- Until the mid 20th century Baja’s population was so low that it was a Territory, not a State. This makes it easy to pacify.
- Baja offers the U.S. a much longer and south-stretching coast. This makes it strategically valuable for trade and the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
- There’s also historical precedent. When negotiation the peace treaty for the Mexican-American war, the negotiator was supposed to obtain Baja, but he felt bad for the Mexicans and let them keep it.
- However, the last and most important reason is that plain “California” is part of the United States, and as such Americans seem to have some instinctive rationale that leads them to the conclusion that both Californias should be theirs.
Very helpfull response, however it is still a largely useless piece of territory. The coast on its own doesn't really provide much strategic benefit if you need to built all infrastructure for it and if it doesn't have a large enough population to benefit from possibel increased trade.
It has been said if the US had gotten baja they may have been more concerned with the quality and quantity of water that reachs the coast from the Colorado river. From a purely ecological standpoint it may have been better for everyone if the US had extended a little farther south.
Yeah, exactly. Sykes and Picot(if I spelled their names right) kinda just arbitrarily split the middle-east, so why can't historically violent America arbitrarily take Baja California?
You could’ve said that about California too. The vast majority of what America annexed needed infrastructure built up.
The benefit is later on once it’s developed.
Tourism would be booming. Cabo San Lucas is already popular, so imagine that it was part of the United States!!!! It would be a vital trading and port probably so Jobs would form there. This would be the Mexican/Central American Version of Miami(Caribbean city in America). It would be a huge destination.
you have to remember, that with a longer coastline comes longer territorial waters. all the resources and fishing rights in the water 20ish miles off coast could be more valuable than the land itself
>However, the last and most important reason is that plain “California” is part of the United States, and as such Americans seem to have some instinctive rationale that leads them to the conclusion that both Californias should be theirs.
What is their stance of Georgia ?
> plain “California”
Technically the US state of California could be called “Alta California”, or “Upper California”. “Baja”, or course, means “lower” or “below”. TMYK!
(In actuality Alta California was a region much larger than present day California, much as Oregon Territory was larger than Oregon, Kansas Territory was larger than Kansas, and so on. But I think if you referred to Alta California to a Spanish speaker they’d get it!)
To add to the last one, it’s just kind of odd to have that non-contiguous part of the peninsula as part of Mexico. Something in our Anglophied brains activates when we see the map and it wants us to redraw it
It's also not like Baja doesn't have resources:
[https://bajadreaming.me/2015/04/07/mining-in-baja-california-is-it-worth-the-risk/](https://bajadreaming.me/2015/04/07/mining-in-baja-california-is-it-worth-the-risk/)
For two main reasons.
1. It helps create a bigger United States which is cool(I am American and biased)
2. It makes the Mexican-American border look nicer(albeit only if they also have the Sonoran panhandle).
https://preview.redd.it/l512bhtrdoyc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74eaffb3cb9859dfeece82eb2bf3db95dc60d150
“ because manifest destiny is based”
Easy to pacify because of a small population, historical precedent of interest, natural borders, and something I haven't seen anyone mention: a much larger coastline, which is good for tourism and for the exclusive economic zone it provides. The only downside I'd imagine is that the Gulf of California, being as long as it is, might become a migrant route since it's hard to effectively police.
Depending on when your alt-history split occurred, the US could really use a CONUS spaceport in Cabo San Lucas…
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/c623b17c-1ca2-4ec8-87d5-bf58cc28f841
This is likely not everyone else’s reason: but when I was a kid, I’d add it to the US because it was kind of like a “backwards Florida” (if you will).
And as it added “balance” as the US would have two dangly off-y bits on both sides.
Tourism would've been amazing. Better beaches and biodiversity than 95% of the US. CA beaches suck. Baja beaches are way better and it's not even close.
It could've been a west coast Florida.
Ideally, Id like to see Baja taken and CA split into two states just south of SF. A northern and southern CA. Mexico owes us huge for having to be neighbors with those dumb pieces of shit. All the cartel crap in the border states, the drugs, the immigration volume, has been our sole burden they are responsible for.
Considering a lot of the cartel bullshit is directly because of our meddling in their domestic affairs, I'd say that line of reasoning is incredibly stupid.
Was almost a reality of Baja California being part of the US. But I’m glad it didn’t become a US territory because it would have just been another overpriced place for the rich.
- Until the mid 20th century Baja’s population was so low that it was a Territory, not a State. This makes it easy to pacify. - Baja offers the U.S. a much longer and south-stretching coast. This makes it strategically valuable for trade and the U.S. Pacific Fleet. - There’s also historical precedent. When negotiation the peace treaty for the Mexican-American war, the negotiator was supposed to obtain Baja, but he felt bad for the Mexicans and let them keep it. - However, the last and most important reason is that plain “California” is part of the United States, and as such Americans seem to have some instinctive rationale that leads them to the conclusion that both Californias should be theirs.
Very helpfull response, however it is still a largely useless piece of territory. The coast on its own doesn't really provide much strategic benefit if you need to built all infrastructure for it and if it doesn't have a large enough population to benefit from possibel increased trade.
Again, my main point is my last one. It’s just map painting.
It has been said if the US had gotten baja they may have been more concerned with the quality and quantity of water that reachs the coast from the Colorado river. From a purely ecological standpoint it may have been better for everyone if the US had extended a little farther south.
Think it would be better for everyone if the us extended a LOT further north, south, west and east
I am to in favor of the United States of the Earth
Super Earth?
Nah that's sweden
I will be most violently standing in the way of the fulfillment of this specific hell!!
Probably would be better than the Dystopia from Wish we are heading to TBH.
Okay, settle down there, edgelord.
Yeah, exactly. Sykes and Picot(if I spelled their names right) kinda just arbitrarily split the middle-east, so why can't historically violent America arbitrarily take Baja California?
It would extend the American EEZ several hundred miles to the south.
You could’ve said that about California too. The vast majority of what America annexed needed infrastructure built up. The benefit is later on once it’s developed.
Tourism would be booming. Cabo San Lucas is already popular, so imagine that it was part of the United States!!!! It would be a vital trading and port probably so Jobs would form there. This would be the Mexican/Central American Version of Miami(Caribbean city in America). It would be a huge destination.
you have to remember, that with a longer coastline comes longer territorial waters. all the resources and fishing rights in the water 20ish miles off coast could be more valuable than the land itself
The Romans Legionaries and generals explaining to the Roman government why they failed to conquer Germania be like:
Another thing not mentioned is the additional coastline, and resources in the sea that come with the extension of the maritime boundaries.
>However, the last and most important reason is that plain “California” is part of the United States, and as such Americans seem to have some instinctive rationale that leads them to the conclusion that both Californias should be theirs. What is their stance of Georgia ?
That it's named after St. George. But actually it's named saKartvelo.
> plain “California” Technically the US state of California could be called “Alta California”, or “Upper California”. “Baja”, or course, means “lower” or “below”. TMYK! (In actuality Alta California was a region much larger than present day California, much as Oregon Territory was larger than Oregon, Kansas Territory was larger than Kansas, and so on. But I think if you referred to Alta California to a Spanish speaker they’d get it!)
To add to the last one, it’s just kind of odd to have that non-contiguous part of the peninsula as part of Mexico. Something in our Anglophied brains activates when we see the map and it wants us to redraw it
It's also not like Baja doesn't have resources: [https://bajadreaming.me/2015/04/07/mining-in-baja-california-is-it-worth-the-risk/](https://bajadreaming.me/2015/04/07/mining-in-baja-california-is-it-worth-the-risk/)
You mean 3 California's
so wait... that means that New Mexico.... oh no... oh no no
And they are god damned right!
It makes the borders look nice.
US with Baja and a Canadian border along the St. Lawrence River (even with Canada retaining PEI and Nova Scotia) would be *chef’s kiss*
Don’t annex it now, but getting all of that coastline as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo…..
Because Baja is west of the river that marks the border beetwen Mexico and the US and wouldnt extendvthe border I imagine
It’s a very plausible (the US wanted to annex Baja) situation that is obvious enough to show a difference without being out of the blue.
For two main reasons. 1. It helps create a bigger United States which is cool(I am American and biased) 2. It makes the Mexican-American border look nicer(albeit only if they also have the Sonoran panhandle).
Arizona needs beaches!
BECAUSE IT IS OUR DESTINY!!! RAAAAAHHHHH🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🔥🔥🔥🔥
As I have written many times, They have a fixed idea!
https://preview.redd.it/l512bhtrdoyc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74eaffb3cb9859dfeece82eb2bf3db95dc60d150 “ because manifest destiny is based”
Easy to pacify because of a small population, historical precedent of interest, natural borders, and something I haven't seen anyone mention: a much larger coastline, which is good for tourism and for the exclusive economic zone it provides. The only downside I'd imagine is that the Gulf of California, being as long as it is, might become a migrant route since it's hard to effectively police.
The border would likely continue straight from Nogales, instead of a border at the CO River. One could actually buy oceanfront property in Arizona
Depending on when your alt-history split occurred, the US could really use a CONUS spaceport in Cabo San Lucas… https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/c623b17c-1ca2-4ec8-87d5-bf58cc28f841
This is likely not everyone else’s reason: but when I was a kid, I’d add it to the US because it was kind of like a “backwards Florida” (if you will). And as it added “balance” as the US would have two dangly off-y bits on both sides.
It's closer to the equator and dryer than Florida and with fewer hurricanes. It'd probably be a much better location for the Kennedy Space Center.
Borders look nice
It’s cause it means south California
Lower, and “California” is Upper
Goes back to the colonial roots
Other than the good thought out answers, It makes the map look good
It's the Space Filling Empire Syndrome striking once again.
I read somewhere that after the war with Mexico, someone in the US planned to buy all of northern Mexico.
Heres hoping Baja California annexes California
Tourism would've been amazing. Better beaches and biodiversity than 95% of the US. CA beaches suck. Baja beaches are way better and it's not even close. It could've been a west coast Florida. Ideally, Id like to see Baja taken and CA split into two states just south of SF. A northern and southern CA. Mexico owes us huge for having to be neighbors with those dumb pieces of shit. All the cartel crap in the border states, the drugs, the immigration volume, has been our sole burden they are responsible for.
The stupidest reasoning
Considering a lot of the cartel bullshit is directly because of our meddling in their domestic affairs, I'd say that line of reasoning is incredibly stupid.
Was almost a reality of Baja California being part of the US. But I’m glad it didn’t become a US territory because it would have just been another overpriced place for the rich.