Annexing north Mexico 1800s

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The main reason Polk accepted the treaty is that he doubted he could get the Senate to approve a treaty that took more, especially since he needed the votes or abstention of at least a couple Whigs to approve it.

There was an effort in the Senate to amend the treaty to gain more territory, but it was soundly defeated for the same reason.  However, if the Senate had been two-thirds Democratic, then likely Polk would have tried for more territory.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Baja California Sur still isn't densely populated, so why not throw that in, too? Mexico didn't even give them statehood until 1974.

Believe it or not the Mexicans were able to keep us Gringos out of southern Baja during the Mexican War, mainly because for us it was a sideshow far removed from any supply lines.  In any case, it was thought to be worthless desert.  What is surprising is that we didn't use the Mexican border between Alta and Baja when it came time for the treaty.  Mainly that was because we weren't certain if San Diego was north or south of that border and we definitely wanted San Diego for its harbor.  However, if we had used the Mexican border between the Californias, Tijuana would be a US city with its suburb of Rosarito Beach being the Mexican border city.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Baja California Sur still isn't densely populated, so why not throw that in, too? Mexico didn't even give them statehood until 1974.

Believe it or not the Mexicans were able to keep us Gringos out of southern Baja during the Mexican War, mainly because for us it was a sideshow far removed from any supply lines.  In any case, it was thought to be worthless desert.  What is surprising is that we didn't use the Mexican border between Alta and Baja when it came time for the treaty.  Mainly that was because we weren't certain if San Diego was north or south of that border and we definitely wanted San Diego for its harbor.  However, if we had used the Mexican border between the Californias, Tijuana would be a US city with its suburb of Rosarito Beach being the Mexican border city.

Tijuana wouldn't have existed: it is where it is because of the border.

While it wouldn't be the same, Tijuana most likely would exist as a suburb of San Diego.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Baja California Sur still isn't densely populated, so why not throw that in, too? Mexico didn't even give them statehood until 1974.

Believe it or not the Mexicans were able to keep us Gringos out of southern Baja during the Mexican War, mainly because for us it was a sideshow far removed from any supply lines.  In any case, it was thought to be worthless desert.  What is surprising is that we didn't use the Mexican border between Alta and Baja when it came time for the treaty.  Mainly that was because we weren't certain if San Diego was north or south of that border and we definitely wanted San Diego for its harbor.  However, if we had used the Mexican border between the Californias, Tijuana would be a US city with its suburb of Rosarito Beach being the Mexican border city.

Tijuana wouldn't have existed: it is where it is because of the border.

While it wouldn't be the same, Tijuana most likely would exist as a suburb of San Diego.

Of Rosarito, surely.

What wouldn't exist is National City.

No, of San Diego, since where Tijuana is would be north of the US-Mexico border in that case.  National City would likely still exist, but South San Diego would be part of Tijuana.  Moving the border a few miles south would not affect San Diego's status as the southernmost major port on the west coast of the United States, so it would still be the major city in the region.