Alternate Southern United States

JJohnson

Banned
Let's say that:
*the Republic of the Rio Grande succeeded in independence, then joined with Texas in annexation to the US, quickly followed by the Mexican-American War
*the US had a completely different ambassador after the Mexican American War, and in the treaty, annexed Rio Grande, Sonora, Chihuahua, and Baja California in addition to OTL.

The question is: how do they divide the states up? I'm assuming two things: Texas and Rio Grande have already settled their border at the Rio Grande, and California makes the same demand for its eastern borders.

Would you give California the entire Baja peninsula? Does Texas still sell off its land for assumption of its debts? And for the remainder of the territory, pretty much New Mexico, Sonora, and Chihuahua, how would you divide it up? Would you give Arizona (if it exists) sea access, or is the Colorado River enough? Would you take the Sonora, Chihiahia, and Gadsden Purchase area as a single state (plus or minus Baja California)?
 
Actually, that would be alternate southwestern US. Southern is more a cultural thing in my book.

Anyway, I'm for the one California policy. I don't see any reason to change the borders of the other new territories. Sonora and Chihuahua are large enough as is.
 
at least part of this is in my ASB ATL, so i already have basic answers. California stays as ne state, though Baja splits off for electoral reasons and differences between themselves and the northern half of the state, though they take San Diego with them as their capital and largest city. Sonora and Chihuahua retain theior OTL southern borders, but their northern borders are extended just a little bit (basically the area of the Gadsden Purchase) because of historical precedent

for the rest, i agree with Kiat: keeping the old borders is the simplest way to go, and the addition of more ex-Mexican territory would actually hurt the Southern proper because (if California is any precedent) slavery won't be instituted in any of the new states (except maybe for Rio Grande due to its proximity to Texas and associations with that state) because Mexico had previously abolished it and it had been abolished for a long time (Texas only got its status as a slave state because the new settlers were all Southerners; in fact, their insistence of keeping slaves was what ultimately started the Mexican-American War, if you go back to the Texas Revolution as the start)
 

katchen

Banned
If you want Texas to be able to settle it's debts without giving up land, have someone discover gold and silver in the part of Colorado that belongs to Texas (Leadville east of the Arkansas, Fairplay on the South Platte, the Front Range, Idaho Springs, Central City, Creede north of the Rio Grande, maybe even Aspen and Gunnison although that would be disputed territory).

Of course that part of Texas is north of the Missouri Compromise liine, so that will mean a lot of conflict right there. That will make for an interesting TL.

Especially if or if some businessmen build a railroad from St. Louis to San Antonio via Taqelah (Cherokee Capital) and Okmulgee ( Choctaw Capital) by 1842, perhaps with a land grant line running off it to the Colorado Front Range to encourage settlement. Will make it possible for Texas to conquer Santa Fe on its own and change settlement trails to California and Oregon--as well as slave-free areas.
 

JJohnson

Banned
It would be interesting if Texas had kept its western land under the 36°30' line, which would affect any eventual states to its west.
 
On the other hand, Texas would lack parts of the south it acquired OTL from Mexico after the Mexican-American War.

250px-Location_of_Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande.svg.png
 
If Baja California is part of the US, then California likely does not have San Diego or perhaps even Los Angeles. That would become part of Baja California since the Southerners would want a Southern California. In the Compromise of 1850, they asked that California be split at the 35 degree mark. That was defeated. Since Baja California is going to be on its own anyway, it's likely some part of OTL southern California will be attached to it.

It's possible that the borders of Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, and Chihuaha are heavily modified. Initially all might be part of one single New Mexico Territory. When future teritories and states are determined, Tucson might be given to Sonora and southern New Mexico given to Chichuaha. If so, then the northern portion of Arizona and New Mexico would be one state. Lots of things could happen because it's all going to be based on politics at the time. Borders might even remain the same.
 
This isn't apart of your question but I thought you ought to know that The Republic of The Rio Grande wasn't really a true nation but more of a "department" in the grand strategy of the federalist revolts from 1835-1846. The goal of the revolutionaries wasn't to create their own country but to overthrow Bustamente's (and Santa Anna's) centralist regime and restore Mexico back to the Federal Constitution of 1824.While the RRG did declare independence, it would have happily rejoined Mexico just like the Republic of the Yucatan did, when the federalist were restored to power in 1848.
 
Top