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

[jycee]

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.

Can we stop using this as an excuse to rip Mexico apart. Neither did the US at this point - its going to get ripped in two soon after because of it.

Yes, the ranchos in the north mostly wanted to continue life as is - and where somewhat more independent/individualistic minded than their cousins in central Mexico. But judging by how strong a fight Monterrey, and Victoria both placed against incoming Americans, I'd say they disliked the gringos with greater fervor than the Mexican government - usually the bouts were directed at Santa Anna and his lackeys, not the Federalist or Liberal leaders.

There is a similar situation in Los Angeles were a rebellion almost cost Stockton his foothold in San Pedro. and what about the Taos Revolt in New Mexico.

Look these up and stop using American high-school textbooks as sources please. Even Wikipedia will tell you differently.

Just because a few corrupt leaders willingly surrender to the US, in an effort to remain in power under new sponsorship, as was the case with Vallejo in California and Armijo in New Mexico.

Puebla which is in Central Mexico, openly declared neutrality in the conflict. And not because there wasn't a collective identity but because Santa Anna was back in power and Scott - smart as he was - paid the governor and bishop a hefty amount.

 

[Blackfox5]

There is a very little reason to think why an American Baja California won't develop along the lines of the rest of the United States. I don't understand the logic of people who think otherwise, unless it's a case of people being overly pedantic and needing everything explained to them instead of using their own imagination or intelligence to fill in obvious gaps.

Baja California will develop in the same way the other American territories gained by Mexico were. US citizens will move there and establish US institutions including the rule of law, democratic government, and business practices. Territorial, state, and US federal government will invest in basic infrastructure and education. All of this greatly changes how Baja California will develop as part of the USA instead of Mexico.

Per capita US GDP is around $48,000. Mexico is around $10,000-$15,000 depending if you want to use nominal or PPP. The Baja penninsula per capita GDP is between $6000-$8000. So even if Baja California performs as bad as the worst US state, we are seeing a 4-5 times increase in GDP. If it tracks average, it is 6-8 times.

It won't have an ex-slave population that will be neglected and oppressed. It won't be landlocked, but will instead have easy access to seatrade. It has a pleasant Mediterranean climate which will attract people even before the age of air conditioning. Even those parts that aren't technically Mediterranean will still be coastal. There is a much higher chance the state will achieve Californian per capita GDP (around $61,000) than the poorer US states, which is 7-10 times it is currently.

If there is a reason to think that Baja California won't develop similarly over time, I can't think of one. If there is something obvious I am missing, I'll gladly hear it.

 

[Elfwine]

There is a very little reason to think why an American Baja California won't develop along the lines of the rest of the United States. I don't understand the logic of people who think otherwise, unless it's a case of people being overly pedantic and needing everything explained to them instead of using their own imagination or intelligence to fill in obvious gaps.

(snip.)
If there is a reason to think that Baja California won't develop similarly over time, I can't think of one. If there is something obvious I am missing, I'll gladly hear it.

Let's say Baja is part of California. It'll be just a part of California, possibly neglected by the rest of the state.

All this development will only happen if people with an interest and the ability actually do it, which is not inevitable. Not every coastal area in the US got a major port right off. Not everyone is going to agree that a Mediterranean climate is wonderful - especially in the days when "does it have timber?" is a more important question.

Picking average California GDP per capita and ignoring variations between - for instance - Colusa and San Francisco - is just a bad idea.

 

[Nugax]

If there is a reason to think that Baja California won't develop similarly over time, I can't think of one. If there is something obvious I am missing, I'll gladly hear it.

Its extremely arid, and unlike Southern California is much further from trappable irrigation sources in the rockies.

Unlike Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico, it is not between anywhere useful or possesses much in the way of exploitable resources. It has very few places suitable for port infrastructure south of San Diego.

It will be better off under the US thanks to federal investment and tourism/holiday homes, but its not going to be much better. I'd say outside gated communities it will probably be among the poorest of US states ala New Mexico or Idaho.

All the people who say point to regions heavily populated Hispanics being brought into the united states should be mindful of region that was; and Puerto Rico is 2/3rds the per capita wealth of Mississippi.

 

[Blackfox5]

Let's say Baja is part of California. It'll be just a part of California, possibly neglected by the rest of the state.

California is already huge, and the issue of neglect that you mentioned is a major reason Congress won’t admit everything as one state. It is almost a certainty that the peninsula – perhaps with San Diego or even more of southern California – will become its own territory and later state. I consider this issue to not be important at all.

All this development will only happen if people with an interest and the ability actually do it, which is not inevitable. Not every coastal area in the US got a major port right off. Not everyone is going to agree that a Mediterranean climate is wonderful - especially in the days when "does it have timber?" is a more important question.

This argument is just silly. The northern half of the penninsula has great agricultural value. The region is known for producing citrus fruits and grapes. It produces 90% of Mexico’s wines. It’ll do well enough and attract people who want to farm there. It also has extensive mineral resources and rich in fisheries. You even have timber in the Sierra Juárez and San Pedro Mártir pine-oak forests. As for ports, you have two excellent natural ports on the penninsula - one in the north (San Diego) and one in the south (La Paz).

Great weather, abundant food, and extensive resources will attract plenty of people there.

Picking average California GDP per capita and ignoring variations between - for instance - Colusa and San Francisco - is just a bad idea.

Well, I didn't cherry pick California GDP per capita, as you and everyone else reading this thread very well knows. I gave three different numbers for comparison, the worst, average, and used California for the best. Even the worst figure is several times better than the real numbers today.

Its extremely arid, and unlike Southern California is much further from trappable irrigation sources in the rockies.

The south of the penninsula and eastern coast is extremely arid, but not all of it. The north has a Mediterranean climate. There are multiple mountain valleys well suited for agriculture with its own springs and which collects mositure from the Pacific. The Colorado River is available for irrigation.

Unlike Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico, it is not between anywhere useful or possesses much in the way of exploitable resources. It has very few places suitable for port infrastructure south of San Diego.

Its geographic isolation is a disadvantage, but not an insurmountable one. The "best" part of the penninsula with the richest resources is easily accessible. Once a railroad is built down the penninsula, much of that isolation will disappear. And La Paz, Baja California Sur is an excellent port. It will never become a major one because of its isolation, but is more than adequate to serve the needs of the southern penninsula.

And as for mineral resources, the penninsula has them. There was a gold rush there in the 1850s and 1880s. Its mines contain copper, zinc, manganese, phosphates, and other valuable minerals. The area saw significant international mining investment under the Porfiriato. Again, plenty of attraction there.

It will be better off under the US thanks to federal investment and tourism/holiday homes, but its not going to be much better. I'd say outside gated communities it will probably be among the poorest of US states ala New Mexico or Idaho.

Well, being even a poor US state would be vast improvement over today. Raising per capita GDP from $6000 to $32,000 isn't something to laugh at. Most likely, there will be a gap between the per capita gdp of southern Baja (perhaps at the MS/NM levels, but I think even that is too pessimistic) and that of the northern (probably more like southern California).

All the people who say point to regions heavily populated Hispanics being brought into the united states should be mindful of region that was; and Puerto Rico is 2/3rds the per capita wealth of Mississippi.

You are just wrong here. The Baja penninsula was not full of hispanics in 1848. Population is very low. Demographically, the Baja California penninsula will be settled in similar ways to how California was settled and become easily majority white while the native Mexicans assimilate as they did in California and elsewhere.

 

[Basilisk]

. . . why?

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

...Except federal infrastructure projects, like the interstate highways...

 

[MalcontentRex]

Because nowhere in America is blighted by violent crime and poverty. In Capitalist America, EVERYONE is well off.

Even assuming the US manages to keep control of this area, I wouldn't count on it.

Would you rather raise a family in San Diego or Baja California?

 

[ScorchedLight]

I approve of the US annexing Baja. That way it wouldn't just look like a fish, but specifically a Catfish.

 

[jycee]

Would you rather raise a family in San Diego or Baja California?

How rich am I and what neighborhood/city? Baja is a big ass place. What's wrong with raising a kid in Cabo or La Paz? Or Ensenada? Hell if you were born and raised in San Carlos what problem will their be with raising your kid to be fisherman like you in the village.

It is stupid asshole comments like this that get people riled up in this site. We get it! The US is developed and developed at an incredible unmatched pace. Yes! The economy, GDP, and lively hood of a Mexican state would be better off if it had been in the US rather than in OTL's Mexico. The Mississippi vs Nuevo Leon is a good case - yes Mississippi's GDP is almost 2x the size of Mexico richest state - but I'd rather raise my kid in Monterrey Nuevo Leon than Jackson Miss any time. And you are talking to someone who moved from Mexico City to the States.

Yes if Baja fell to US hands it will be more developed and development will start sooner than OTL. But it would be something like Nevada in OTL - without the silverboom. Baja has little to no land of use. San Diego would be its largest port and capital (most likely). And its way up north! It is also likely to be a much smaller city in TTL since it won't be in near the border and has lost some military prominence. Baja will be a tourist destination for the most part, with some fishing industry in the Sea of Cortez. And that is that. It won't even have a population to be its own state till very late. Unless it is attached to a state of Southern California; where Los Angeles / San Pedro will remain the major city/port.

Finally it is more interesting to see how this state of Southern California would affect US policies and politics than arguing about the development of the area.

Also because this is ALTERNATE HISTORY there is no way to know if the absence of Baja could butterfly some of the major Mexican instability afterwards, being beaten more badly, and eliminate the many following bad administrations. And at the same time Baja might create a catalyst in the US with an earlier and successful souther secession.

The story can go many many ways. And you can end up with an "island Baja" in a fucked up US.

 

[Nugax]

You are just wrong here. The Baja penninsula was not full of hispanics in 1848. Population is very low. Demographically, the Baja California penninsula will be settled in similar ways to how California was settled and become easily majority white while the native Mexicans assimilate as they did in California and elsewhere.

Sorry should have been clearer that was in reference to the people in the thread talking about the eastern areas of northern mexico, not Baja.

I think your being optimistic on the things going for a US Baja over it remaining with Mexico. Especially the Colorado especially is not an infinite resource, and Baja will be the bottom of the chain in terms of access. Plus why would a railroad be built any time soon considering the terrain and the lack of markets?

 

[naraht]

Population question

Does anyone have access to the population numbers for the Mexican States and Territories in the 1830s or early 1840s? What I'm trying to do is find out is what the population of the Mexican Territories like California relative to Sonora and such. I'd love to get a easily boiled down response like "taking Sonora would have tripled (or whatever) the population of Mexicans taken by the United States"

Also, if possible, I'd love to get a feeling for what percentage of the population of the territory of New Mexico had any European Blood...

 

[Zuvarq]

Does anyone have access to the population numbers for the Mexican States and Territories in the 1830s or early 1840s? What I'm trying to do is find out is what the population of the Mexican Territories like California relative to Sonora and such. I'd love to get a easily boiled down response like "taking Sonora would have tripled (or whatever) the population of Mexicans taken by the United States"

Also, if possible, I'd love to get a feeling for what percentage of the population of the territory of New Mexico had any European Blood...

Almost all the 'New Mexicans' were descended from Spanish colonists. So all non-natives.

 

[Elfwine]

California is already huge, and the issue of neglect that you mentioned is a major reason Congress won’t admit everything as one state. It is almost a certainty that the peninsula – perhaps with San Diego or even more of southern California – will become its own territory and later state. I consider this issue to not be important at all.

Why is Congress so concerned again? The issue of neglect coming up will only occur to people after it's been problematic, since "the state doing X" isn't going to be something "the state of California" will be doing a lot of right off the bat.

Not enough to it to do something.

This argument is just silly. The northern half of the penninsula has great agricultural value. The region is known for producing citrus fruits and grapes. It produces 90% of Mexico’s wines. It’ll do well enough and attract people who want to farm there. It also has extensive mineral resources and rich in fisheries. You even have timber in the Sierra Juárez and San Pedro Mártir pine-oak forests. As for ports, you have two excellent natural ports on the penninsula - one in the north (San Diego) and one in the south (La Paz).

Great weather, abundant food, and extensive resources will attract plenty of people there.

And yet despite this the area is below the Mexican average, which suggests that all of this isn't nearly as good as it sounds like.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I think that's rather important - if this area has so much potential, why did it do so badly under Mexican rule relative to other Mexican states?

Well, I didn't cherry pick California GDP per capita, as you and everyone else reading this thread very well knows. I gave three different numbers for comparison, the worst, average, and used California for the best. Even the worst figure is several times better than the real numbers today.

No, you didn't. I'm pointing out that state-wide GDP varies significantly, so we can't say that it would resemble California average.

I don't know how much say, Mississippi GDP varies within the state.

My bad for not being clearer here - I was more concerned with "overgeneralizing" than "cherrypicking".

It might well do as well as you predict. It's certainly possible - but saying that "US rule means that these are taken advantage of because only Mexico would fail to do so." is . . .

kind of disturbing.

And what Nugax noted. It would be nice to see a way to compare average income (more relevant to the lot of the people than GDP) in a way that acknowledges the fact the peso-dollar exchange rate and cost of living.

Bit complicated, but if someone can do that, I'd be a very happy - and thankful - camper.


Basilisk: Except that those are not "every state is entitled to one". The interstate highways were not built to ensure every state had a highway or three.

MalcontentRex: Is "neither" an option? I've never lived south of where I live now (and haven't traveled much in Southern California or in Baja at all), so I know of San Diego and what it's like only by reputation.

And speaking for myself, if I was going to pick where to raise a family, I'd pick around here (from my memory of it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benicia,_California

Which, incidentally, is an example of how a perfectly nice location can fail to live up to its potential - there's no reason why Sacramento makes a better capital, but Sacramento did better at getting it than Benicia and the rest is history.

Not that Benicia is a lousy place, but it's basically an oversized small town and near-suburban/bedroom community place.

But as relates to your question, that's why I'd want to raise a family there. It isn't riddled with crime, it is near - even if it isn't itself - several cities with Stuff (including my favorite city in the state), and the weather . . .

well, I don't like it, but for purposes of the question, the weather's fine. I'm just intolerant of summers that aren't basically like a warm spring.

 

[JJohnson]

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.

Per capita income in Mississippi: $32,000 (2011), from: http://www.statsamerica.org/profiles/sip_index.html

 

[Elfwine]

Per capita income in Mississippi: $32,000 (2011), from: http://www.statsamerica.org/profiles/sip_index.html

Interesting, thanks.

Not the same as per capita GDP though.

Anyone know of something like that for Mexico, if we're using that for the US?

 

[Alamo]

Does anyone have access to the population numbers for the Mexican States and Territories in the 1830s or early 1840s? What I'm trying to do is find out is what the population of the Mexican Territories like California relative to Sonora and such. I'd love to get a easily boiled down response like "taking Sonora would have tripled (or whatever) the population of Mexicans taken by the United States"

Also, if possible, I'd love to get a feeling for what percentage of the population of the territory of New Mexico had any European Blood...

This website has some info on Mexican state populations going back to the early 1800s, though I cannot attest to its accuracy.

http://www.populstat.info/Americas/mexicop.htm

 

[Blackfox5]

Sorry should have been clearer that was in reference to the people in the thread talking about the eastern areas of northern mexico, not Baja.

Understood. I agree with you that the heavier populated areas in the main part of Mexico - if annexed - will prove more difficult to assimilate.

I think your being optimistic on the things going for a US Baja over it remaining with Mexico. Especially the Colorado especially is not an infinite resource, and Baja will be the bottom of the chain in terms of access. Plus why would a railroad be built any time soon considering the terrain and the lack of markets?

The amount of water that can be taken from the Colorado River for each state will eventually be decided by a state compact - just as it was in IOTL. At minimum, it will get the amount of water currently allocated to Mexico today under treaty. Most likely, that will be boosted as a US possession meaning an even greater agricultural bounty.

You are probably correct on the anytime soon. Northern Baja will likely be connected quite early. A penninsula railroad will take more time. But during the post-Civil War railroad boom, I can't see a situation where a regional railroad won't be built. It'll go bankrupt of course - just like many other railroads - but it'll exist and be bought by someone else who will manage it. In the meantime, maritime trade will probably work fine.

 

[Blackfox5]

Why is Congress so concerned again? The issue of neglect coming up will only occur to people after it's been problematic, since "the state doing X" isn't going to be something "the state of California" will be doing a lot of right off the bat.

Not enough to it to do something.

Congress is concerned about establishing territorial borders, dividing them into more territories as their population increases, and agreeing to their statehood because this is one of the jobs of Congress.

If Congress split Kansas and Nebraska, and the Dakotas into two territories, then it is highly likely to split California (Alta and Baja). OTL California was almost split at the 35th parallel at the request of southerners. With the addition of the entire Baja penninsula, I think it would be a very hard sell to not split up California. Alta California under the 35th parallel doesn't amount to much, so I can see why Congress admitted everything together and comprosmied on other areas to satisfy the southerners. With the Baja penninsula added, I think the most likely course of action is to split it off. Maybe the 35th isn't the boundary and they push it further south, but they are going to split the territory in two.

And yet despite this the area is below the Mexican average, which suggests that all of this isn't nearly as good as it sounds like.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I think that's rather important - if this area has so much potential, why did it do so badly under Mexican rule relative to other Mexican states?

You can look at a ranking of Mexican state GDP here. Baja California and Baja California Sur are not at the bottom. They are ranked 9 and 10 out of 31 (be sure to click on Per Capita GDP instead of the rankings based on GDP alone). Please note though that they are showing higher values (around $11,000) than the numbers I earlier quoted. List dates from 2007 before the crash, so that may be part of it. Please note that even if my original figures (between $6000-$8000) are used, it puts them smack dab in the middle with half of Mexico's states more poor.

In other words, there is nothing about the Baja Penninsula that condemns it to poverty or underperformance. It can do quite well.

No, you didn't. I'm pointing out that state-wide GDP varies significantly, so we can't say that it would resemble California average.

I don't know how much say, Mississippi GDP varies within the state.

My bad for not being clearer here - I was more concerned with "overgeneralizing" than "cherrypicking".

Understood, and of course within Baja California (as a US state) there will of coursed be wide discrepancies, just as there are in all existing US states. So I'm not quite sure what your point here is. If some areas are more poor, than other areas will be richer. Given the wealth of southern California, there is no reason to think northern Baja will be worse. The southern half will probably lag until AC is invented and then a tourism boom will quickly raise it.

It might well do as well as you predict. It's certainly possible - but saying that "US rule means that these are taken advantage of because only Mexico would fail to do so." is . . .

kind of disturbing.

I understand one wants to avoid the idea that the US has magical powers that simply makes things better because it is the US, and another country is simply hopeless because they aren't. Nevertheless, the US has a proven track record of greatly outperforming Mexico on any number of indicators, and there is no reason why this would inexplicably be stopped if the Baja penninsula became part of the US.

And what Nugax noted. It would be nice to see a way to compare average income (more relevant to the lot of the people than GDP) in a way that acknowledges the fact the peso-dollar exchange rate and cost of living.

Bit complicated, but if someone can do that, I'd be a very happy - and thankful - camper.

Just look at Purchasing Power Parity. You should be able to find figures from any number of websites as long as you are willing to do the work to compile them for yourself. I don't understand what you hope to see from it though that would cause any points I made to be invalidated.

 

[Timmy811]

Its extremely arid, and unlike Southern California is much further from trappable irrigation sources in the rockies.

Unlike Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico, it is not between anywhere useful or possesses much in the way of exploitable resources. It has very few places suitable for port infrastructure south of San Diego.

It will be better off under the US thanks to federal investment and tourism/holiday homes, but its not going to be much better. I'd say outside gated communities it will probably be among the poorest of US states ala New Mexico or Idaho.

All the people who say point to regions heavily populated Hispanics being brought into the united states should be mindful of region that was; and Puerto Rico is 2/3rds the per capita wealth of Mississippi.

Baja California had 12,000 people in 1850, it would be easily overwhelmed by American settlement. If it's part of South California with San Diego as its capital I don't see how it would be comparable to Puerto Rico.

 

[Elfwine]

Baja California had 12,000 people in 1850, it would be easily overwhelmed by American settlement. If it's part of South California with San Diego as its capital I don't see how it would be comparable to Puerto Rico.

What is attracting Americans to Baja over Alta California?