Which territories that the US never actually acquired were ever on the radar of US expansionists?

Oct 2014
1,227
California
#32
Baja California

William Walker, and adventurer, planned conquering Baja and Sonora and making them a slave republic. His party was defeated

During the US-Mexico war, the purpose was adquring Baja California, which was effectively occupied. However, by the treatyf of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, American troops left the area
William Walker was familiar with Lousiana law (allowing slavery) but there is nothing I recall reading that indicated he was in favor of slavery or that was any reason at all for his quest. Baja California is mostly desert and mountains. The small area near the Colorado River Delta is the only cotton-growing region. I have some books, but in general, the data on Wiki is good:
William Walker (filibuster) - Wikipedia
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,806
SoCal
#33
William Walker was familiar with Lousiana law (allowing slavery) but there is nothing I recall reading that indicated he was in favor of slavery or that was any reason at all for his quest. Baja California is mostly desert and mountains. The small area near the Colorado River Delta is the only cotton-growing region. I have some books, but in general, the data on Wiki is good:
William Walker (filibuster) - Wikipedia
So, he appears to have been an expansionist without any particular loyalty to slavery--which is good to hear. Frankly, I've have been tempted to support him but I really wouldn't want to piss Mexico off even more by doing this. The US should have taken both Baja California and Sonora from Mexico back in 1848 if this was actually doable back then, though.
 
Oct 2014
1,227
California
#34
So, he appears to have been an expansionist without any particular loyalty to slavery--which is good to hear. Frankly, I've have been tempted to support him but I really wouldn't want to piss Mexico off even more by doing this. The US should have taken both Baja California and Sonora from Mexico back in 1848 if this was actually doable back then, though.
Out of curiosity, why? Baja California would seem strategic but why Sonora? I am so glad we didn't keep Baja in 1848 as it would have been all paved over and none of the adventures so many have experienced or "Baja Proven" products or off-road racing may have ever come about.
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,710
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
#35
So, he appears to have been an expansionist without any particular loyalty to slavery--which is good to hear. Frankly, I've have been tempted to support him but I really wouldn't want to piss Mexico off even more by doing this. The US should have taken both Baja California and Sonora from Mexico back in 1848 if this was actually doable back then, though.
Out of curiosity, why? Baja California would seem strategic but why Sonora? I am so glad we didn't keep Baja in 1848 as it would have been all paved over and none of the adventures so many have experienced or "Baja Proven" products or off-road racing may have ever come about.
Many Americans thought that the USA acquired too much land in Polk's administration.

General Sheridan once wrote that if he owned Hell and Texas, he'd live in Hell and rent out Texas.

General Sherman had a dim view of Arizona and New Mexico, which had terrible hot climates and were infested with trouble making Apaches. He often recommended that the USA should give Arizona and New Mexico back to Mexico, and once suggested fighting another war with Mexico to force Mexico to take Arizona and New Mexico back.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,806
SoCal
#37
Many Americans thought that the USA acquired too much land in Polk's administration.

General Sheridan once wrote that if he owned Hell and Texas, he'd live in Hell and rent out Texas.

General Sherman had a dim view of Arizona and New Mexico, which had terrible hot climates and were infested with trouble making Apaches. He often recommended that the USA should give Arizona and New Mexico back to Mexico, and once suggested fighting another war with Mexico to force Mexico to take Arizona and New Mexico back.
Which other prominent US politicians, generals, and other people wrote about this, and when? I know that Ulysses S. Grant was likewise critical of the US war against Mexico in his 1885 memoirs.

Out of curiosity, why? Baja California would seem strategic but why Sonora? I am so glad we didn't keep Baja in 1848 as it would have been all paved over and none of the adventures so many have experienced or "Baja Proven" products or off-road racing may have ever come about.
I'd annex Sonora for the coastline and also to even out the border a bit. Plus, it would give some additional room for the Tuscon metropolitan area to expand to the south if it will ever actually need it.
 
Oct 2014
1,227
California
#38
One of the arguments the Mexican negotiators held was that if the long finger of Baja California was part of the United States in front of their coast (Sonora and Sinaloa) was somewhat insulting. Thinking it mostly a desert wasteland, our negotiator did not insist on keeping Baja... We were happy to have San Diego Bay and some distance south of it. Mexico was given the Colorado Delta and enough solid ground to be attached to the Baja Peninsula.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,806
SoCal
#39
One of the arguments the Mexican negotiators held was that if the long finger of Baja California was part of the United States in front of their coast (Sonora and Sinaloa) was somewhat insulting. Thinking it mostly a desert wasteland, our negotiator did not insist on keeping Baja... We were happy to have San Diego Bay and some distance south of it. Mexico was given the Colorado Delta and enough solid ground to be attached to the Baja Peninsula.
At least the northwestern part of Baja California would have been nice to have since it would have allowed us to expand the San Diego metropolitan area even further southwards:

Mapping Population Density Across the Globe