Baja california in the U.S
- Thread starter Redem
- Start date
Phenabob said:
That would have changed the culture there and in parts of Florida.
The Mists Of Time said:
the space program had really that impact of floridan culture?
and oh yeah when I was talking about Baja California I was including Sur (the division was only came much later. therefore all the penninsula would be into the u.s
Thinking of it, if any conflict would happen with Mexico, the Sonora region would be way more succeptible to annexation.
Two cents....
both Baja and Alta are initially annexed as terr. following Mexican American War. Territorial division remains at that time the Spanish colonial and Mexican administrative division which puts San Diego in Baja I think.
After the Gold rush the North is admitted as a state but slavery is extended to the southern Terr. as a sop to Southern interests. The Southern States could lobby at that time to move the border between North and South California somewhat futher north so that at least the Lower Colorado Valley of Northern California and the Los Angeles Basin are part of the Southern Terr. This would likely be opposed by Northern States as it has the potential to create a strong pro- Slavery element on the west coast. Even so, Southern California is still likely to draw some southern planters to the terr. to develop the lower Colorado and San Diego-Tijuana agricultural regions more fully. It shouldn't exceed though the Southern interests in New Mexico I would think. However, perhaps more Pro-southern interests could develop in the south of North California by the time of the Civil War. Given that the terr of S.C. has no contiguous border with any of the suceeding states, like Kentucky, it will likely not join the Confederacy. That will likely only occur if the Confederacy looks to be successful in its bid for independence and if they can secure New Mexico. The Confederate sympathizers in New Mexico are probably a bit stronger TTL so lets say you have a couple of more significant battles there that make the History books than OTL, but in the grand scheme of things Union forces in the west are probably going to be still more powerful and eventually will prevail. The Terr. of S.C because it is at the end of the SP Railway will result in an emigration of people to San Diego that probably allows the Terr. to become a state sometime in the late 1880's or early '90's. Settlement will be largely in the North... but with the capital resources of the US. SoCal (Baja) will develop far earlier than OTL much along the line of the development of the actual So.Cal in OTL.
Perhaps the Film industry develops in San Diego instead of LA. or it is divided between the two cities with rival Film studios.
Space program will still probably develop launch facilities in Florida. It is far easier to recover launch vehicles using the USN from the Atlantic. A failure of an early launch vehicle from a site in So.Cal is likely to fall on Mexico and have disasterous results diplomatically and from a litigatious point of view.
Now for giggles, given all the various Victorious CSA scenarios around... So Cal Terr. votes to suceed once the Confederate rebels have secured N.Mex. ( obviously a prerequisite if So Cal where to even consider succeeding) Sporadic fighting between pro-confederacy and Pro union forces ensue in the southern portions of North California. The peace treaty giving independence to the Confederacy gives them a slice of Southern North California, say the 35th parallel to the Tehachapi to the Coast mts south to to the headwaters of the Santa Clara and thence to the Pacific. The terr. is annexed to SoCal along with the Santa Barbara and the Santa Catalina Islands. It is admitted as a Confederate State at that within a few years of that treaty. Provided the Confederacy tolerates Maximillian on the Mexican throne they should be able to buy Sonora and Chihuahua at some point in the '90's if they can scrape the funds together, perhaps with loans from French bankers. French Diplomacy will probably be key in ensuring that the CSA does not consider a military adventure against Maxy. Besides...should the CSA do that, that would give the USA a reason to intervene, and I doubt that an independent CSA would want that.
Britain probably remains the dominate interest in Hawaii this TL as The US will be pre-occupied with countering Confederate influence in the Caribbean and an enduring Maximillian empire in Mexico. The Phillipines probably remains Spanish ( most likely)or falls to Germany (sale) or Japan ( conquest or sale or perhaps a protectorate following a Phillipine rebellion against Spain, with or without one of the European powers...Hmm..Germany or France or Britain are the best bets in that case). Not sure if this affects the Open door policy in China.
both Baja and Alta are initially annexed as terr. following Mexican American War. Territorial division remains at that time the Spanish colonial and Mexican administrative division which puts San Diego in Baja I think.
After the Gold rush the North is admitted as a state but slavery is extended to the southern Terr. as a sop to Southern interests. The Southern States could lobby at that time to move the border between North and South California somewhat futher north so that at least the Lower Colorado Valley of Northern California and the Los Angeles Basin are part of the Southern Terr. This would likely be opposed by Northern States as it has the potential to create a strong pro- Slavery element on the west coast. Even so, Southern California is still likely to draw some southern planters to the terr. to develop the lower Colorado and San Diego-Tijuana agricultural regions more fully. It shouldn't exceed though the Southern interests in New Mexico I would think. However, perhaps more Pro-southern interests could develop in the south of North California by the time of the Civil War. Given that the terr of S.C. has no contiguous border with any of the suceeding states, like Kentucky, it will likely not join the Confederacy. That will likely only occur if the Confederacy looks to be successful in its bid for independence and if they can secure New Mexico. The Confederate sympathizers in New Mexico are probably a bit stronger TTL so lets say you have a couple of more significant battles there that make the History books than OTL, but in the grand scheme of things Union forces in the west are probably going to be still more powerful and eventually will prevail. The Terr. of S.C because it is at the end of the SP Railway will result in an emigration of people to San Diego that probably allows the Terr. to become a state sometime in the late 1880's or early '90's. Settlement will be largely in the North... but with the capital resources of the US. SoCal (Baja) will develop far earlier than OTL much along the line of the development of the actual So.Cal in OTL.
Perhaps the Film industry develops in San Diego instead of LA. or it is divided between the two cities with rival Film studios.
Space program will still probably develop launch facilities in Florida. It is far easier to recover launch vehicles using the USN from the Atlantic. A failure of an early launch vehicle from a site in So.Cal is likely to fall on Mexico and have disasterous results diplomatically and from a litigatious point of view.
Now for giggles, given all the various Victorious CSA scenarios around... So Cal Terr. votes to suceed once the Confederate rebels have secured N.Mex. ( obviously a prerequisite if So Cal where to even consider succeeding) Sporadic fighting between pro-confederacy and Pro union forces ensue in the southern portions of North California. The peace treaty giving independence to the Confederacy gives them a slice of Southern North California, say the 35th parallel to the Tehachapi to the Coast mts south to to the headwaters of the Santa Clara and thence to the Pacific. The terr. is annexed to SoCal along with the Santa Barbara and the Santa Catalina Islands. It is admitted as a Confederate State at that within a few years of that treaty. Provided the Confederacy tolerates Maximillian on the Mexican throne they should be able to buy Sonora and Chihuahua at some point in the '90's if they can scrape the funds together, perhaps with loans from French bankers. French Diplomacy will probably be key in ensuring that the CSA does not consider a military adventure against Maxy. Besides...should the CSA do that, that would give the USA a reason to intervene, and I doubt that an independent CSA would want that.
Britain probably remains the dominate interest in Hawaii this TL as The US will be pre-occupied with countering Confederate influence in the Caribbean and an enduring Maximillian empire in Mexico. The Phillipines probably remains Spanish ( most likely)or falls to Germany (sale) or Japan ( conquest or sale or perhaps a protectorate following a Phillipine rebellion against Spain, with or without one of the European powers...Hmm..Germany or France or Britain are the best bets in that case). Not sure if this affects the Open door policy in China.
Last edited:
You made a very interesting take 
Well IIRC the C.S.A was able to take New Mexico during the ACW. So if there able to make a slave state out Southern California, if lobbied properly, it could make neighoring New mexico one too. let's say that southern planters move along the mexican border speeding up New Mexico transformation into a state (and into a slave one) by the the time of the ACW.
Well IIRC the C.S.A was able to take New Mexico during the ACW. So if there able to make a slave state out Southern California, if lobbied properly, it could make neighoring New mexico one too. let's say that southern planters move along the mexican border speeding up New Mexico transformation into a state (and into a slave one) by the the time of the ACW.
Redem said:You made a very interesting take
Well IIRC the C.S.A was able to take New Mexico during the ACW. So if there able to make a slave state out Southern California, if lobbied properly, it could make neighoring New mexico one too. let's say that southern planters move along the mexican border speeding up New Mexico transformation into a state (and into a slave one) by the the time of the ACW.
Well I wasn't aware that the Confederates did that well in N. Mex but hey... you gotta have a victorious CSA remember which I think is a bit of a stretch...it does make things more interesting. It changes the political landscape in Nth Am significantly.
As I posted earlier, the CSA can probably buy parts of Maxy's Empire certainly if they can raise the cash....of course he has to have a reason to sell too. Outright buying Sonora and Chihuahua or perhaps even Northern Coahuila is going to require a lot of foreign financial backing. Will the CSA want to go so far into debt to foreign bankers. Mind you they could probably swing something smaller themselves. An analog to the Gadson purchase would probably not be out of the question that includes the terr. of Sonora north of the Concepcion R. It would provide a stronger more contiguous connection to SoCal.
On the reduced presence for the US in the Pacific (it would still be there in the form of commercial interests of course) because of a political focus closer to home. Continued Spanish control of the Phillipines appears most likely. A Phillipine insurrection wouldn't be too much of a stretch, not sure when it would occur though. Lets say it does and you get joint intervention to establish a protectorate, make it tripartite just to make things interesting, along the lines of Guiana. The south (Mindinao) to Britain, the north (Luzon) to Japan and the centre Islands could remain with Spain, though its likely the Spanish would get kicked out completely, which would colour things significantly in Europe...or not, if they were compensated appropriately. So suppose this third protectorate goes instead to say France or better, Germany....in this latter case, the Germans are looking to expand in the Pacific, and it gives them more rational for buying the remainder of the Spanish islands in the Pacific from Spain. This would alter the strategic situation come WWI in the Pacific, let alone Nth Am., but not sure it would change the overall alliances in The far East. Should the Central powers still lose...France simply replaces the Germans in the central Phillipines. Should they win, then perhaps the Americans displace either the Brits or the Japanese, assuming The Americans line up with the Central powers... not a sure thing of course. Of course perhaps the CSA and the USA are both neutral.. or the CSA/Mexico support France and the USA is neutral, or the USA supports the Central powers and Britain is neutral, or perhaps you have an Anglo-German alliance as opposed to a Anglo-French. that results in a CSA-France- Mexico alliance opposed to and Anglo-American one in North America.
ah, so many different permutations here....It can go quite a few different ways....personally I like the Anglo German alliance with the USA neutral or allied to the Anglo-Germans as it gives no reason for the Yanks to invade the Canucks, which to my mind appears way too often in AH. Besides, that will ensure you get 3 major industrial states in North Am, perhaps four.
Last edited:
Alaska?
All this speculation, admittedly just for the mere speculationof it, got me thinking about the positon of Alaska in a victorious CSA scenario that includes SoCal. Would the US still buy it?
It was opposed in OTL, but I am not certain where that opposition was centred, if in the northern states, would that opposition be strengthened enough, that the sale falls through and the terr. remains for a time anyway in the hands of the Tsar.
Assume this the case if you like, Alaska could remain Russian up to the Russo-Japanese War or WWI possibly. Alternatively, the Tsar was short of cash, and the Crimean War demonstrated its possible vulnerability, so he will stillprobably look for someone to buy it at some point. The most logical then would be to sell it to Britain or the dominion of Canada in exchange for at least some minor cosmetic concessions on the Treaty of Paris ending that war. the best time would then be during the Franco-Prussian War. the French preoccupation with Germany will make the Brits more open to compromise as they cannot enforce the provisions of the Treaty of Paris by themselves. So say the Tsar sells to the Dom. of Canada in say 1871/72. in exchange...the Russians are allowed to rebuild their fleet in the Black Sea and to re-assume a protectorate over the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire jointly with the other European powers. Provisions regarding the Straits remain unchanged, not sure the Brits would aquiece to allowing the passage of Russian Warships to the med., let alone the Sultan., then again, perhaps internationalisation of the straits and their demilitarization would be the price to pay to get the deal done.
All this speculation, admittedly just for the mere speculationof it, got me thinking about the positon of Alaska in a victorious CSA scenario that includes SoCal. Would the US still buy it?
It was opposed in OTL, but I am not certain where that opposition was centred, if in the northern states, would that opposition be strengthened enough, that the sale falls through and the terr. remains for a time anyway in the hands of the Tsar.
Assume this the case if you like, Alaska could remain Russian up to the Russo-Japanese War or WWI possibly. Alternatively, the Tsar was short of cash, and the Crimean War demonstrated its possible vulnerability, so he will stillprobably look for someone to buy it at some point. The most logical then would be to sell it to Britain or the dominion of Canada in exchange for at least some minor cosmetic concessions on the Treaty of Paris ending that war. the best time would then be during the Franco-Prussian War. the French preoccupation with Germany will make the Brits more open to compromise as they cannot enforce the provisions of the Treaty of Paris by themselves. So say the Tsar sells to the Dom. of Canada in say 1871/72. in exchange...the Russians are allowed to rebuild their fleet in the Black Sea and to re-assume a protectorate over the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire jointly with the other European powers. Provisions regarding the Straits remain unchanged, not sure the Brits would aquiece to allowing the passage of Russian Warships to the med., let alone the Sultan., then again, perhaps internationalisation of the straits and their demilitarization would be the price to pay to get the deal done.
David S Poepoe
Banned
It seems that alot of you ignore the fact that California, as a Mexican possession, was free of slaves. It wouldn't matter if a divided South California (unlikely on any day of the week) was 'earmarked' as 'slave state' since the slaveholders would be in the minority. In the event of the War Between the States there would be two Californias staying loyal to the Union.
Actually there were many times that the British threatened to enforce the terms of the Treaty of Paris by themselves - they can make short work of any Russian naval presence.
Actually there were many times that the British threatened to enforce the terms of the Treaty of Paris by themselves - they can make short work of any Russian naval presence.
David S Poepoe said:
putting aside the fact that there were no slaves in the Californias under mexican administration, what happens in the Californias after annexation is really determined only by the competing interests of the northern and southern states. These will come to a head when it comes time for California to enter the Union as a state.
Prior to annexation, Alta and Baja were separate. Given that New Mexico was divided and there were plans to have Texas divided into as many as 4 states, it seems unlikely that the two would be joined into a single terr. It is more likely that American administrations would simply replace their Mexican counter parts. However, even so if it were joined as a single state. southerners would probably insist on a reimposition of the previous division between north and south in 1850. Call it the California compromise, a continuation of the Missouri Compromise of the previous generation and at least giving the Southerners a hope that more slave states might eventually enter the union from the West.
Was slavery officially banned from the territories, I am not exactly sure on that point. I am thinking not.
As to the British imposing unilaterally the terms of the treaty of Paris...Yes they could most probably do so and most probably would threaten to do so. this was suggested as a possible alternative only to a a victorious CSA scenario where the purchase of Alaska does not occur. With France occupied by Prussia would the political will be there in Britain to enforce the treaty's terms if the Tsar was offering to sell Alaska to them or if the Dominion was courting the Russians to sell it to it to them and the Tsar requesting concessions on some of the terms of the treaty of Paris. Probably not. The concessions I suggested change little the strategic situation in the short term in the region and the British Empire stands to gain by the addition of Alaska to the Dominion. All this really does is re-militarise the Black Sea a little earlier than OTL though it may have significant consequences when the Balkan conflicts of the 1870's flare-up. Even so it will take time for the Russians to build up their fleet there, so it probably changes little in the short term.
See my post concerning the split of California... in the war between states it is likely that California as two states do stay loyal due to their speration, andDavid S Poepoe said:
SouCal is probably still a territory at this point. (probably likely to stay so if they express slavery sympathies after the CSA has already suceeded and their is not enough people to justify entry...) CSA probably as their territory, but can't enforce it, and maybe there is a minor revolt put Californian Millitia....
I doubt if it goes through that way. I mean the USA tends to draw its own adminstration lines. NorCal becomes a state with the gold rush, but you have to wait someetime for SouCal which doesn't really pick up the tide until after the Continetial Railroad is complete...and then again during the dust bowl saga.AuroraBorealis said:
Othniel said:
I would agree that the US would tend to draw its own lines but it would be to draw smaller administrative units, not reintegrating them.
Slavery itself would have been barred from the western terr. that doesn't mean you couldn't have some pro-southern interests transplanted there by the time of the civil war...but as I originally posted there would not be a vote for sucession unless the CSA had secured New Mexico and they looked to be achieving their goal for independence and southern interests were influential in the terr. this is a very long string of "ifs" So yes it is most likely that SoCal would remain part of the US if annexed along with the Mexican cession.
This was simply prompted by all the victorious CSA TL's out there.
Mind you the Gadsen purchase could be larger in TTL you still might not get outright purchase of Sonora, Chihuahua or parts of Coahuila but you could probably easily add in the NW of Sonora so that Arizona terr. gets a short coastline and port at Puerto Pinasco on the G. of California. the overall price would probably not be much more...and the Price per Sq.mi would probably be less overall. Mexico after all does not need to maintain the land connection to Baja do they.
Regarding aministrative division, given the great size of the combined region once the population started to swell and after the arrival of the railroads in the north and south...there would probably be calls to divide it into two states at the very least ( Central valley in the north, Baja and Colorado/ Los Angeles Basin in the south. One has to ask then, if that occured ...would that preserve the Aquifer of the Owens valley from exploitation by a water starved LA., curbing its growth some what.
Wendell said, "Not every slave area seceeded, remember."
A very good example is Maryland. While Maryland was a slave state, it chose to remain in the Union.
I don't think having Baja or having any or all of the territory talked about in this thread would have changed the Civil War in any significant way.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the two most important factors in the North winning the Civil War were,
1. The military stratagy of the Union generals especially Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan wageing modern total warfare, destroying railways and foundries so the South couldn't make weapons, burning crop fields so Southerners had no food, destroying the South's ability to wage war or to continue fighting.
2. The North had the industrial might. The North had many many more foundries and factories than the South, these were not attacked by the Confederates, thus the North had far more ability to make and keep on making weapons to continue fighting.
Given the geography, people, and industrial capacity of any of Mexico at least in OTL at that time, I can't see that it would have made much difference. Yes Confederate holdouts could have holed up in some of those areas and continued some fighting for a time. Some of the territory like Baja, area offered but not accepted in the Gadsden Purchase, etc might have gone Confederate, some might also have gone Union, so that might have balanced each other out.
What I'm really getting at is, given the North's two biggest strengths that really were major factors in the Civil War, military stratage and total modern warfare, and industrial capacity to keep churning out guns and canons and other weapons, I don't see how just having more land such as Baja California would have significantly changed the Civil War or its outcome.
A very good example is Maryland. While Maryland was a slave state, it chose to remain in the Union.
I don't think having Baja or having any or all of the territory talked about in this thread would have changed the Civil War in any significant way.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the two most important factors in the North winning the Civil War were,
1. The military stratagy of the Union generals especially Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan wageing modern total warfare, destroying railways and foundries so the South couldn't make weapons, burning crop fields so Southerners had no food, destroying the South's ability to wage war or to continue fighting.
2. The North had the industrial might. The North had many many more foundries and factories than the South, these were not attacked by the Confederates, thus the North had far more ability to make and keep on making weapons to continue fighting.
Given the geography, people, and industrial capacity of any of Mexico at least in OTL at that time, I can't see that it would have made much difference. Yes Confederate holdouts could have holed up in some of those areas and continued some fighting for a time. Some of the territory like Baja, area offered but not accepted in the Gadsden Purchase, etc might have gone Confederate, some might also have gone Union, so that might have balanced each other out.
What I'm really getting at is, given the North's two biggest strengths that really were major factors in the Civil War, military stratage and total modern warfare, and industrial capacity to keep churning out guns and canons and other weapons, I don't see how just having more land such as Baja California would have significantly changed the Civil War or its outcome.
Well IIRC the C.S.A was able to take New Mexico during the ACW.
uh, no. They tried, won a couple of battles, got stomped in a third one, and retreated to TX....
uh, no. They tried, won a couple of battles, got stomped in a third one, and retreated to TX....
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Othniel said:
Are we talking about the Mexican-American war? The one in 1845? If so, then apparently anything short of annexation is minimal by your standards. Jeebus, we took over half the country. Truly, without annexing them outright, how much more could we take? (well yes, we could have taken Baja but maybe that's why we didn't , who wanted it?)
Compared to what we could have taken and got away with. We all know we at least needed a large precentage of the California coast. There are people that would have taken Sinola northwards, and they were all in the south...there were those that wanted little to do with that war, Henery David Theorou, and there were those in the middle. Concievably We could take everything north of Monterray, seeing as it was mostly Indian Country...rather than mixed Europeans.NapoleonXIV said: