WI: US gets the Baja Peninsula in the Mexican Cession?

[Tallest Skil]

…I hardly think pointing out that being part of the US is not a cureall for poverty and crime is strawmanning anything.

It is when that was never said by me at all. If you disagree that they would be better off in any capacity, just disagree. Don't claim I said something that I didn't. You'll have to come up with a pretty good reason for believing that, though.

 

[Umbric Man]

Strawmaning?

When your point appears to be that somehow being part of the US ensures that it thrives, I hardly think pointing out that being part of the US is not a cureall for poverty and crime is strawmanning anything.

I'm bluntly with Elfwine on this one.

Speaking as someone who's moved around and lived in different parts of America, it may surprise Tallest to know it's not a magical land of milk and honey all across the country.

 

[Elfwine]

It is when that was never said by me at all. If you disagree that they would be better off in any capacity, just disagree. Don't claim I said something that I didn't. You'll have to come up with a pretty good reason for believing that, though.

"t would be a thriving part of a first world country properly utilizing its tourism and natural resources for great wealth and in safety, and not be controlled by drug cartels that behead innocent civilians."

For no reason other than being part of the US.

I'm sure you have a reason that the US would care to develop this area more than Mexico did, but your post simply states that if it belonged to the US, it would prosper.

So the fact that violent crime and poverty are problems within the US - while not specifically denied in your post - is dismissed as irrelevant because . . .why?

I would be happy to apologize for misrepresenting your post when your post provides a reason to think being part of the US will inevitably (or close enough for AH purposes) lead to prosperity.

 

[Zuvarq]

Would the US necessarily do so?

I mean, the US is focused on all sorts of other things, Baja's assets might escape notice for a good while.

And why is Tirst an idiot for not squeezing every last inch of territory he could out of Mexico?

The US had no claim to any of this except "we won", after all.

Mexico didn't have much of a claim to it either. The northern territories were mostly native. Also Mexico was far meaner historically to natives than the US was.

"it would be a thriving part of a first world country properly utilizing its tourism and natural resources for great wealth and in safety, and not be controlled by drug cartels that behead innocent civilians."

For no reason other than being part of the US.

I'm sure you have a reason that the US would care to develop this area more than Mexico did, but your post simply states that if it belonged to the US, it would prosper.

The southern desert part wouldn't necessarily be better, but the comfortable northern part definitely would be more developed, especially the mouth of the Colorado.

 

[Elfwine]

Mexico didn't have much of a claim to it either. The northern territories were mostly native. Also Mexico was far meaner historically to natives than the US was.

"Not much" is better than "absolutely none".

I don't know how mean Mexico was to natives (so I'm willing to accept the point), but I do know that US treatment of Mexicans isn't going to be all hugs and rainbows.

The southern desert part wouldn't necessarily be better, but the comfortable northern part definitely would be more developed, especially the mouth of the Colorado.

Why?

 

[Tallest Skil]

…but your post simply states that if it belonged to the US, it would prosper.

Yes, it would be better off than it is now. That's what I'm saying. That's sort of how going from third to first world works.

Would you not consider Arizona a first world area? Developed, even? And Arizona doesn't even have coastline or access to meaningful in-state oil.

 

[Elfwine]

Yes, it would be better off than it is now. That's what I'm saying. That's sort of how going from third to first world works.

Would you not consider Arizona a first world area? Developed, even? And Arizona doesn't even have coastline or access to meaningful in-state oil.

That's sort of how "I'm claiming that being part of the US automatically makes it prosper." works.

Being part of the US does not automatically better its lot, so bringing up Arizona is . . . kind of irrelevant.

Sure, it could do better - but it could do better than OTL whether or not it was part of the US.

 

[Zuvarq]

"Not much" is better than "absolutely none".

I think there were actually more Anglo-Texans than North Mexicans. Thus the US would have a better claim to the region.

Why?

Because it would take a series of good leaders to make Mexico into a good country. The nation was effed at the very beginning, having a different colonial legacy than the US, and has been in an oligarchy or junta or other bad situation many times over. Even as far back as the Mexican-American War it had gone through strongmen taking power several times.

Though Mexico could be a first world country on par with the US, it's much more difficult to get there.

Also because being a contiguous part of a wealthy country is always better than being inside the poor country right next to it.

 

[Elfwine]

I think there were actually more Anglo-Texans than North Mexicans. Thus the US would have a better claim to the region.

Emigrants to a country do not give the country they're leaving a claim to the area.

Otherwise, the US would be split among the European nations.

Because it would take a series of good leaders to make Mexico into a good country. The nation was effed at the very beginning, having a different colonial legacy than the US, and has been in an oligarchy or junta or other bad situation many times over. Even as far back as the Mexican-American War.

Though Mexico could be a first world country on par with the US, it's much more difficult to get there.

Also because being a contiguous part of a wealthy country is always better than being inside the poor country right next to it.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've never argued that Mexico being a first world country on part with the US is easy or likely - just that adding Mexican territory to the US is not necessarily going to be better for anyone.

And again, "being part of a wealthy country" is not enough to produce regional prosperity.

Why is it going to develop more than OTL? Why are Americans going to spend money here, build stuff here, etc.?

It would be far from impossible for it to be ignored and neglected. Having potential does not guarantee that potential will be exploited, even if the resources exist.

 

[Basilisk]

At the very least, the peninsula would reap the benefits of interstate commerce, get a federally-funded interstate down its length, and any infrastructure during WWII.

 

[Elfwine]

At the very least, the peninsula would reap the benefits of interstate commerce, get a federally-funded interstate down its length, and any infrastructure during WWII.

. . . why?

Seriously. It's not as if there's some kind of US program that every state in the Union get a benefits package.

 

[Zuvarq]

Emigrants to a country do not give the country they're leaving a claim to the area.

Otherwise, the US would be split among the European nations.

And Mexico of the 1840s didn't have a collective identity. The missions in the north just want to continue life as is, and the few non-religious Mexican settlers mostly wanted to get away from the Mexican central government.

The main other settlers were Anglo-Texans or European immigrants who did not really feel ties with Mexico. The former of those two groups vastly outnumbering every other mentioned group.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've never argued that Mexico being a first world country on part with the US is easy or likely - just that adding Mexican territory to the US is not necessarily going to be better for anyone.

And again, "being part of a wealthy country" is not enough to produce regional prosperity.

Why is it going to develop more?

Why did Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada develop? Because they were in a wealthy country and in between the two most habitable ends of it.

Baja California and far northwestern Sonora would most definitely be more developed as part of the US. The region is right next to California, holds potential spots for the US's southernmost and southwesternmost ports, and has a pretty habitable region encompassing San Diego, Mexicali, and the surrounding area. It also has the mouth of the Colorado.

Instead of needing to build the railroad all the way to California, they could build it to a port in the Sea of Cortez and go around Baja. Or they could build a railroad down Baja, with a port at the southernmost tip, from which circum-American trade could take place. After the construction of the Panama Canal, it will become even more useful.

 

[Elfwine]

And Mexico of the 1840s didn't have a collective identity. The missions in the north just want to continue life as is, and the few non-religious Mexican settlers mostly wanted to get away from the Mexican central government.

This doesn't mean that the area isn't part of Mexico, however.

Why did Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada develop? Because they were in a wealthy country and in between the two most habitable ends of it.

No, because there was interest in developing them - I don't know much about Arizona and New Mexico, but Nevada has silver mines. That is why there was an interest in it as anything other than a place to cross as quickly as possible, not that it was "in a wealthy country".

Baja California and far northwestern Sonora would most definitely be more developed as part of the US. The region is right next to California, holds potential spots for the US's southernmost and southwesternmost ports, and has a pretty habitable region encompassing San Diego, Mexicali, and the surrounding area. It also has the mouth of the Colorado.

Instead of needing to build the railroad all the way to California, they could build it to a port in the Sea of Cortez and go around Baja. Or they could build a railroad down Baja, with a port at the southernmost tip, from which circum-American trade could take place. After the construction of the Panama Canal, it will become even more useful.

See, this (underlined) is a reason. Although I suspect the railroad is being built "all the way to California" anyhow.

The "it's part of a wealthy country" is not a reason.

 

[Iori]

I disagree with that.

Taking the Top-tier Mexican states, while doable, would lead to alot more Mexicans than the government and population would be comfortable with and would lead to a New Mexico situation where, even though they meet the population requirements, they would'nt be granted statehood for along time on racist grounds.

Now, taking everything North of a straight-line from Tampico would just not be acceptable to anyone accept the minority of fanatical expansionists.

The blow is a map of Mexico showing Urban areas; outside of Baja this has not changed much since the MexAm War, so you can see that it would be a huge amount of Mexicans living in the porposed area.

 

[Elfwine]

Not to mention a fair sized land area, which will be fun to try to keep rebellions in check over.

The US certainly could if it had to, I think, but fighting such wars is going to be a drain and a distraction.

 

[Zuvarq]

Taking the Top-tier Mexican states, while doable, would lead to alot more Mexicans than the government and population would be comfortable with and would lead to a New Mexico situation where, even though they meet the population requirements, they would'nt be granted statehood for along time on racist grounds.

Now, taking everything North of a straight-line from Tampico would just not be acceptable to anyone accept the minority of fanatical expansionists.

The blow is a map of Mexico showing Urban areas; outside of Baja this has not changed much since the MexAm War, so you can see that it would be a huge amount of Mexicans living in the porposed area.

You could always go back a few decades and have the early American perception of mestizo Mexicans be that they are 'rehabilitated natives' or something to that effect. Later on this would evolve into actual toleration.

 

[Elfwine]

You could always go back a few decades and have the early American perception of mestizo Mexicans be that they are 'rehabilitated natives' or something to that effect. Later on this would evolve into actual toleration.

Popery.

That is all.

And if we mess with events in the early 19th century, why is there a Mexican-American war in the 1840s TTL anyhow?

 

[Tallest Skil]

That's sort of how "I'm claiming that being part of the US automatically makes it prosper." works.

Keep pretending that what I said equals "everyone would be rich". Go ahead.

Where's the right emoticon for this…

Seriously. It's not as if there's some kind of US program that every state in the Union get a benefits package.

So you're implying we'd just ignore a state(s) in connecting them.

See, this (underlined) is a reason. Although I suspect the railroad is being built "all the way to California" anyhow.

The "it's part of a wealthy country" is not a reason.

Thought you'd be intelligent enough to extrapolate reasons on your own (and I even gave you a few), but whatever, eh.

…they wouldn't be granted statehood for along time on racist grounds.

Ah, but would that even happen in this case?

Not to mention a fair sized land area, which will be fun to try to keep rebellions in check over.

Because of all the times California rebelled. And Alaska.

 

[Zuvarq]

Popery.

That is all.

This period is not only long after the period where the colonies still remembered the war against France and were enraged that the Quebecois were tolerated, but also a while before the Irish and other Catholic immigrant communities really prominent enough to be disliked.

Also owning northern Mexico makes it easier to send Protestant missionaries there to take care of what they would perceive as the 'Papist problem'. Not to mention Anglo settlers.

 

[Elfwine]

Keep pretending that what I said equals "everyone would be rich". Go ahead.

If you think claiming an area would prosper isn't the same as claiming it would prosper, I don't think we're speaking the same language.

So you're implying we'd just ignore a state(s) in connecting them.

I'm stating outright that the idea that they would just automatically get it makes little sense. Could they? Sure. Would they? Not a given. Would the interstate highway project happening be a given? No. Quite possible, but not definite.

Thought you'd be intelligent enough to extrapolate reasons on your own (and I even gave you a few), but whatever, eh.

Thought you'd be capable of actually giving a reason for the US making the area prosper instead of insisting that somehow it would because America!.

Because of all the times California rebelled. And Alaska.

California and Alaska aren't made up of large numbers of people who don't want to be part of the US. This slice of territory is.

Not wanting to answer to Mexico City is not the same as wanting to answer to Washington (City).