said:
Would California be divided into two states?

I can easily see California being divided into two states - the first being north based primarily around the Bay area, and a southern half including Baja perhaps with capital in San Diego.

What sort of long-term effects would improved American and reduced Mexican access to the Pacific have?

Having Baja does not give the US any additional access it would not already have, and losing Baja does not significantly reduce Mexican access. The Baja penninsula is already geographically separate from the rest of Mexico and does not serve as a logistics point for the interior of the country. It would be the same way for the US. The ports there would serve local needs, and not as national distribution networks. Of course, San Diego/Tijuana would become a more important node since it'd likely be the primary port of the penninsula.

The ports of Acapulco, Guaymas, Mazatlan, Manzanillo, Colima and Lazaro Cardenas on the Pacific are more than sufficient to handle Mexico's needs, and are IOTL the major Pacific ports of Mexico.

The transfer of the Baja penninsula would be of minor importance and not significantly affect either country. Of course, the sheer size of the penninsula would allow significant population and economy added to the US over time. But strategically, it is not an issue.

Alex Richards · Oct 29, 2012

Isn't Baja mostly desert and very sparsely populated though?

jycee · Oct 29, 2012

Alex Richards said:
Isn't Baja mostly desert and very sparsely populated though?

For the most part, yes. And its development - with the exception of the border areas - was ignored by Mexico pretty much until the 1970s.

It does have tremendous value. The Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California) is incredibly rich and diverse, named "the aquarium of the world" by Cousteau. If the Americans had snatched Baja, they would have certainly exploited the gulf, and you would likely see more development at the mouth of the Colorado, probably in Loreto and the Cape (Los Cabos) much earlier.

Elfwine · Oct 29, 2012

Would the US necessarily do so?

I mean, the US is focused on all sorts of other things, Baja's assets might escape notice for a good while.

And why is Tirst an idiot for not squeezing every last inch of territory he could out of Mexico?

The US had no claim to any of this except "we won", after all.

Tallest Skil · Oct 29, 2012

Elfwine said:
And why is Tirst an idiot for not squeezing every last
inch of territory he could out of Mexico?

He's an idiot for the disrespectful way in which he treated them while he was there negotiating.

If he had been at all respectable, we could have easily come away with that land, which would today be a very thriving part of a first world country, properly utilizing its tourism and natural resources for great wealth and in safety, and not be controlled by drug cartels that behead innocent civilians.

Elfwine · Oct 29, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
He's an idiot for the disrespectful way in which he treated them while he was there negotiating.

If he had been at all respectable, we could have easily come away with that land, which would today be a very thriving part of a first world country, properly utilizing its tourism and natural resources for great wealth and in safety, and not be controlled by drug cartels that behead innocent civilians.

Because nowhere in America is blighted by violent crime and poverty. In Capitalist America, EVERYONE is well off.

Even assuming the US manages to keep control of this area, I wouldn't count on it.

Tallest Skil · Oct 29, 2012

Elfwine said:
Because nowhere in America is blighted by violent crime and poverty. In Capitalist America, EVERYONE is well off.

I was going to reply sarcastically, but then I realized that there's little reason in trying to rebut someone*so foolish as to claim what you're claiming.

Keep strawmanning away.

Elfwine · Oct 29, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
I was going to reply sarcastically, but then I realized that there's little reason in trying to rebut someone*so foolish as to claim what you're claiming.

Keep strawmanning away.

Strawmaning?

When your point appears to be that somehow being part of the US ensures that it thrives, I hardly think pointing out that being part of the US is not a cureall for poverty and crime is strawmanning anything.