How would the State of Baja California Look?

Highlander

Banned
Just something I was thinking: assume the Mexicans cave and the US annexes the Baja California peninsula along with California.

Up to the present time, assuming it was given separate statehood, how would it look nowadays? How would this affect history?
 
Modern Day Baja's dirt poor, and very mountainous. It would probably gain the San Diego/LA area as a state. I couldn't tell you what happens next.
 
I'm deadly sure there wouldn't be a State of Baja California per se... it's pretty small, poor, desertic and undeveloped today and it was a million times more in the 1840s. BC would just remain part of California and History would change little unless the extra land assigned convinces the people in charge to split California in two states around Fresno. But considering they were aiming to get a mega-free state to counter the mega-slave one of Texas that had just get into the Union, I think that wouldn't happen.

Perhaps it becomes a great place to shoot Hollywood epics in the 40s-50s-60s and nothing else.
 
It's been a while since I looked into the subject but from what I remember, California wasn't split because the north of the state had been populated by southerners, and if it became a new state it would be as another slave state (?). By remaining one, the more populated, pro-free south outweight the less populated north.
 
I've always wanted to do a timeline where California gets massive English and German immigration, and is split in three - Baja, Alta and Neue California....
 
LA, or at the very least San Diego, would likely be part of Baja. It would either be called South(ern) California, or better yet, Lower California (sounds more historical).
 
I imagine California would enter the union as a unified whole.

Actually, I would think an "Alta California"/"Baja California" (Upper California/Lower California) split would be more likely. Historically, this was due to the religious orders comprising the missions in those areas - IIRC, either the Jesuits or the Dominicans were in Baja California, and the Franciscans were in Alta California. (Within Alta California, though, there could be the possibility of something akin to the NoCal/SoCal divide on one hand and the Baja California de Norte/Baja California de Sur divide on the other hand, potentially.) Such a division would remain here because it's much more easier to manage than one unified whole (which would give undue weight to one whole state, which makes the Eastern states jealous).
 
You might see some interesting effects down the line for the Mexican Revolution. IOTL there was an anarchist uprising in Baja that included some American outsiders and Indian tribesmen. With Baja as part of the US, either you have a failed Plan of San Diego type uprising within Baja, or the anarchists likely try and fail in Sonora or Sinaloa instead.
 
Since present Baja Cali is smaller and less populated, what if the US adds Sonora to the mix. The Gadsden purchase is for both of them. Baja gets thrown in with Sonora and the Sonora territory is created. The new territory goes the way of New Menxico and Arizona (Arizona still gets Gila river land of OTL Gadsden), it just sits and develops and does not become a state until the 1910's or 1920's.

And since the US flag looks pretty cool with 50 stars, what if say there is only one Dakota admitted in 1889 to counter the addition of Sonora in 1916. Or take your pick, Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming get split amongst their neighbors to make 50.
 
And since the US flag looks pretty cool with 50 stars, what if say there is only one Dakota admitted in 1889 to counter the addition of Sonora in 1916. Or take your pick, Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming get split amongst their neighbors to make 50.

Maybe Hawaii isn't annexed. The flag would look better with 49 stars at least.
 
Maybe Hawaii isn't annexed. The flag would look better with 49 stars at least.

Off the subject of Baja Cali, but what of instead of leaving Hawaii out as you say, more gets thrown in with it.

The US places more pacific islands in with Hawaii like American Samoa and Guam in the 1940's. The capital would still be in the Hawaiin Islands, but the counties of Guam and Samoa would be added.

The state name is something other than Hawaii, like Pacifica or something like that.
 
Off the subject of Baja Cali, but what of instead of leaving Hawaii out as you say, more gets thrown in with it.

The US places more pacific islands in with Hawaii like American Samoa and Guam in the 1940's. The capital would still be in the Hawaiin Islands, but the counties of Guam and Samoa would be added.

The state name is something other than Hawaii, like Pacifica or something like that.

The distance is just too far between the three and American Samoa would be constant drain on any state economy. Why not just bind the Virgin Island with Florida and Alaska with Washington?
 
Regardless if Sonora, and/or other Mexican states, is also annexed simply adding Baja would make the development of California, and thus of the US, quite difrent.

For starters it would probably be admited as a state alongside California, and as a slave state due to southerners back in Washington wanting to balance things out. Yes adding Baja, adds to the posibility of further dividing California into more states but if they didn't do it in OTL it will probably be the same. Baja stays separate cause that division already existed.

Nevertheless Baja would include San Diego, possibly the state capital, and best natural border would be the Santa Monica Mts and the Sierra Nevada, which places the LA Basin in Baja California as well. At this time LA, is just a small town north of San Diego, the important port in the Pacific.

Unlike its northern counterpart, Baja would not enjoy from such a large population boom in the 1800s. First of all slave holders will soon realize that the place is worthless for slavery and agriculture. It might even drop slavery before a Civil War. Best would be to exploit Baja for its fishing resources. But since Baja is so far away from the east that is also not a lucrative buissness until Alta California's population grows siginifcantly. Thus for most of its history Baja will remain a small isolated and very backward state.

Now the film industry might still go west ITTL. However in OTL this move has very specific competition and buissnes reasons that might not exists ITTL (mostly the Edison Trust's monopoly over New York based studios). But assuming that they do and that the industry does go west and that they relocate to San Diego (to make things a bit difrently). Baja would then similar to how Southern California gre in OTL, but its beaches further along the peninsula and tourism posibilities would be exploited much earlier than in OTL.

San Diego would probably be larger and more industrial than in OTL. Yet smaller than OTL's LA. The possibility of extending southwards would also give it a much more coastal appearance than OTL's LA which grows into the Basin rather than along the coast.
Tijuana would be non existent or simply the name of a small San Diego neighborhood.
Ensenada would grow to be something like OTL's Malibu, a retreat for the rich.
Los Angeles would likely remain a small town east of Santa Monica, which in turn could become the larger of the two. Santa Monica could serve as a retreat north of San Diego and near the Alta California border.
La Paz could grow much larger than in OTL. With its proximity to Mexico it might be a place with a large influx of immigrants since an early point. It has a few years of advantage in developmet against Miami and it could grow as the exotic tourist retreat of the US instead of. (if we eliminate Hawaii it further helps its cause). The isolation factor also ads to it. Furthermore it might recive a decent amout of Mexican immigration due to proximity.
Los Cabos would remain and grow similar to OTL. Very much a nice little tourist place in the very tip and since it is quite Americanized in OTL I wouldn't expect much change.
 
Top