Questions about the possible population of a State of South California

The idea behind this is that the US took the Baja California peninsula and everything north of 30 degrees latitude and the Rio Grande after the Mexican-American War, so they now completely control the Colorado River. Then out of OTL California and the peninsula, two states were formed but with different borders than what we have now.

South California includes the OTL Mexican states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, and the OTL California counties of San Diego, Imperial, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, and part of San Bernardino south of 35 degrees latitude. North California is made up of the rest of OTL California. New borders are drawn in red below:

Mexican Border.jpg


So based on these new borders what do you think the maximum population of South California can be now that they don't have such easy access to the water from North California? Going by the current populations of the Mexican States and California counties, the population of this new State would be over 25.3 million. Would it still be this high, or much less?

Also, would South California be accepted for statehood as quickly as North California, and would it have been made a slave state as part of a deal to keep things balanced? Plus, with the new borders there won't be any overland border between Mexico and South California, so how does this affect illegal immigration to this new State, and when you combine that with the possibility of it starting out a slave state what would the demographics look like by now if everything else plays out the same as the OTL?

So basically, what would the demographics of the State of South California be, and what sort of population number could it support?

Mexican Border.jpg
 
The border would be at 38º30', I imagine.

And you can't go by OTL populations for this. You'll need to kick that up by at least few million.
 
The border would be at 38º30', I imagine.

And you can't go by OTL populations for this. You'll need to kick that up by at least few million.

38º30'? That's up to almost Sacramento. Do you mean 36º30' as part of the Missouri Compromise? That would cut across the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Central Valley.
 
One consideration for long-term expansion: politically, how will the two states collaborate (or compete) over water issues?

But for now yeah let's focus on the brass tacks such as how the borders should best be drawn, and free/slave state considerations.
 
One consideration for long-term expansion: politically, how will the two states collaborate (or compete) over water issues?

But for now yeah let's focus on the brass tacks such as how the borders should best be drawn, and free/slave state considerations.

Well I wanted the entirety of the Sierra Nevadas and the Central Valley to be in North California, and having the rest of the border run along 35 degrees north makes a nice point where the States of Arizona, Nevada, North California, and South California meet in the Colorado River.

Wasn't most of the population in the north at the time of admission due to the gold rush, so wouldn't they want to keep the Central Valley all to themselves?
 
38º30'? That's up to almost Sacramento. Do you mean 36º30' as part of the Missouri Compromise? That would cut across the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Central Valley.

I mean to say that since this border's being set pre-Civil War and since we're considering an alternately-minded California that is open to being split, yes, the South is going to flood the land with settlers and get it admitted as a slave state, meaning they're going to take as much land as is legally allowed.

I know where it cuts, and I know that doesn't necessarily work out well, but they're not going to care as much as long as they can administer the land properly. They'll take care of the coast up to 36º30' (thanks for the correction) and then draw the line inward with little consideration.
 
I mean to say that since this border's being set pre-Civil War and since we're considering an alternately-minded California that is open to being split, yes, the South is going to flood the land with settlers and get it admitted as a slave state, meaning they're going to take as much land as is legally allowed.

I know where it cuts, and I know that doesn't necessarily work out well, but they're not going to care as much as long as they can administer the land properly. They'll take care of the coast up to 36º30' (thanks for the correction) and then draw the line inward with little consideration.

I just don't think there would be enough migration of slavers in such a short period of time to have a population significant enough to challenge the population of the north due to the Gold Rush. Do you really think the northerners would allow such a huge chunk of the new territory to go to one State, and a Slave State at that? I think the people up north would have greater say in drawing the borders. So I think we'd have a different Compromise of 1850 allowing North California into the union as a free state with a border below the Missouri Compromise line, and the rest of California and the peninsula being admitted as a slave State.
 
I just don't think there would be enough migration of slavers in such a short period of time to have a population significant enough to challenge the population of the north due to the Gold Rush. Do you really think the northerners would allow such a huge chunk of the new territory to go to one State, and a Slave State at that? I think the people up north would have greater say in drawing the borders. So I think we'd have a different Compromise of 1850 allowing North California into the union as a free state with a border below the Missouri Compromise line, and the rest of California and the peninsula being admitted as a slave State.

I kinda agree with this. Although slaveholders will still feel cheated out as they were given a useless state for their needs (Arizona and New Mexico will likely also be split diffrently than your map but that is another issue).

The population of South California will certainly not be as large as OTL without the water rights. But it's population pre-aqueduct through out the second half of the 19th century will likely be larger than OTL's. For startes it has more territory; the peninsula was ignored by Mexico but in US hands it might draw some investors in the fishing and whaling industries. Secondly, there will likely be an initial rush of immigration, consisting of slaveholders (and their slaves) trying to maintain it as a slave state. On the coast, the weather is good enough while agriculture and ranching would still be profitable that it is unlikely they will leave.

It will also likely still be able to achieve statehood alongside Northern California, at the start of the goldrush the populations were more-or-less equal. Even if within months Nothern Cali surpassed it by far. But still Los Angeles was a town of 1,600+ at the time of the Mex-American war, and San Diego a relatively important port, that will still be an important stop for many going north.

So population growth would be slightly larger than OTL until the early 1900s. Then it levels off for a while and stays lower than OTL but ultimately there is renewed interest in the region (oil in the region is a good reason). It experiences a boom in the later half of the 20th century as part of the sunbelt and is forced to work together with NorCal and the other states sharing the colorado river for some water grants. Still it's population remains lower than the equivalent area in OTL. Because of the aforementioned reasons and less migration from Mexico into the Tijuana and Mexicali area (they are no longer border towns).

I would expect it to be a state with slightly over 10-12 million by 2012.
 
Top