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

[Elfwine]

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.

Protestant missionaries which will be as welcome as saddle burrs and Anglo settlers. . .

You do realize this is not Civilization, right?

Not to mention that even if Anglo/Protestant settlers do go south, that doesn't make them welcome. Do you really want to give these territories a reason to feel like rebelling?

 

[Zuvarq]

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

"Man, the Nazis should have lost WWII earlier! More people would have survived."
"But that doesn't NECESSARILY MEAN that any of the Holocaust victims or war casualties would survive, even if that's possible."

Most likely result is always what's implied on this site unless stated otherwise.

Protestant missionaries which will be as welcome as saddle burrs and Anglo settlers. . .

You do realize this is not Civilization, right?

Not government sanctioned Protestant missionaries obviously. Private groups.

 

[Elfwine]

"Man, the Nazis should have lost WWII earlier! More people would have survived."
"But that doesn't NECESSARILY MEAN that any of the Holocaust victims or war casualties would survive, even if that's possible."

Most likely result is always what's implied on this site unless stated otherwise.

And I dispute that the most likely result is the US building an interstate highway down Baja with a POD more than a century before Eisenhower's project, or that Baja is seen as a great place to develop in general just because.

The idea of "build a railroad to the Sea of Cortez" makes sense - I'm not sure it's likely, but it's entirely feasible and desirable. But insisting that such developments would happen without giving any reason for the US to have any interest in them is not feasible.

People treat it as if the US/Britain/Germany/Greece/Rome/whatever taking over is somehow going to mean that it does well, and speaking for myself, as an Austrophile (among other preferences, but I'm picking Austria-Hungary as an easy example of somewhere with some areas that were far more developed than others - comparing the lot of Lower Austria or Bohemia to Galicia or Dalmatia , you'd think we were talking about two different polities instead of two parts of a single polity), that's not necessarily so.

Not government sanctioned Protestant missionaries obviously. Private groups.

Doesn't help. You want Mexican Catholics tolerating American rule, Americans - both the government and their fellow citizens - tolerating their beliefs is a very, very good idea.

 

[Iori]

Ah, but would that even happen in this case?

Yes, Americans have been racist since the founding of the country, and even in the modern day a large minority still are, and with a case of even more non-'white'* states, theirs a very good chance they'd extend the disenfranchisement even longer.


*Which is ridiculous given Northern Mexico is the Whitest part, with 70%+ of their ancestors being European, though of course this was a time where Americans only considered Northern Europe and Anglo-Scottish as White.

 

[Kidblast]

Is there a Mexican state that has a higher per capita GDP than the poorest American state? If not, then you pretty much have your answer as to whether Baja would be better off in the USA or in Mexico.

Considering the poorest American state, Mississippi has a GDP per capita that is TWICE that of the richest Mexican state, Neuvo León, I'd say that Baja would have most likely been better off in the USA.

 

[Elfwine]

Is there a Mexican state that has a higher per capita GDP than the poorest American state? If not, then you pretty much have your answer as to whether Baja would be better off in the USA or in Mexico.

No, you don't.

 

[Zuvarq]

Is there a Mexican state that has a higher per capita GDP than the poorest American state? If not, then you pretty much have your answer as to whether Baja would be better off in the USA or in Mexico.

Mississippi's GDP per capita is 32.9k; Distrito Federal's GDP per capita is 22k.

 

[Kidblast]

Mississippi's GDP per capita is 32.9k; Distrito Federal's GDP per capita is 22k.

And the next actual "State" is Neuvo León with about $16,000 per capita.

 

[Kidblast]

No, you don't.

If you have a good answer for why Baja would be so much poorer than every other American state, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

[Elfwine]

Mississippi's GDP per capita is 32.9k; Distrito Federal's GDP per capita is 22k.

Source?

If you have a good answer for why Baja would be so much poorer than every other American state, I'd be interested in hearing it.

If you have a good answer for why it wouldn't be, I'd be interested in hearing it first.

Because otherwise, you're essentially arguing that somehow being part of the US would make it richer, even if nothing changes.

 

[Zuvarq]

Source?

Does Wikipedia count?

US States by GDP

Mexican States by GDP

 

[Tallest Skil]

If you have a good answer for why Baja would be so much poorer than every other American state, I'd be interested in hearing it.

You're joking, right? This is where "because it's part of the united freaking states" truly comes into play.

YES. INHERENTLY, it will be better off. If this isn't blindingly obvious to you by virtue of what the US is compared to Mexico, look at a map of the GDP of the US and Mexico. The richest Mexican states BY FAR are the… drumroll… BORDER states with the US.

 

[Kidblast]

Source?



If you have a good answer for why it wouldn't be, I'd be interested in hearing it first.

Because otherwise, you're essentially arguing that somehow being part of the US would make it richer, even if nothing changes.

US aid from the Federal Government. Increased stability for business. Less corruption. A more functional judiciary. No Mexican revolution. No rule by the PRI.

Basically, why are Northern Mexican states poorer than the American states on the border.

 

[Kidblast]

You're joking, right? This is where "because it's part of the united freaking states" truly comes into play.

YES. INHERENTLY, it will be better off. If this isn't blindingly obvious to you by virtue of what the US is compared to Mexico, look at a map of the GDP of the US and Mexico. The richest Mexican states BY FAR are the… drumroll… BORDER states with the US.

That quote was directed at Elfwine, not you.

 

[Elfwine]

US aid from the Federal Government. Increased stability for business. Less corruption. A more functional judiciary. No Mexican revolution. No rule by the PRI.

Basically, why are Northern Mexican states poorer than the American states on the border.

See, it wasn't so hard to actually give reasons instead of just insisting that somehow the US would magically make everything better.

Zuvarq: No.

 

[AYC]

I'm going to have to agree with Elfwine on this whole debate. While it's true the USA is, overall, a better place to live than Mexico IOTL, that could change drastically with the addition of the Baja.

Zuvarq, for someone who's as anal about butterflies as you are, you seem to be assuming a lot of things stay the same. How do we even know the US will turn out even remotely similar to OTL? Saying there would be an interstate highway through the Baja is like saying there would be one through the Maritimes if they were part of the original US in 1783.

For all we know, the additional territory could be a tipping point, and America could collapse under the issue of slavery and the weight of the territories. IOTL the Wilmot Prosivo was a key igniting factor in the Civil War; ITTL, it's equivalent could very well end the USA with the addition of more potential slaveholding land.

-AYC

 

[Elfwine]

I don't think it would go so far as a collapse, but at most it being better off is a possibility, not a certainty.

For instance, if it becomes just part of (Alta) California, then it's quite easily an underdeveloped part of the state (given what drew people to California isn't going to be located around here).

It might bloom when OTL Southern California did, or not.

I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but it's not infeasible.

 

[Porthos]

Trying to get away from the better off/worse off debate, just getting Baja Calfornia could lead up to four states being added, eventually. I haven't read How the States Got Their Shapes (though I keep meaning to), but I have read Lost States. And I was struck by how California was already almost split in two at the time. Currently, Baja is comprised of two Mexican states. Given the right butterflies, I could see three or four states coming out of Alta and Baja California (four being Alta and Baja both being split in two - three being a Upper/Middle/Lower type split [with different names of course]). Which, as noted, might postpone the Civil War a presidential cycle or two (due to more slave states being potentially admitted).

Which leads to all sorts of dominoes down the line. Or maybe Baja California remains a territory for a good while. But even there, the pressures over slavery would enter the equation.

 

[Iori]

-snip-

Baja is very unlikely to be split into two, it'd either end up as its own state, or california would be split with Baja being attatched to the Southern one.

IOTL it was'nt split until 1930 as is.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Given the right butterflies, I could see three or four states coming out of Alta and Baja California (four being Alta and Baja both being split in two

That wouldn't have happened; too much representation for too little population.

Shapes talks only about a single split. South California (with that name covering either only Baja or Baja+SoCal) and North California would have been pretty close in size, and that's the idea.