Oh yeah, Gadsden Purchase... maybe the same bit we got in OTL and that tiny Sonoran panhandle that includes the right bank of the Colorado?
Why does there need to be a Gadsden Purchase? ITTL Baja is part of the treaty, so obviously the negotiator Polk sent down decided to take more than the OTL, but not as much as Polk wanted. Perhaps they asked that the new border is drawn slightly lower like on the 31st parallel from the Gulf to the Rio Grande. This would mean Juarez is in the US, and might be part of future New Mexico if Texas keeps it's original border, and now future Arizona gets access to the Gulf and can develop a port at Puerto Penasco, and the US has full control of the Colorado River. Or perhaps Mexico keeps Juarez and we have the border in the same spot we have it now at the Rio Grande, but where it turns south have it go down to the 31st and then turn west and go straight to the Gulf.
Because the thread is basically discussing just Baja being included, and OTL the minimum the US wanted is what it got OTL + Baja. So, while there does not necessarily have to be a Gadsden purchase, there likely would be one if someone aside from Trist was chosen.
It's just the smallest butterfly, but yes, they could have argued for more, but absent any other changes...
Two things that just occurred to me:
1) If the US later develops an atomic weapons program as in OTL, would Baja provide an even more attractive test site than New Mexico? Further away from population centers, and if it's done mid-peninsula on the outer coast, it might also minimize fallout into Mexico.
2) During the western Indian Wars in the 1870s especially, would Baja be considered for use as another "Oklahoma" to dump troublesome western tribes into? Say, the Modoc, Paiute, Nez Perce, and maybe the Comanche and Lakhota?
One benefit of doing it in New Mexico is that it is relatively isolated from the outside world, vs doing it on a seashore where it could be seen by anyone at sea for quite a long ways. So that reduces security.
No real reason to in the 1870s - still plenty of land, and better to centralize the Indian Territory if your goal is to contain the troublesome tribes. Stick them together to reduce federal resources to police them.
Baja would, outside of a few small towns, remain sparsely settled (more akin to Nevada, I think) until the development of some air conditioning allows for easier human habitation.
A few observations: Baja California really has only two decent harbors but neither of them significant.
Isn't Ensenada one of Mexico's biggest ports?
I agree with that, @thekingsguard; will it be divided at the Missouri Compromise line, or as OTL? And, will South California be admitted as a slave state?
Yes, it's Mexico's second biggest port and a natural deep water harbor. Wikipedia says it moves about 50% more freight than San Diego Port.
Well there you go. Guess it isn't such a wasteland after all.
San Diego has 1.5X population plus California Disneyland, while LA only has 0.75X as many people (but with Hollywood). Dakota joins the union as one state, California is split into two states with the dividing line being northern LA suburbs. Nothing else much changes lol.
Moving more freight than San Diego isn't hard, since SD is almost exclusively Navy. Comparing to real ports, it doesn't make the top 15 list.
Ensenada was one of the two not-that-important ports I was thinking of.
Okay, let clarify a bit - Ensenada has no rail terminal, for good reasons.
What is a "real port?" Which top 15? Mexico's? The Western Hemisphere? The world?
But if it is one of Mexico's biggest ports, how is it unimportant?
And what might those reasons be?
Google it, there are multiple ratings of ports in North America (which includes Mexico).
Google the nature of Mexico's economy, how they handle the flow of goods and services in and out of the country.
Google the geography of Northern Baja.
Most significantly - Ensenada wouldn't be part of Mexico. Tijuana wouldn't be part of Mexico, the border factories wouldn't exist. There wouldn't be millions of people living on the border.
¿Entiendes, señor?