Make California Independent and a Somewhat Significant Power
- Thread starter AmericanAdam
- Start date
The most realistic POD I can think of is well after your 1790 cutoff: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9138739&postcount=6
Of course, much of it was scarcely inhabited by non-Indians [1] as late as the 1840s, making it hard to hold onto in competition with US settlers (including those wacky Latter Day Saints).
[1] To take a quote from the link given earlier:
Was there ever a region better designed by Nature for separate geopolitical existence than Alta California--a land so distinctive and attractive, set apart by the great unbroken wall of the Sierra Nevada backed by desert wastelands,
Those "desert wastelands" are most of the area of Alta California.
[1] To take a quote from the link given earlier:
Was there ever a region better designed by Nature for separate geopolitical existence than Alta California--a land so distinctive and attractive, set apart by the great unbroken wall of the Sierra Nevada backed by desert wastelands,
Those "desert wastelands" are most of the area of Alta California.
Not saying there isn't. But can a fledgeling California hold hold back the demographic and political weight of the US long enough to settle and develop the area? (OTL, with the resources of the US behind the issue, really serious work on controlling the flow of the Colorado river with dams didn't really start until the 1920s, I think). I think we need an early POD for a California to hold onto that much territory.
Edit: my point in the previous post was that even a guy who seems enthused with the idea of California as an independent state doesn't seem to think the eastern two thirds of the area are a natural part of "California proper."
It could be Independent if the Comanches manage to force recognition from Mexico/USA/UK. But... I wouldn't hold my breath on it. After all, even though the Comanchería had a vast "Empire" encompassing the "wild west", I never even knew they had their own country of sorts until I read the book "The Comanche Empire".
A rather dubious idea, but maybe have some form Dutch refugees loyal to the Spanish come and settle after the 80 years war. Maybe even set up some form of land grant system to the "wild geese" later on for loyal service to the Spanish. Just spit balling here.
What about a religious minority like the Mormons immigrating from the U.S or even when the U.S was still a bunch of colonies earlier the the when the Mormons did in otl? The settle the region and eventually fight a war of of independence like Texas. Perhaps they get British support so as to act as a counter weight to the U.S.
Before 1790 would be tough because of the small population of colonists and settlers. The eventual wave of American immigrants also makes it tough to keep California independent, but if the Californios and their British settler friends rebel in the late 1830s or early 1840s then it might be easier. Also, President Henry Clay or a surviving President W.H. Harrison.
Maybe California could try and get into the UK's sphere of influence, probably under a sort of military aid for preferential trade rights deal. I doubt the US government would want to invade California if doing so would bring the world's largest empire down on it.
Wouldn't be hard, plenty of guys in the British Foreign Office wanted California and English settlers held more sway among the Californios before 1845.
Do you mean 1750?
I think focusing on individual presidents is a bit iffy: after all, their successors in office may come in with very different ideas. Of course, if What To Do About California becomes a serious bone of contention between Northerners and Southerners, that may give it some breathing room until the North-South dispute is resolved (most likely but not inevitably in a *Civil War).
The British already have one hostage to fortune in North America in the form of Canada: do they want another one? (It strikes me that the UK was in no mood for further disputes with the US after the war of 1812: note the very favorable border the US got west of the Great Lakes, reducing Livable Canada to a pretty narrow east-west strip).
Bruce
I think focusing on individual presidents is a bit iffy: after all, their successors in office may come in with very different ideas. Of course, if What To Do About California becomes a serious bone of contention between Northerners and Southerners, that may give it some breathing room until the North-South dispute is resolved (most likely but not inevitably in a *Civil War).
The British already have one hostage to fortune in North America in the form of Canada: do they want another one? (It strikes me that the UK was in no mood for further disputes with the US after the war of 1812: note the very favorable border the US got west of the Great Lakes, reducing Livable Canada to a pretty narrow east-west strip).
Bruce
Saphroneth
Banned
I'm sure the UK was in no mood for further disputes; however, they'd fight if pushed. Trent is just one example of that.
TFSmith121
Banned
1790 is too early; 1850 is far too late...
1790 is too early; 1850 is far too late...
Alvarado's rebellion in 1836-37 is, possibly, abbout as close as one can get to the sweet spot; Mexico independent but unable to deploy and sustain forces to California, and the US still too far away, but with enough trade developing by sea to New England to sustain some sort of California economy. That also gives enough time, possibly, between independence and the gold rush for the independent republic to establish itself before the flood of emigrants.
Still chancy, however, simply because of proximity.
Best,
1790 is too early; 1850 is far too late...
Alvarado's rebellion in 1836-37 is, possibly, abbout as close as one can get to the sweet spot; Mexico independent but unable to deploy and sustain forces to California, and the US still too far away, but with enough trade developing by sea to New England to sustain some sort of California economy. That also gives enough time, possibly, between independence and the gold rush for the independent republic to establish itself before the flood of emigrants.
Still chancy, however, simply because of proximity.
Best,
...because it led to war in various AH timelines?
Putting California under British protection is in any case not a matter of fighting if pushed, but taking a deliberate provocative step. Of course, if the Californians decide they want to stay independent, the threat of shacking up with the Brits might be usefully deployed as a negotiation tactic with the US government.
Saphroneth
Banned
No, because...because it led to war in various AH timelines?
There is no doubt that all nations are aggressive; it is the nature of man. There start up from time to time between countries antagonistic passions and questions of conflicting interest, which, if not properly dealt with, would terminate in the explosion of war. Now, if one country is led to think that another country, with which such questions might arise, is from fear disposed on every occasion tamely to submit to any amount of indignity, that is an encouragement to hostile conduct and to extreme proceedings which lead to conflict. It may be depended on that there is no better security for peace between nations than the conviction that each must respect the other, that each is capable of defending itself, and that no insult or injury committed by the one against the other would pass unresented. (Lord Palmerston, HC Deb 17 February 1862 vol 165 c393).
And because the Trent affair involved an official war warning, an ultimatum which it was made clear was a final ultimatum before war, and so on. And one where the US were the ones to release the envoys and back down.
To be clear - it is not an indication that the British would provoke the US (though they did that - such as the boarding crisis of 1858). It's an indication that the British were not automatically going to back down in the name of avoiding disputes.
Before 1790? Have the gold in California discovered 100 years earlier, somewhere around 1745. Spain immediately moves in to develop the area.
and either:
1) as the area is too far from Mexico City to be ruled from there, make the region a proper colony with its own viceroy and ties to the Spanish holdings in the pacific (the Philippines) as well as Mexico and the Pacific colonies in Columbia. These ties reflect themselves in different patterns of immigration and culture and by the time the Spanish empire crumbles California is culturally and ethnically distinct from Mexico. It will have its own revolution and become a proper independent state. As it is well established by the time the US looks to the west of the Mississippi, it is never thought of as part of the 'Manifest Destiny' to settle the country From sea to shining sea'. California having a perfect natural border consisting out of the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Arizona desert will help as well. In fact, this timeline's version of Manifest Destiny could very well be "From the snowy mountains to the shining sea"....
2) California stays a part of Mexico and is strongly bound into the cultural and ethnic fabric of the Viceroyalty. However after the Mexican revolution the region becomes increasingly difficult to govern from Mexico City, particularly with the presidency descending into a chaotic game of musical chairs with strongmen like Santa Anna. Eventually like Texas, California will revolt and form its own state. Unlike Texas, it will have enough gold and human resources to avoid Texas' descent into bankruptcy and eventual takeover by the US. The fact that California has its own natural borders as opposed to Texas being just down the coast from New Orleans does count for something as well.
Variation 2a: California could follow a policy of US/European immigration similar to Texas so the two regions face similar grievances with the Mexican strong-arm government and eventually similar independence movements in the 1830's. Eventually California, Texas and the territories in-between revolt as one and, bankrolled by Californian gold instead of Yankee family ties, the new republic of Meso-America is far less US centered. Although there have always been pro-union sentiments in both the southern republic and the US, these were never big enough for a full-out annexation but more an expression of shared culture like between the US and Canada. I don't know if this is enough to butterfly away 'Manifest Destiny', but if Canada has been able to keep its independence, then may be Texo-California could too.
Last edited: