Mexican and Central American state lines under the USA.

[Krases]

One of the things I notice about a lot of maps of Mexico and Central America when annexed by the US is that the old state lines are maintained. I find this somewhat unlikely. Partially depending upon the POD being before these state lines have solidified or been established and partially because the US would want senators and representatives differently distributed. Post any maps you feel are relevant.

For example, the Yucatan would likely become a single state so that it can be more like the republic of the Yucatan. Baja would likely go to California or South California. The border lines with Arizona and New Mexico would likely not be as straight and would for that matter be radically different. There likely wouldn't be a New Mexico, just a Mexico. The large number of states in the middle of the country would likely be combined into a few larger, more populous states.

Another question is about Central America assuming that were to get annexed as well. What would happen to small states like El Salvador or Belize?

This is sort of a spin off question: how would the US defend the border with Columbia compared with how it defends the border with Mexico OTL?

 

[Iori]

There likely wouldn't be a New Mexico, just a Mexico.

Even when the area was part of Mexico it was called New Mexico, so yes their would be a New Mexico.

 

[Krases]

Even when the area was part of Mexico it was called New Mexico, so yes their would be a New Mexico.

Why isn't California called Alta California in OTL?

I think people naming these states would find it improper. It would be like having Georgia and New Georgia. Or Florida and New Florida.

For that matter, Baja California would likely get a new name unless it becomes part of California or South California or the LA basin region is also part of a new state of Baja California.

 

[Iori]

Why isn't California called Alta California in OTL?

Because Alta California refers to a vast region where-as California comprises an area less than half of it.

I think people naming these states would find it improper. It would be like having Georgia and New Georgia. Or Florida and New Florida.

We started out with a North Carolina and South Carolina and have a Virginia and West Virginia and a North Dakota and South Dakota, it's not exactly out there to do in America.

That said I sincerely doubt any state would be called 'Mexico', the Mexican state of the name would likely either be split between others, have a different name, use a slightly different variant (IE 'Mexica') or retain its name, but with the Spanish spelling as the official version of spelling it.

For that matter, Baja California would likely get a new name unless it becomes part of California or South California or the LA basin region is also part of a new state of Baja California.

The Baja California peninsula would most likely be part of another state, probably Sonora.

 

[Krases]

Geographic qualifiers like North, West etc. are one thing, but a chronological naming scheme is pretty rare outside the US and without precedent within the US. I just don't see it.

 

[chrmar]

New Brunswick, Nova Scotia...

 

[Alex Richards]

Geographic qualifiers like North, West etc. are one thing, but a chronological naming scheme is pretty rare outside the US and without precedent within the US. I just don't see it.

New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire. If Northern Mexico is annexed first and then Mexico proper at a later date (really not all that unfeasible) then I'd say New Mexico remains a very reasonable name for a (potentially larger) state.

 

[jycee]

Geographic qualifiers like North, West etc. are one thing, but a chronological naming scheme is pretty rare outside the US and without precedent within the US. I just don't see it.

New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire. If Northern Mexico is annexed first and then Mexico proper at a later date (really not all that unfeasible) then I'd say New Mexico remains a very reasonable name for a (potentially larger) state.

New Mexico already had that name before it was annexed! Since the end of the Viceroyalty. New Mexico wasn't even named "Mexico" after the Mexico the country (as in the United Mexican States), which was still called New Spain during its creation, but after the province/department of Mexico (now divided as the States of Mexico, Hidalgo, Morelos, and Guerrero) within New Spain.

Despite the fact that chronological naming might be without precedent within the US (which it isn't as Alex pointed out New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, all kept there new name) there is no reason for New Mexico not to keep it. Especially because it did in OTL!

 

[Plumber]

New Mexico already had that name before it was annexed! Since the end of the Viceroyalty. New Mexico wasn't even named "Mexico" after the Mexico the country (as in the United Mexican States), which was still called New Spain during its creation, but after the province/department of Mexico (now divided as the States of Mexico, Hidalgo, Morelos, and Guerrero) within New Spain.

Despite the fact that chronological naming might be without precedent within the US (which it isn't as Alex pointed out New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, all kept there new name) there is no reason for New Mexico not to keep it. Especially because it did in OTL!

Yes, this is an interesting thread that has taken a very silly turn. Of course there would be a New Mexico.

 

[Krases]

New Brunswick, Nova Scotia...

New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire. If Northern Mexico is annexed first and then Mexico proper at a later date (really not all that unfeasible) then I'd say New Mexico remains a very reasonable name for a (potentially larger) state.

Duh. You guys aren't catching my meaning. York is not in North America, neither is Jersey, neither is Hampshire. That tends not to be how things are named within the same country unless there is a major geographic difference, like Great Britain naming New York across the Atlantic. You wouldn't found New York up the street from regular York. That is really rare.

Thats why I am saying it is awkward to have New Mexico so close to regular Mexico and be part of the same country. Northern Mexico makes sense, your basically splitting the same state into two parts. You could even do a North, South, East and West type deal, splitting OTL Mexico and New Mexico into 4 parts with maybe another state for the Rio Grande, Sonora and Yucatan as their own states. You could even split it into five parts and have a 'Central Mexico'.

But I feel like the US would try to avoid a national Mexican identity and would be against having Mexico in anything. Though that depends on the terms of how Mexico got annexed in the first place.

 

[JJohnson]

One of the things I notice about a lot of maps of Mexico and Central America when annexed by the US is that the old state lines are maintained. I find this somewhat unlikely. Partially depending upon the POD being before these state lines have solidified or been established and partially because the US would want senators and representatives differently distributed. Post any maps you feel are relevant.

For example, the Yucatan would likely become a single state so that it can be more like the republic of the Yucatan. Baja would likely go to California or South California. The border lines with Arizona and New Mexico would likely not be as straight and would for that matter be radically different. There likely wouldn't be a New Mexico, just a Mexico. The large number of states in the middle of the country would likely be combined into a few larger, more populous states.

Another question is about Central America assuming that were to get annexed as well. What would happen to small states like El Salvador or Belize?

This is sort of a spin off question: how would the US defend the border with Columbia compared with how it defends the border with Mexico OTL?

Congress tried often to create states of equal size as best they could. Many western states are either 3° or 4° in height, and 7° in width, with the odd exception (Idaho, Nevada) The new states it creates if it were to add more or all of Mexico may follow some old state lines or combine a few into one larger state. Arizona and New Mexico, or whatever they end up being called, might be more squared off, and Arizona could end up with sea access. Check out "How the States Got their Shapes" to get an idea of how Congress tried to draw up state borders at the time.

 

[Beedok]

Thats why I am saying it is awkward to have New Mexico so close to regular Mexico and be part of the same country.

But the State of Mexico would be pretty far from New Mexico, being down around Mexico City, as far away from New Mexico as Alabama is.

 

[Krases]

Still part of the same country and while sorta far away, not that far away.

 

[Max Sinister]

Jared did this in DoD, and yes, many smaller states were merged.

 

[LNSS]

They would probably force a bunch of boring straight lines upon us.

 

[Tallest Skil]

One of the things I notice about a lot of maps of Mexico and Central America when annexed by the US is that the old state lines are maintained. I find this somewhat unlikely. Partially depending upon the POD being before these state lines have solidified or been established and partially because the US would want senators and representatives differently distributed.

YES. FINALLY someone who gets it and is upset about it. There's very little chance of keeping the old state borders. No way would 31 Mexican states make it into the US.

Post any maps you feel are relevant.

Does this also mean good examples of where it doesn't happen?

Another question is about Central America assuming that were to get annexed as well. What would happen to small states like El Salvador or Belize?

I sort of think that Central America would stay as-is, however.

This is sort of a spin off question: how would the US defend the border with Columbia compared with how it defends the border with Mexico OTL?

Oh, are we assuming US down to Panama (FRICK YES)? If so, it's a MUCH easier job of securing the border. Just have ships on both sides of the isthmus and a small military contingent on the land.

Even right now, OTL, there's no road between Panama and Colombia. At all. No roads connect North and South America. Thick rainforest and disease out the wazoo (and, more recently, idiotic environmentalist groups) have prevented it.

So there's no way Colombia can get through, and no worries about immigration.

They would probably force a bunch of boring straight lines upon us.

Oh, I wouldn't say entirely. Rather that states would be combined.

 

[Max Sinister]

IIRC DoD has maps with the new borders.

 

[Iori]

They would probably force a bunch of boring straight lines upon us.

The straight-line borders of the Western states are the result of highly inequal population spread (IE lots of people live in one area, then everything around them for hundreds of miles is empty) and in most cases no real geographic features to base borders on.

 

[katchen]

One of the ways that I must admit, we get a bit sloppy, is we not only use existing Mexican state borders, we use current Mexican state borders. What we often forget is that unlike Los Unidos Estados, Mexico has never been shy about splitting states apart to make several other states. Yucatan, at the time of Mexican federation was one large state. Campeche was split away much later.
Similarly, Nuevo Leon included Tamalipas and Coalihua. And Baja California was one state. And even in the Valley de Mexico, states like Querataro and Guerrero and Aguascalientes and maybe even Nayarit and Colima split off from other states later.
So when we are doing our maps and include Mexico, we need to be careful that we're working off maps of Mexico that reflect the situation in Mexico at the time the TL branches off.

 

[Iori]

One of the ways that I must admit, we get a bit sloppy, is we not only use existing Mexican state borders, we use current Mexican state borders. What we often forget is that unlike Los Unidos Estados, Mexico has never been shy about splitting states apart to make several other states. Yucatan, at the time of Mexican federation was one large state. Campeche was split away much later.
Similarly, Nuevo Leon included Tamalipas and Coalihua. And Baja California was one state. And even in the Valley de Mexico, states like Querataro and Guerrero and Aguascalientes and maybe even Nayarit and Colima split off from other states later.
So when we are doing our maps and include Mexico, we need to be careful that we're working off maps of Mexico that reflect the situation in Mexico at the time the TL branches off.

Actually Mexico's states have remained mostly unchanged, in fact Oaxaca and Nuevo Leon have the same borders now as they did in 1821, likewise of the states that did change (almost all either having new states breaking off or changing because of the Mex-Am War) most of their borders are still the same, for instance in the case of the state of Jalisco (originally Guadalajara) the states of Colima and Nayarit were carved out of it but with the exception of losing those territories its borders now are exactly the same as in 1821.