If the US took Sonora, Chihuahua and Baja California in the War Question

So, if the US got Baja Cali, Sonora, and Chihuahua in the Mexican American War, how do you think the Mexican Cession territories would have been split up and how do you think they would have developed economically, socially and politically?
 
One of the major issues in the Mexican-American War settlement was the reality that the USA did not want to acquire lots of Mexicans (brown, Catholic) with any new territories unless those territories might provide valuable resources or a better border than the Rio Grande. Baja Claifornia, while not containing much of value also did not have much of a local population and would give the USA all of the Pacific Coast south of Canada, and the "border" between Baja and the rest of Mexico would be pretty small. This would also mean the Gadsden Purchase would be unnecessary for a southern rail route.

Another reason there was significant pushback especially from Southern politicians to acquiring much of Mexico is that these territories would be free territories as slavery was already outlawed in Mexico, and it would be impractical to make Sonora and Chihuahua slave territories. Acquiring two new "free" territories which would not take long to meet the population requirements for statehood would upset the balance between slave and free states 15 years earlier. Given the very low population of Baja, statehood would be quite a way off.

IF these three territories are added to the USA, you'd see gradual "Americanization" of these territories with English becoming the primary language, although a lot of Spanish used in smaller towns and in homes for a long time. Given the no established religion policy of the USA, and the Protestant majority, the power of the Church will be diminished much sooner than OTL when Mexico finally enacted various "anti-clerical" laws. While these states would probably remain relatively poor you'd see integration in to the US economy, meaning a much better standard of living than OTL. Given these would be "free" states/territories, one of the butterflies you might is see Texas NOT seceding, after all a significant portion of the Texas population was not ardently in favor of secession, and Sam Houston was against it. With Union states/territories to the west, the north, and now the south the position of Texas as a seceding state is less tenable.
 
They'd look a lot like modern New Mexico and Arizona. The regions were very sparsely settled at the time and filled with a lot of desert and a little agriculture. They'd have Spanish roots in many of the smaller communities, but as more services are introduced you'll see more American migration to the region. There's a lot of mineral wealth there, so that probaby gets accessed sooner and a allows for a much greater wealth creation for the region with increased infrastructure.

I can see maybe San Diego being in a new Baja Territory as opposed to California proper, and the Gila River will probably be the border for the New Mexico Territory, but other than that very little would change I suspect.
 
Do you think Guaymas has potential to be the terminus for the first transcontinental railroad in this scenario?
 
The Bajas I can see, but why Sonora, and Chihuahua besides How Few Remain put those states on the radar of AH people?

Well Sonora plus BC would give the US almost complete control over the Gulf of California. Chihuahua connects Sonora to Texas. Plus they both had a lot of mineral wealth.
 
The Bajas I can see, but why Sonora, and Chihuahua besides How Few Remain put those states on the radar of AH people?

There was a ton of silver being mined in the era. And that's just what was being done at the time, there could be more that gets discovered with more stability and increased development.
 
I suspect the original boundaries of Mexican states will be respected in order to not upset the existing elites. Both Sonora and Chihuahua were actual states, not territories while in Mexico. I think there would be a lot of pressure to keep them separate even if they were initially governed as territories and not states.

Baja California might include the San Diego area and other bits of southern California if pro-slavery activists insist on having a potential "slave state" to enter after the rest of California does as a free state. In this scenario, the San Diego area is cleaved off to provide some more population to Baja California. But that is by no means certain. Just speculating.

The New Mexico territory (which included both modern day Arizona and New Mexico states along with bits of Colorado and Nevada) would be like IOTL except no Gadsen Purchase territory south of the Gila River. That would be retained by Sonora. Without the heavily populated area of Tucson and the rest of "Traditional Arizona", I think it is less likely that the western half of the territory will be split off.

IOTL, New Mexico Territory was considered difficult to administer because Santa Fe, the capital, was too distant from the southern portion (cut off by the Jornada del Muerto desert). It's possible that portion will either be retained or given to Chihuahua.

So we might eventually see a New Mexican state that comprises the northern 2/3 of OTL's Arizona and New Mexico, and the Sonora and Chihuahua states that are bigger than OTL's Mexican states. With Baja as its own state (either in its original territorial boundary or an enlarged version with San Diego), then it means a new addition of two states to the Union (since Arizona isn't its own separate state).

IOTL, both Sonora and Chihuhua were heavily influenced by the US. American investors contributed a lot of money to develop ranching and mining. And Mormon settlers (including the Romney family) moved there from 1880-1910 (although this was done to escape US jurisdiction which would not be applicable here). However, given that even Arizona has lots of Mormons I believe they'd expand to Sonora and Chihuahua anyway. So American settlement and investment just becomes more prominent.

I think the additional lands would develop like the rest of the Mexican Cession did. Western style ranching and mining economy mostly, but will become more industrialized in the mid 20th century and lots of population migration once AC is invented.

Overall, not much change for the US IOTL except that there will be larger population of Mexican descent and they will likely make up more of the elite population in those new states than they did in New Mexico, California, Texas, etc. We may also see more prominent ethnic Mexican involvement/leadership in the labor movement given the importance of mining in the these lands.

This will have lots of changes in Mexico though. The Sonoran/Chihuhuan area was important for the Mexican Revolution and produced leaders like Alvaro Obregon, Plutarco Elias Calles, Pascual Orozco, and Pancho Villa. If you remove them from Mexican history, that's a lot of changes. That's two presidents of Mexico alone in that list! And the region was a hot bed for anti-Diaz movement and essential for the victory of Francisco Madero in the first stage of the Mexican Revolution. Huge butterflies here.
 
Do you think Guaymas has potential to be the terminus for the first transcontinental railroad in this scenario?

Something I thought of is how busy do you think a Guaymas to Galveston railway would be? Especially in a scenario where Texas stays neutral/Union in an alt-civil war scenario
 
Something I thought of is how busy do you think a Guaymas to Galveston railway would be? Especially in a scenario where Texas stays neutral/Union in an alt-civil war scenario

That railroad would not likely to have been built yet. The Southern Pacific Railroad that went through Tucson didn't begin being built until 1873 and not completed until 1883. At the time of the Civil War, there was only a rudimentary rail system in Texas and construction mostly halted because of the war. The Santa Fe railway connected to Guaymas in 1881. I don't see a whole of change from OTL.
 
That railroad would not likely to have been built yet. The Southern Pacific Railroad that went through Tucson didn't begin being built until 1873 and not completed until 1883. At the time of the Civil War, there was only a rudimentary rail system in Texas and construction mostly halted because of the war. The Santa Fe railway connected to Guaymas in 1881. I don't see a whole of change from OTL.

You don't think having Sonora and Chihuahua would lead to a transcontinental railroad the bypasses the Rockies? I mean if anything we could get an alternate Platt amendment that actually passes and leads to a southern one and a northern one.
 
Sonora and Chihuahua would develop much like New Mexico, but even more heavily Hispanic since they had a more settled and established population than New Mexico. They have economies based on mining and ranching and the political system would evolve in a similar way.

Baja California would be an extension of Southern California, probably a good deal less developed since the border wouldn't be there. It might gain a strong tourist industry since you've taken away the biggest source of development for the area in OTL and the region will need to substitute something. It is getting known for its scenic beauty, so that's something to think of. I'd be very surprised if it became a state in its own right--it might have a statehood movement kinda like Jefferson in Northern California that might have some discussion, but it seems unlikely it would succeed (although maybe this might be the impetus to divide California?).

The ramifications on California will also be interesting. The major cities in Sonora could siphon away a bit of development (as well as Latin American immigration). I'd almost wonder if a place like Guaymas or other major cities in Sonora might look a lot like parts of Southern California do today.

For Chihuahua, I expect it would be far more comparable to New Mexico or the Texas-Mexico border. Everything points in that direction for its situation.
 

Driftless

Donor
One of the major issues in the Mexican-American War settlement was the reality that the USA did not want to acquire lots of Mexicans (brown, Catholic) with any new territories unless those territories might provide valuable resources or a better border than the Rio Grande. Baja Claifornia, while not containing much of value also did not have much of a local population and would give the USA all of the Pacific Coast south of Canada, and the "border" between Baja and the rest of Mexico would be pretty small. This would also mean the Gadsden Purchase would be unnecessary for a southern rail route.

Another reason there was significant pushback especially from Southern politicians to acquiring much of Mexico is that these territories would be free territories as slavery was already outlawed in Mexico, and it would be impractical to make Sonora and Chihuahua slave territories. Acquiring two new "free" territories which would not take long to meet the population requirements for statehood would upset the balance between slave and free states 15 years earlier. Given the very low population of Baja, statehood would be quite a way off.

IF these three territories are added to the USA, you'd see gradual "Americanization" of these territories with English becoming the primary language, although a lot of Spanish used in smaller towns and in homes for a long time. Given the no established religion policy of the USA, and the Protestant majority, the power of the Church will be diminished much sooner than OTL when Mexico finally enacted various "anti-clerical" laws. While these states would probably remain relatively poor you'd see integration in to the US economy, meaning a much better standard of living than OTL. Given these would be "free" states/territories, one of the butterflies you might is see Texas NOT seceding, after all a significant portion of the Texas population was not ardently in favor of secession, and Sam Houston was against it. With Union states/territories to the west, the north, and now the south the position of Texas as a seceding state is less tenable.

Something I thought of is how busy do you think a Guaymas to Galveston railway would be? Especially in a scenario where Texas stays neutral/Union in an alt-civil war scenario

That railroad would not likely to have been built yet. The Southern Pacific Railroad that went through Tucson didn't begin being built until 1873 and not completed until 1883. At the time of the Civil War, there was only a rudimentary rail system in Texas and construction mostly halted because of the war. The Santa Fe railway connected to Guaymas in 1881. I don't see a whole of change from OTL.

IF Texas doesn't secede, based on the premises listed above; might that lead to an earlier railroad? No CSA Texas would reduce the direct military threat to the rail line itself. The existing impetus to connect the west coast to the east via the Midwest was there from Gold Rush days, to some extent.
 

Driftless

Donor
If a large part of the Baja were to remain lightly populated, a portion could become one of the early National Parks in TR's time.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I think you see a much smaller San Diego. If the USA has Baja, then the tip is the logical place for the marine/naval bases, especially if we still get the Panama canal.
 
I do see Sonora losing a small amount of land to give the combined New Mexico/ Arizona state access to the ocean.
 
I think you see a much smaller San Diego. If the USA has Baja, then the tip is the logical place for the marine/naval bases, especially if we still get the Panama canal.

The tip is also pretty remote, compared to San Diego, plus the local economy seems a bit limited compared to the economic region around San Diego. There's also an issue with getting water there that means it couldn't siphon too much growth off. Plus isn't San Diego one of the best ports on the West Coast?
 
Butterflies aside, do you think Maximilian would be in a better or worse position to remain in power if he still became Emperor of Mexico in this scenario?
 
Plus isn't San Diego one of the best ports on the West Coast?

Yes, it's an excellent harbor:

sandiego0.png
 
Top