some of you may know that, for Anglo-American Rivalry, a butterfly effect in it (officially attributed to British involvement on behalf of Mexico during the war from 1846-48) is that Mexico retains some of the territory that it lost IOTL even though it still loses the war: the Nueces region of Texas (the southernmost area), the land from teh Gadsden Purchase (which is butterflied away), and Southern California. out of personal preference, i cut it off at about the edge of the OTL Greater Los Angeles area.
now, here's the main point of this thread: what does everyone think would be the consequences of a Mexican SoCal and an American NorCal coexisting? one thing ive speculated on is that Monterey may remain the capital of California (for the US) while OTL San Francisco becomes the largest city and de facto capital because of its importance as a port, as well as for being a gateway to the US for immigrants from the Far East (kinda like a west-coast NYC, i guess)
one interesting consequence of Mexico retaining southern california would be that los angeles and hollywood are now in mexican hands. what could this potentially do to the american film industry later on? what will be the pop-media center of the US, where will Universal and Warner Bros. studios be located (if they aren't butterflied away; personally, i'd like to retain them). and what could this do for paleontology if Mexico ends up holding onto Los Angeles, where the La Brea Tar Pits--one of the richest pleistocene fossil sites in the world--are located
i actually live in southern california IRL, so this is part of why im wondering this. could it perhaps be that some californian cities are later purchased by the US as territories and later incorporated into the california state, or that southern california (here including baja) eventually secede from mexico in favor of joining the US? and if so, when would this be most likely to happen?