Why Isn't Baja California or Cuba Part of the USA? An Analysis of Historical and Territorial Considerations

Introduction

Many people often wonder why Baja California and Cuba are not part of the United States, given their geographical proximity. This article explores the historical context and territorial considerations that have influenced these decisions, examining the political and strategic reasons behind the current boundaries.

Historical Context of Baja California and Cuba

Baja California

Baja California, despite its close proximity to the United States, remains part of Mexico. The Gadsden Purchase, finalized in 1854, added a portion of southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico to the United States, but the rest of Baja California was not included. The motivation for this purchase was primarily to secure a southern railroad route through the United States, as evidenced by the Gadsden Purchase official text. However, the acquisition of Baja California was not considered due to various geopolitical and practical reasons.

Cuba

During the Spanish-American War, Cuba was briefly under US control through a protectorate agreement in 1898, with a full declaration of independence granted in 1902. The United States decided against annexing Cuba due to several factors, including the desire to avoid a large, Spanish-speaking territory that might be difficult to govern and the potential conflict with Cuban independence movements.

Geopolitical and Strategic Considerations

Geopolitical Impact

The geopolitical impact of acquiring Baja California or Cuba would have been considerable. Cuba's location in the Caribbean and its size would have made it a more strategic possession, but the independence movements in the early 20th century and the economic and political implications would have been complex.

Strategic Importance of Baja California

Baja California, while valuable, is a relatively small territory with undeveloped areas. The strategic importance of acquiring Baja California would have been questionable given the state's limited economic resources and the geopolitical complexity of the region. The need for economic development and the potential military or commercial benefits would have had to outweigh the existing economic disparity with the US.

Historical Slavery Context

The push for territorial expansion in the 19th century was often tied to the issue of slavery. Southern states, proponents of slavery, sought to expand the institution into new territories, but the acquisition of Baja California or Cuba was not seen as a feasible option for this purpose. The strategic importance and economic considerations of these territories were not aligned with the goals of the slavery proponents, leading to inaction in these areas.

Current Considerations and Future Possibilities

Economic Viability

Currently, Baja California has a GDP of approximately $78 billion and a population of around 3.4 million. While this represents a significant economic opportunity, the initial costs of development and potential resistance from Mexico would make the territory challenging to acquire. The economic disparity between Baja California and the US, with per capita GDP rates at $23,000 vs. $56,000, suggests that additional development and investment would be necessary to bring the region up to the US standard.

Geopolitical Dynamics

The geopolitical dynamics of modern Latin America, characterized by regional relations and economic ties, would make any such acquisition complex. The potential economic benefits of a larger market would need to be weighed against the political implications, particularly with respect to Mexico and the broader Latin American region.

Conclusion

The decision to not include Baja California or Cuba within the territory of the United States was a complex and multifaceted issue influenced by historical, economic, and geopolitical factors. While the territories present opportunities and challenges, the strategic and economic considerations have historically outweighed the potential benefits. As such, the current borders remain firm, reflecting the broader geopolitical landscape of the Americas.