WI the US annexes Baja California?
- Thread starter Unknown
- Start date
Personal opinion, but if Baja was taken, there likely would be a split - as pointed out, the population of the entire peninsula was incredibly low, only numbering ~ 10k in 1848. There'd be plenty of reason to retain it as a separate territory considering that low population and the importance of San Diego would mean it'd be prime reason to separate from the remainder of the territory. And, while California proper would resist a split along Missouri Compromise lines, they might agree to split off everything south of the 33 Parallel North as a separate territory, which just means they're giving up San Diego and not much more (San Diego is 32.7 degrees north, roughly). As such, California is marginally smaller, and the southern territory remains federal territory, which will be settled heavily in the north by Americans wanting to develop the region, while everything else to the south will remain mostly sparsely settled, with a few naval stations and settlements established.
I would propose the 34 Parallel North, but that'd mean giving up a large portion of what became Los Angeles, and that may not be desired by the Californians. Besides, the South is getting Texas in exchange for California atm, so Baja's status remaining up in the air won't be a big deal.
Another issue is the name. I doubt it'd remain Baja. Maybe it'd be called Colorado or something else, but just like Tejas became Texas, Baja likely becomes something else (Though Baxa doesn't quite have a ring to it).
Another consideration is how the Gadsden purchase is altered, as the US still desires a rail route to San Diego - but with Baja already in the US, do they try and take more? The right bank of the Colorado? Even further South? Either is possible, but more is definitely more difficult.
I would propose the 34 Parallel North, but that'd mean giving up a large portion of what became Los Angeles, and that may not be desired by the Californians. Besides, the South is getting Texas in exchange for California atm, so Baja's status remaining up in the air won't be a big deal.
Another issue is the name. I doubt it'd remain Baja. Maybe it'd be called Colorado or something else, but just like Tejas became Texas, Baja likely becomes something else (Though Baxa doesn't quite have a ring to it).
Another consideration is how the Gadsden purchase is altered, as the US still desires a rail route to San Diego - but with Baja already in the US, do they try and take more? The right bank of the Colorado? Even further South? Either is possible, but more is definitely more difficult.
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?
That'd be the rough end of it; There were proposals to push the western half (ignoring various proposals on the eastern half, as those won't go anywhere) as far south to the Rio Yaqui, but the basic proposals OTL were for just that- the right bank of the Colorado and the Sonoran Panhandle, as it were, and then they were walked back from there.
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...
OK, if we're going with a Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that is everything OTL plus only the Baja and nothing more, then this area will have to be discussed in the Gadsden Purchase. Since the US controls most of the Colorado river at this point, what use is holding onto that small area of northwest Sonora for Mexico? I can see Mexico wanting to retain Juarez, so the border where New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico meets is probably the same, but when it turns south the US should ask for it to go to the 31st, and then west into the Gulf, that way they control the entire Colorado River, and future Arizona gets a coastline.
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?
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.
You know what might be kinda interesting, is if ITTL Clark County stayed in Arizona and Nevada stayed a territory longer, if Los Cabos ends up being TTL's Vegas.
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.
Vuu
Banned
Look at the California peninsula, then look at Dixie
Note anything? Plantation agriculture isn't exactly good for the area, and I doubt there are other uses for slaves in the region
The California brand becomes even more world famous. Florida and Hawaii both have lower populations. Drug smuggling from Mexico becomes even more intense and harder to police. Mexico's standard of living is slightly higher than OTL. 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.
Marc
Donor
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. Ensenada grew as a port only after the introduction of maquiladoras - border factory operations which took off the late 1960's; along with a modern highway system, and container ships.
Without that, as would this alternate history envision, it would be a colorful fishing port. If it belonged to the US, it would be just that. It's still not that big of a deal, as in small fry deal
There are tons of people who live along the border, from TJ to Tecate, and along the coast down to Ensenada (great seafood restaurants in Rosarito by the way), and a fair chunk of expats as well living a nicely discounted retirement. All because it is the border.
But, I stand by my statement, Baja is a really beautiful, insignificant piece of real estate.
Sheesh...
Last edited:
NorCal having a sparsely populated forested north while SoCal having a sparsely populated desert south makes for nice symmetry.
dcharles
Banned
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?
Marc
Donor
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?
dcharles
Banned
Entiendo, guey.
Believe it or not, I've heard of this "google" that you speak of.
I was just under the crazy impression that in a forum wherein we talk about historical matters, that I might just ask the person who's making all these assertions why they're making them. I think we all expect a better answer than "look it up, pendejo."