North and South California Question

JJohnson

Banned
Does anyone know the area of California lying either north or south of the 37th parallel (km2 / mi2)? I'm working on a timeline I'm posting soon where this will be the dividing point, since it's also the border of Arizona/New Mexico.

Thanks!
 

Saphroneth

Banned
IMO 36th is more likely due to the Pico Act, which passed the legislature and governor.


  • In 1859, the legislature and governor approved the Pico Act (named after the bill's sponsor Andrés Pico, state senator from Southern California) splitting off the region south of the 36th parallel north as theTerritory of Colorado.[6][7][8] The primary reason cited was the difference in both culture and geography between Northern and Southern California. It was signed by the State governor John B. Weller, approved overwhelmingly by voters in the proposed Territory of Colorado, and sent to Washington, D.C. with a strong advocate in Senator Milton Latham. However the secession crisis and American Civil War following the election of Lincoln in 1860 prevented the proposal from ever coming to a vote.
 
So let's say that gets pushed through and the state is split. The state of Colorado will need a new name, perhaps Columbine after a frequently used nickname (one that maybe won't pick up unfortunate implications in the future since the high school in question probably would refrain from using it.)

Ultimately the two states would grow apart culturally but end up bein similar in many ways - like other west coast states, it would be fairly left-wing, with California itself being much like Oregon or Washington and Colorado walking a line between being about Hollywood culture and being the tough-on-crime three-strikes state. Interestingly, California may oppose a guy like Reagan, since he would be seen as a Coloradan.

Also, the demographics would change quite a bit with two decent-sized but not huge states. Two more Senators would go to Washington (and would there be a fight to keep the number of states at 50 or would pushing it to 51 spur addition beyond that?) This puts the number of EC reps at 540, a small change but one that perhaps would make a difference especially in a squeaker of a contest such as Bush-Gore in 2000. In that case, one measly elector thinking the decision is bogus would throw the election to the House. Or if there's another state, say, Puerto Rico, added before 2000 and it brings the numbers to 542, if PR goes blue, that probably hands the election to Gore, altering American policy after 9/11.

Another fun one goes back to if VA stays Union, perhaps under Lincoln's influence. That means no West Virginia and DC stays nestled in Union territory. Alternatively if MD splits off despite Lincoln's best efforts, we probably have a new capital.
 
I'm not following your math. Every state has at least three electoral votes (two for the Senators and at least one for the Representative). If there are 51 states, would there not be 541 electoral votes?

Total of 435 in the House, and each one corresponds to an EV. We assume that stays the same. Add in three votes for DC. IOTL, there are 100 Senators, meaning 538 EVs. If there are 51 states, the 435 in the House doesn't change; no reason to believe Congress would go with a different number. The number that would change is in the Senate. If there are 51 states, that means 102 Senators. 435 + 102 + 3 = 540.
 
About 30 seconds after I posted the question, I figured it out and deleted it. You're responding to a phantom post!

Incidentally I'd imagine that splitting up California butterflies a large amount of U.S. history and Bush-Gore never happens. Just one example: think of the people OTL from Southern California who attended university at Berkeley, or those from Northern California who went to UCLA - a lot of them are going to go elsewhere TTL, since they won't be able to pay in-state tuition. Now you're talking about a whole bunch of people having entirely different personal destinies.
 
Last edited:
Well, if the Pico proposal goes through earlier (I can't see Lincoln or the Republican Congress approving it, though - Southern California back then was known as pro-South and a Democratic stronghold, though obviously not secessionist) keep in mind that *Colorado is at that time very rural, and Los Angeles a conservative small town. At this time, though, *Colorado would have a larger Spanish-speaking population. If the cattle industry develops like OTL, you might still see LA become prominent starting at the turn of the 20th Century. It'll actually be much more conservative for longer IMO, Hollywood aside (Southern California historically was IIRC, plus the fact that the state is likely more dependent on the oil and cattle industry) though urbanization is likely to shift the state to the left eventually.

Educationally, things might be different - while both California and *Colorado would be land-grant states, somehow I don't think *Colorado is likely to have a university system on the A&M model than the historic UC model.
 
Well, if the Pico proposal goes through earlier (I can't see Lincoln or the Republican Congress approving it, though - Southern California back then was known as pro-South and a Democratic stronghold, though obviously not secessionist).

any way the Pico proposal could be made to happen a couple of years earlier, I'm which case it might have got through a Democratic Congress?
 
any way the Pico proposal could be made to happen a couple of years earlier, I'm which case it might have got through a Democratic Congress?
I suppose. I wonder how Lincoln would treat the state though, given that it was at the time a Copperhead stronghold? IOTL, they had to build forts to stop a feared Southern California uprising from proceeding north.
 
I suppose. I wonder how Lincoln would treat the state though, given that it was at the time a Copperhead stronghold? IOTL, they had to build forts to stop a feared Southern California uprising from proceeding north.

That would be mopped up without much trouble. The State wouldn't be populous enough.

And being a "Copperhead stronghold" wouldn't matter much so far away from the Confederacy. After all, Kentucky, in a far more strategically sensitive location than S Cal, also had plenty of Copperheads (and voted two to one for McClellan), but Lincoln was able to live with it.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That would be mopped up without much trouble. The State wouldn't be populous enough.
Frankly, I'm not so sure. The limiting factor for the US that far out was always small arms, and if California and *Colorado both have 40K small arms then both have 40K soldiers (though it'd be more like 10K or 20K each).
There's no railroad, so to send rifles to the Pacific Slope is to send them around the Horn or across Panama, and either approach is a bit fraught.

Basically, I could see *Colorado holding out until 1865 or 1866, assuming the rest of the war goes as normal... or they could be beaten fairly quickly... or they could, if they got the lion's share of the Pacific Coast small arms, cut off the gold and silver and thus tank the US ecomony pretty horribly, thus benefiting the CSA immensely.
 
Frankly, I'm not so sure. The limiting factor for the US that far out was always small arms, and if California and *Colorado both have 40K small arms then both have 40K soldiers (though it'd be more like 10K or 20K each).
There's no railroad, so to send rifles to the Pacific Slope is to send them around the Horn or across Panama, and either approach is a bit fraught.

Basically, I could see *Colorado holding out until 1865 or 1866, assuming the rest of the war goes as normal... or they could be beaten fairly quickly... or they could, if they got the lion's share of the Pacific Coast small arms, cut off the gold and silver and thus tank the US ecomony pretty horribly, thus benefiting the CSA immensely.


You could be right - providing thee Union holds all the parts where the gold is. That's what makes CA important.

Once that area is secure, they might leave the "cow counties" alone, in which case *Colorado* presumably surrenders in 1865, about he same time as Kirby-/smith and Stand Watie do so.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
You could be right - providing thee Union holds all the parts where the gold is. That's what makes CA important.
Which of my "could be" are you referring to?

I was trying to be pretty clear that (if the *Coloradans are lucky and good) they could block the shipment of gold, at which point the Union's best approach is either to ship about fifty thousand sorely needed small arms west, possibly with soldiers to use them - a net benefit to the Confederacy in the East, especially if those small arms come from the Kentucky campaign or if the Union's able to make less purchases than OTL. OTL they were gagging for small arms, especially good quality ones, and couldn't arm their most important army homogenously with rifles until post-Gettysburg - and without so much gold, purchase becomes harder.
...or to try to win the war without the gold at all.

Frankly this is a pretty good outcome for the Confederacy any road, and it gets better if they do manage to take Sacramento and cut the gold lifeline. Without that the Union's currency may well undergo collapse! (The Union's currency was backed by gold much as the Confederate dollar was backed by cotton, and OTL there was a bank run when Britain looked moderately threatening after Trent so there was hardly a surfeit of confidence.)
 
Top