WI the US annexes Baja California?

It probably means California gets divided. From Cabo San Lucas to the Oregon border is almost the distance from Key West to the Canadian border. That's a huge distance to traverse in the 19th century, even if the parts south of San Diego aren't likely to be thickly populated due to the lack of water.

And given that large cities like Tijuana or Mexicali are unlikely to develop, it means that Mexican (and other groups like the Chinese, Lebanese, etc. who often traveled through Mexico to immigrate to the US) immigration will end up elsewhere, like Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and California will be a less common destination.

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.

That doesn't follow. How does that mean the Dakotas don't divide, when there were plenty of reasons why they did? Or more importantly, why California wouldn't divide, since this exacerabates the problems between Northern and Southern California and expects the people of Cabo San Lucas to have something in common with the government in Sacramento over 2,000 km away, let alone travel there in the age before automobiles, planes, etc.
 
It probably means California gets divided. From Cabo San Lucas to the Oregon border is almost the distance from Key West to the Canadian border. That's a huge distance to traverse in the 19th century, even if the parts south of San Diego aren't likely to be thickly populated due to the lack of water.

And given that large cities like Tijuana or Mexicali are unlikely to develop, it means that Mexican (and other groups like the Chinese, Lebanese, etc. who often traveled through Mexico to immigrate to the US) immigration will end up elsewhere, like Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and California will be a less common destination.

If it were me making the map I would simply lop off San Diego and Imperial counties from California and join it with the rest of the peninsula to make the new state of Baja California. That way you end up with a very large city in the San Diego metropolis as an economic and cultural center (and likely state capital) with Ensenada, El Centro, La Paz and Cabo developing as small to medium sized cities based on shipping, agriculture, and tourism, respectively.

The military would likely be a major pillar of the economy since they could use the arid and uninhabitable interior of the peninsula as a training center and military proving ground, effectively moving those things away from OTL Twenty-Nine Palms and Yuma.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Question: is there any particular reason why everyone assumes that maybe San Diego will be included, but apparently no more? If the USA annexes all of California at once, and - as has been mentioned - inevitably notices that huge coastal state would be impractical... why would the logical decision then be to only cut off a bit on the southern end, which is woefully underpopulated, and make that a separate state? It makes infinitely more sense to divide the state along those nice mountains that mark the southern end of the Central Valley. That would get you a northern state centred on San Francisco and Sacramento, and a southern state centred on Los Angeles and San Diego. Both those states would be viable at once, without one of them having to linger as an underpopulated territory for a long time.
 

Marc

Donor
A few quick thoughts:
If San Diego isn't a border city, it might never grow significantly past being a Navy town - say on the same size and scale of Norfolk Va, which has about 250,000 folk. Hmm, maybe a bit more than that, since WW2 sparked a local manufacturing boom that continued past the war. Still, one can't dismiss the impact of the immense border ecosystem that also arose in the post-war period on the growth of SD.
Also, for those familiar with the region: Chula Vista is actually likely to be the premier second city that "replaces" Tijuana.

If California were to split in this scenario, wouldn't it be along the lines of what has been the most consistent historical suggestion? The 10 counties of Southern California, in this case, including Baja.
 
Question: is there any particular reason why everyone assumes that maybe San Diego will be included, but apparently no more? If the USA annexes all of California at once, and - as has been mentioned - inevitably notices that huge coastal state would be impractical... why would the logical decision then be to only cut off a bit on the southern end, which is woefully underpopulated, and make that a separate state? It makes infinitely more sense to divide the state along those nice mountains that mark the southern end of the Central Valley. That would get you a northern state centred on San Francisco and Sacramento, and a southern state centred on Los Angeles and San Diego. Both those states would be viable at once, without one of them having to linger as an underpopulated territory for a long time.

The US historically has been pretty bad at making logical internal borders, or at least keeping to logical borders (observe how the Continental Divide was a part of many US territories in the 19th century but was abandoned when statehood came). The easiest way is to use the 35th or 36th parallel north as the border between the two Californias, or even the border between San Luis Obispo County and Monterey County (about 35'47 N) as the border. I'd say a decent border might be along 35/36 N, to the mountains around the Central Valley, and following south and then north along them to 35/36 N again, where it would continue east until the Colorado River.
 
Question: is there any particular reason why everyone assumes that maybe San Diego will be included, but apparently no more? If the USA annexes all of California at once, and - as has been mentioned - inevitably notices that huge coastal state would be impractical... why would the logical decision then be to only cut off a bit on the southern end, which is woefully underpopulated, and make that a separate state? It makes infinitely more sense to divide the state along those nice mountains that mark the southern end of the Central Valley. That would get you a northern state centred on San Francisco and Sacramento, and a southern state centred on Los Angeles and San Diego. Both those states would be viable at once, without one of them having to linger as an underpopulated territory for a long time.

Mostly because, from what I do understand, is that the actual Californian government wouldn't be particularly keen on giving up much more - it's (almost) the Texas situation, with California retaining its core and ceding all lands it can't control. The big exception here was that any Californian independence was very nominal beforehand. Ceding San Diego is just mentioned as it would allow the federal government to maintain control over the port for longer (As a territory) which is the only reason that the border was pushed so far south to begin with.

Let's also consider distance: It's 1305 miles from San Diego to Cabo San Luis, and 1182 miles from San Diego to Crescent City. While California has more hinterland, Baja's more rugged terrain makes it even harder to govern. If we were going to split the two regions in half, I'd move the border even further south. As it is, the 33rd Parallel is perfectly reasonable, considering the vast distances in southern California, and adding more to the north makes Baja even more ungovernable.

That, and adding more to the north makes Baja increasingly tilted towards its northern half.

It's also not like the US has ever had issues with states with low populations, or territories with low ones. Considering that Baja, whatever it's called, will soon overtake Nevada, which remained a state for longer.
 
Before the war Alta California was one huge territory. With the addition of Baja I don't see any reason that the new US territories should be carved up anywhere near the same as they were in our history. As others have pointed out, even Californians didn't like the borders and only the Civil War prevented the state being split. I can easily see Congress looking at that huge length of coast and splitting the whole thing into at least three states.
 
What if Baja Cali and Sonora are combined into one state, call it Sonora.

Mexico keeps Chihuahua but much of today's Sonora goes to the USA.

San Diego becomes a little larger. The Chargers remain.
 
California certain becomes two states, likely with the North gaining statehood first. Mexico won't be any better off, since during the negotiations for the purchase, neither side wanted to be stuck with the relatively isolated peninsula. Mexico won't be any worse off, really, but it'll have a small affect on politics in the capital. Notably, such an arrangement puts the Colorado river solidly in American hands, which will become more relevant in time. It also shortens the border a bit.
 
What if Baja Cali and Sonora are combined into one state, call it Sonora.

Mexico keeps Chihuahua but much of today's Sonora goes to the USA.

San Diego becomes a little larger. The Chargers remain.
funnily enough, that's roughly what I have it set as for the same TL I mentioned earlier in this thread :p based on the historical Republic of Sonora, that state was admitted to the union and then later on Baja split off as "West Sonora" (it was partly to side-step actually using Baja California because, in this same TL, there's fewer Spanish language influences in the region and there's a revived Aztec Empire as an American ally instead of Mexico, and there's a higher level of animosity between the Americans and Spanish ITTL. it all makes sense in context ;) )

(I also admit that I misremembered earlier--Baja splitting from Alta had been the original idea, and since then has been amended)
 
At the end of the Mexican War, the Mexicans argued that San Diego was part of Baja not Alta California and should not be ceded. Following that logic it would be easy to attach it to a new state of Baja if both Californias are annexed
 
I think that if Baja was admitted Then republicans would have a grip hold on the senate and could change polictuc through the year a lot if Baja becomes a state because it wouldn’t be admitted at first due to the slave problem and then to how much to would change senate
 
I think that if Baja was admitted Then republicans would have a grip hold on the senate and could change polictuc through the year a lot if Baja becomes a state because it wouldn’t be admitted at first due to the slave problem and then to how much to would change senate

Even with additional portions of southern California, it seems very unlikely it will be admitted as a state until well after the Civil War. The whole Baja California Territory only had 42,000 people in 1895.
 
Even with additional portions of southern California, it seems very unlikely it will be admitted as a state until well after the Civil War. The whole Baja California Territory only had 42,000 people in 1895.
Baja California+San Diego County+Imperial County had upwards of 80,000 people in 1900 though. That's well over enough for statehood.
 
That doesn't follow. How does that mean the Dakotas don't divide, when there were plenty of reasons why they did? Or more importantly, why California wouldn't divide, since this exacerabates the problems between Northern and Southern California and expects the people of Cabo San Lucas to have something in common with the government in Sacramento over 2,000 km away, let alone travel there in the age before automobiles, planes, etc.

I said California would divide. Dakota dividing was a quirk of us politics. South Dakota being ruled from Bismarck is no worse than San Diego and Sacramento. Supposing the politics were changed with an extra two Senate seats for two Californias Dakota could be admitted as one state. Plus the flag looks downright ugly with 51 states.
 
Top