Texas exists as is but there must be a state that exists that is at least bigger in geographic size.
In 1849/50 Zachary Taylor wanted the Mexican Cession admitted immediately as two large states. Would either or both of those have been bigger than Texas?
Suppose the Mormons do not migrate to Utah and the region is not heavily settled. Then you have a large state that includes Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, parts of Idaho, etc.Democrats control Congress through 1860-80, create one gigantic mountain state including OTL Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, parts of Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Kansas. One giant rectangle of open land.
I can't believe Nevada is really a state. It's a den of casinos and a whole bunch of desert.
What about California containing the same land mass as OTL but also gains half of Nevada and the whole of Baja California Peninsula.
Nova California = 264,647 sq mi [710,760 km2]
(163,696*sq*mi [423,970 km2] + 55,571 [143,380] + 143,390*km2*[55,360*sq*mi] )
Texas = 268,596 sq mi 695,662
Not far off on that description
![]()
Texas exists as is but there must be a state that exists that is at least bigger in geographic size.
What would the number be if California and all of Nevada were a state, without Baja California?What about California containing the same land mass as OTL but also gains half of Nevada and the whole of Baja California Peninsula.
Nova California = 264,647 sq mi [710,760 km2]
(163,696*sq*mi [423,970 km2] + 55,571 [143,380] + 143,390*km2*[55,360*sq*mi] )
Texas = 268,596 sq mi 695,662
What would the number be if California and all of Nevada were a state, without Baja California?
What if Montana and Idaho were one state?
Texas exists as is but there must be a state that exists that is at least bigger in geographic size.
I can't believe Nevada is really a state. It's a den of casinos and a whole bunch of desert.