Realistic Independent California

[Wolpertinger]

Hello, everyone. I'm curious as to what sort of POD would be necessary in order to have a realistically independent California (Bear Flag Republic or otherwise) which could either survive or thrive to present day, maintaining at least present day State of California borders. Bonus points if they have all of Alta California (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Alta_California_(location_map_scheme).svg) and bonus bonus points if you can turn it into a full-on California wank, with the Bear Flag dominating the entire Western Coast.

There's a lot standing in the way, no doubt. One of the largest instigators of the Bear Flag Revolt, John C. Fremont, was an American army major looking to start a pro-American revolt to justify the annexation of that territory into the U.S. Even one of the Mexican generals agreed that annexation by the U.S. was inevitable.

The major problems, I think, though, are population. The Bear Flag Revolt itself was instigated mainly by Anglo-American settlers in the area, and the Californios, for the most part, opposed any sort of revolt, preferring to stay with Mexico. Even if all if the Californios, Anglo-Americans, and Native Americans in the area of Alta California united together in a multi-ethnic nation, which would take some ASB magic on it's own, likely, do even those united peoples have enough population to effectively manage a nation? That's a lot of area to cover, and Alta California was sparsely populated enough at the time.

Even if a newly independent California decided to try to go it's own, would it be successful, or would it just be gulped up by the U.S., Mexico, or even Great Britain, or, more ASB, Russia? Could California play the diplomatic game and use Great Britain and the U.S. against each other? Could the discovery of gold be used as leverage in some way in diplomatic negotiations, until California gets enough of a population to support itself in geopolitics? Theoretically, one could have a POD several decades before independence to encourage more immigration, thus supplying a larger population, but it might be best to see the POD be within the 1840s, or 1830s at most. California has a lot of natural resources, but it needs the population to exploit them in order to be successful.

I admit it's a difficult proposition, but I'm sure there's some way in here to create an independent Californian nation that survives to present day, even if it does start with a dozen or so drunk settlers raising a poorly drawn flag.

 

[Jasen777]

There's probably a way. It seems like Anglo revolt was very likely to occur without the Mexican-American war. If that war is averted then California could do what Texas did. The real problem will be keeping them independent and not wanting to join the U.S. And of course when the gold rush hits the U.S. might just move in anyways.

 

[Wolpertinger]

There's probably a way. It seems like Anglo revolt was very likely to occur without the Mexican-American war. If that war is averted then California could do what Texas did. The real problem will be keeping them independent and not wanting to join the U.S. And of course when the gold rush hits the U.S. might just move in anyways.

Yeah... That's one thing I'm really concerned about. The discovery of a massive gold reserve is going to motivate every major power in the area to find some reason to annex the start-up nation.

Could California have effectively played Great Britain and the U.S. off one another, giving concessions to both (Preferential treatment to Anglo settlers, or whatever) for protection from the other? If we need to throw in an imaginary super diplomat a la Benjamin Franklin, feel free to.

 

[Zioneer]

There's probably a way. It seems like Anglo revolt was very likely to occur without the Mexican-American war. If that war is averted then California could do what Texas did. The real problem will be keeping them independent and not wanting to join the U.S. And of course when the gold rush hits the U.S. might just move in anyways.

If you avoid the war, then you have interesting butterflies with Utah/Deseret; they were already ticked off at the US at the time of the Mormon Exodus, and there won't be the 10 year respite to repair relations (or the Utah War to damage them again). A Utah without the Mexican-American war could join California.

 

[David S Poepoe]

You need a POD before the 1840s, and the earlier the better, to get a realistic independent California.

 

[GeneralInTheShell]

In 1836 have governor Juan Bautista Alvarado decide that he would rather be president of an independent California rather than go for the option of greater Californian autonomy. The American immigrants into the region supported him because they thought he was going to declare independence, but even after he defeated the Mexican he chose not to. If he has a change of heart and agrees with the Anglo-Americans than you've yourself an independent Republic of California. It's still highly probable that it will get consumed once the Anglo-Californian population is larger than the Californio population, but it will have been independent for about as long as Texas.

 

[Wolpertinger]

If you avoid the war, then you have interesting butterflies with Utah/Deseret; they were already ticked off at the US at the time of the Mormon Exodus, and there won't be the 10 year respite to repair relations (or the Utah War to damage them again). A Utah without the Mexican-American war could join California.

How would this affect the internal politics of any independent California (Or I suppose now a West-Coast) nation? How large was the population of Deseret around this time? Enough to be the majority in any unified California/Deseret nation? At least large enough to provide a substantial minority which would likely lobby for conservative religious policies in the legislature?

You need a POD before the 1840s, and the earlier the better, to get a realistic independent California.

Have any suggestions? I think the big thing maybe would be to have the gold rush start early, and thus get more of a population out there. Make sure it's multi-ethnic, consisting of pluralities of Hispanics and Anglos, a decent minority of Russians possibly, and small minorities of other Europeans and Asian ethnic groups. I'm pitching for the multi-ethnic idea only because a single majority ethnic group would result in the nation either not breaking off from Mexico in the first place (Hispanic majority) or seeking to be annexed by the United States (Anglo majority).

In 1836 have governor Juan Bautista Alvarado decide that he would rather be president of an independent California rather than go for the option of greater Californian autonomy. The American immigrants into the region supported him because they thought he was going to declare independence, but even after he defeated the Mexican he chose not to. If he has a change of heart and agrees with the Anglo-Americans than you've yourself an independent Republic of California. It's still highly probable that it will get consumed once the Anglo-Californian population is larger than the Californio population, but it will have been independent for about as long as Texas.

If we have the gold rush occur within the months following this, could we have an independent California receiving a massive influx of immigrants, and thus a greater ability to expand it's industry and military power?

 

[The Majesty]

I've been trying to come up with a TL that ends up with greater Spanish involvement in British Columbia starting with more settlement in the 1770s/80s. A few PoD ideas I've been throwing around include more Russian settlement in that area instigating more Spanish settlement, James Cook dying before he gets to BC, or a better end to the Nootka Crisis. Anyways, I think more Spanish settlement in BC (and, inevitably, along the coast between Mexico and BC), along with a screwed US and/or England sometime around 1770-1820 could lead to an independent California.

 

[J.D.Ward]

Just thinking off the top of my head here, but can California be neutral during the Civil War?

Not neutral on the question of slavery as such, but not prepared to pour men and resources into the bloodbath.

Or are the economic links wioth the Western states already too strong to allow this?

I suspect the replies I get to this depend on people's views on whether the Civil War was really over slavery or secession.

 

[Malta]

Well, technically speaking the US has never outright annexed a White man's Republic without the consent of the people.

 

[Wolpertinger]

Just thinking off the top of my head here, but can California be neutral during the Civil War?

Not neutral on the question of slavery as such, but not prepared to pour men and resources into the bloodbath.

Or are the economic links wioth the Western states already too strong to allow this?

I suspect the replies I get to this depend on people's views on whether the Civil War was really over slavery or secession.

I'm not sure if the Union government would allow California to remain neutral in that sense. California might go the way of Kentucky if it tries. Although, if the Union tries to suppress a state on the other side of the continent, it might find out that power projection in the 1860s, before the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, isn't all that great.

So there's an idea. California demands that it, and any other states and territories in that area (I think Oregon was the only other fully fledged state at the time) not be forced into participating in an "Easterner's War". The Union tries to stamp that out, and the western states and territories secede, using the Rockies as coverage.

How plausible is this? Full ASB?

I've been trying to come up with a TL that ends up with greater Spanish involvement in British Columbia starting with more settlement in the 1770s/80s. A few PoD ideas I've been throwing around include more Russian settlement in that area instigating more Spanish settlement, James Cook dying before he gets to BC, or a better end to the Nootka Crisis. Anyways, I think more Spanish settlement in BC (and, inevitably, along the coast between Mexico and BC), along with a screwed US and/or England sometime around 1770-1820 could lead to an independent California.

Wouldn't a largely Hispanic population just lead to Mexico maintaining California? I mean, sure, we might be able to throw some events into the mix which leads to Hispanic California seceding with the Sonoran Desert and everything north of it, over some issue. Maybe the Gold Rush? Theoretically, a Gold Rush in Hispanic California could lead to the Federal Mexican government pushing for some sort of control over the gold trade in California, leading to a backlash against them. Add maybe a gunning down of anti-Federal protesters in a California city, some other nasty things by the Federal Mexican government, and bam, we've got a secession crisis on our hands.

Well, technically speaking the US has never outright annexed a White man's Republic without the consent of the people.

Well, yeah, but the idea is is to give the Bear Flag Nation some reason to NOT give consent, and to be able to back up it's refusal, either with it's own arms or with the arms of another nation like Great Britain.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Have any suggestions? I think the big thing maybe would be to have the gold rush start early, and thus get more of a population out there. Make sure it's multi-ethnic, consisting of pluralities of Hispanics and Anglos, a decent minority of Russians possibly, and small minorities of other Europeans and Asian ethnic groups. I'm pitching for the multi-ethnic idea only because a single majority ethnic group would result in the nation either not breaking off from Mexico in the first place (Hispanic majority) or seeking to be annexed by the United States (Anglo majority).

If there was a large population base in California in the early 1800s it would most likely be developing its own separate identity from that of Mexico. Historically, California was largely ignored by the government in Mexico City because of the great distance and how hard it was to travel to.

The best POD I've come across involves the settlement of Monterrey Bay about 100 years earlier than it was. The discovery of the bay was made and its recommendation for settlement was made, but nothing was done about it by the Spanish for about 100 years. Monterrey would have been used as a necessary landfall port for the Manila Galleons bearing silver and such from the Philippines. It wouldn't take too long for some Spaniard in the mountains north of the bay to see the southern tip of OTL San Francisco Bay and that eventually a major port would develop there. To bolster a small native indian population the Spanish would bring in Filipinos to help settle the area.

The larger population in the San Francisco Bay area would most likely lead to exploration of the area and expeditions up what would become the Sacramento River and the discovery of gold, perhaps in 1749 (lets say). That should garner you a large diverse population and a population center that could a distant rival to Mexico City.

 

[TFSmith121]

Californio "liberal revolt" in 1836

An independent republic could arise from a stronger Californio "liberal revolt" in 1836, which itself stemmed from California's status as a territory, rather than a department, in the Mexican Constitution of 1824, as well as secularization of the missions...

1836 (rather than 1846) allows for involvement and support by US citizens and interests, but at a time the "Californios" were still strong enough to (presumably) form a criollo elite, since it predates the Gold Rush emigration by a significant period; it also predates the conflicts between the US, Britain, and Russia over the Oregon Country and their various outposts; most importantly, the US border is far enough away in 1836 that a Republica de Alta California probably has a decade or more to gell as a homogenous and "free" society, as required under the Mexican Constution (which doesn't mean the survivors of the indigenous tribes still don't get indentured; this is not that a-historical).

Although having said that, if Alvarado et al are willing to come to terms with Estanislao et al in return for support against the central Mexican government and their loyalists (such as it, and they, were in 1836), the end result may be a slightly more tolerant society than historically, and a "California" that looks more like Peru than Chile, for example.

If the Californios are smart, and willing to accept both the "indios" initially, and are then open to emigrants from both (former) Spanish America, the U.S., and Europe, no matter their religion, in the long run, they can (possibly) both grow the population and keep it in balance between the (various) "sending" states, so they avoid a situation like Texas (or the Transvaal, later in the century).

When the Anglo-American conflict over the Oregon Country comes to a head, if the Californios side with the US, their independence is strengthened, and their boundaries may grow to the north; likewise, if a Mexican-US war breaks out over the Texas-Mexico border and the Southwest, if the Californios again side with the US, their independence is presumably assured, and the Republic's boundaries may grow to the east; which means that if the geopolitical situation is relatively stable in the mid-1840s, to the point that the Republic can possibly absorb the tremendous demographic changes the Gold Rush brings.

If the Republic sides with the US in the Civil War, sending troops (and specie) east, then the basic situation of large power and a smaller "allied" regional one (akin to Australia and New Zealand, presumably) is in place for the remainder of the Nineteenth Century, and presumably the Twentieth. Economic integration would follow (a transcontinental railroad being the obvious initial project), as would diplomatic (not political) integration/allignment, and I could see a mutual defense treaty being signed and honored very early (Nineteenth Century, even), but political integration would remain a concept of political scientists.

The end result will be that the 20th Century "Republic of California" is very much part of the US "sphere", but Spanish will remain an official language, and the "Rancho" mythos (Ramona, Zorro, etc.) will be as much a part of Californio cullture as cowboying or the Alamo is in Texas.

If the above series of events comes off, there are all sorts of potential butterflies, including where the Republic's boundaries are drawn; probably not the entire Pacific Coast, but something different than the historical US state boundaries. If (and it is a big if) the Californians reach into the Pacific, it is possible that Hawaii becomes part of the Republic's territory, for example.

There is the possibility of something closer to the elements of the Argentine-Chilean relationship here as well; it might not be as friendly as Australia-New Zealand, but still stop short of hostilities.

Interesting possibilities to consider.

Best,

 

[Wolpertinger]

If there was a large population base in California in the early 1800s it would most likely be developing its own separate identity from that of Mexico. Historically, California was largely ignored by the government in Mexico City because of the great distance and how hard it was to travel to.

The best POD I've come across involves the settlement of Monterrey Bay about 100 years earlier than it was. The discovery of the bay was made and its recommendation for settlement was made, but nothing was done about it by the Spanish for about 100 years. Monterrey would have been used as a necessary landfall port for the Manila Galleons bearing silver and such from the Philippines. It wouldn't take too long for some Spaniard in the mountains north of the bay to see the southern tip of OTL San Francisco Bay and that eventually a major port would develop there. To bolster a small native indian population the Spanish would bring in Filipinos to help settle the area.

The larger population in the San Francisco Bay area would most likely lead to exploration of the area and expeditions up what would become the Sacramento River and the discovery of gold, perhaps in 1749 (lets say). That should garner you a large diverse population and a population center that could a distant rival to Mexico City.

How easily could people have immigrated to California from Europe in the mid 1700s, though? Steam ships allowed people to get around Cape Horn in the mid 1800s, and rail-roads gave people headway on land. I suppose they could have taken a ship to Panama, then another one to California? I don't think that would have been conductive for large-scale immigration, though.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

An independent republic could arise from a stronger Californio "liberal revolt" in 1836, which itself stemmed from California's status as a territory, rather than a department, in the Mexican Constitution of 1824, as well as secularization of the missions...

1836 (rather than 1846) allows for involvement and support by US citizens and interests, but at a time the "Californios" were still strong enough to (presumably) form a criollo elite, since it predates the Gold Rush emigration by a significant period; it also predates the conflicts between the US, Britain, and Russia over the Oregon Country and their various outposts; most importantly, the US border is far enough away in 1836 that a Republica de Alta California probably has a decade or more to gell as a homogenous and "free" society, as required under the Mexican Constution (which doesn't mean the survivors of the indigenous tribes still don't get indentured; this is not that a-historical).

Although having said that, if Alvarado et al are willing to come to terms with Estanislao et al in return for support against the central Mexican government and their loyalists (such as it, and they, were in 1836), the end result may be a slightly more tolerant society than historically, and a "California" that looks more like Peru than Chile, for example.

If the Californios are smart, and willing to accept both the "indios" initially, and are then open to emigrants from both (former) Spanish America, the U.S., and Europe, no matter their religion, in the long run, they can (possibly) both grow the population and keep it in balance between the (various) "sending" states, so they avoid a situation like Texas (or the Transvaal, later in the century).

When the Anglo-American conflict over the Oregon Country comes to a head, if the Californios side with the US, their independence is strengthened, and their boundaries may grow to the north; likewise, if a Mexican-US war breaks out over the Texas-Mexico border and the Southwest, if the Californios again side with the US, their independence is presumably assured, and the Republic's boundaries may grow to the east; which means that if the geopolitical situation is relatively stable in the mid-1840s, to the point that the Republic can possibly absorb the tremendous demographic changes the Gold Rush brings.

If the Republic sides with the US in the Civil War, sending troops (and specie) east, then the basic situation of large power and a smaller "allied" regional one (akin to Australia and New Zealand, presumably) is in place for the remainder of the Nineteenth Century, and presumably the Twentieth. Economic integration would follow (a transcontinental railroad being the obvious initial project), as would diplomatic (not political) integration/allignment, and I could see a mutual defense treaty being signed and honored very early (Nineteenth Century, even), but political integration would remain a concept of political scientists.

The end result will be that the 20th Century "Republic of California" is very much part of the US "sphere", but Spanish will remain an official language, and the "Rancho" mythos (Ramona, Zorro, etc.) will be as much a part of Californio cullture as cowboying or the Alamo is in Texas.

If the above series of events comes off, there are all sorts of potential butterflies, including where the Republic's boundaries are drawn; probably not the entire Pacific Coast, but something different than the historical US state boundaries. If (and it is a big if) the Californians reach into the Pacific, it is possible that Hawaii becomes part of the Republic's territory, for example.

There is the possibility of something closer to the elements of the Argentine-Chilean relationship here as well; it might not be as friendly as Australia-New Zealand, but still stop short of hostilities.

Interesting possibilities to consider.

Best,

These concepts seem interesting, and I'll definitely use them in any future TL I may or may not write. Conceivably, what impact do you think the existence of a nation which, assumably, may block the United States from having a Pacific coastline might have? Would the United States have stayed out of Pacific politics altogether, not going for any sort of colonialism or economic expansion there? Would we not see a Commodore Perry in Japan, or U.S. support during the Boxer Rebellion? The implications of those, along with the absence of U.S. involvement in other Pacific happenings, are curious to think about.

On the reverse, would the U.S. then involve itself more in the Caribbean or even Africa? Might it take Cuba instead of Guam and the Philippines from Spain during the Spanish-American War? Would it invest more into Liberia, in an attempt to turn it into a proxy state for America in West Africa, perhaps even trying to expand the borders of Liberia and engage in a sort of proxy colonialism?

I don't know how these sorts of things would go, so I'm curious as to what you guys think about them. To be honest, I'm sort of just throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks.

 

[David T]

Maybe we can make that old favorite, Clay beating Polk in 1844, the POD:

"The destiny of California under a Clay presidency is harder to project with confidence. Even without the advent of war with the United States, Mexico would have sustained its claims to sovereignty only with difficulty. In early 1844 the beleaguered governor of California, Manuel Micheltorena, recommended to his superiors in Mexico City that they consider handing the province over to British creditors rather than let it fall into the hands of American immigrants and californios (Californians of Hispanic descent). 'In August 1844,' wrote David J. Weber, 'a group of californios met secretly with British vice consul James Forbes in Monterey and told him they were ready to drive Micheltorena out of California, declare independence, and ask for British protection.' Without instructions from London, Forbes was stymied, but the rebels nonetheless succeeded in ousting Micheltorena in early 1845. They stopped short of declaring independence, however, and soon divided among themselves. Meanwhile, Americans in California prepared to take matters into their own hands, and in June 1846 they staged the Bear Flag Revolt. 'Even if [the Mexican-American War] had not occurred,' Weber asserted, 'Americans in California had become numerous enough to think they could play the 'Texas game' and win.'[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]0[/FONT] Whether the discovery of gold in 1848 would have prompted President Clay to show more enthusiasm for annexing California than he did for annexing Texas is hard to know. Fellow Whig (but political rival) Daniel Webster had long hoped to acquire San Francisco and the surrounding area for the United States. Yet Clay was more sensitive than Webster to sectional tensions and to the explosive consequences of adding new territory to the federal domain. As with Texas, Clay might well have preferred strong commercial ties with California to the national and international controversies sparked by annexation. For this reason, he would probably have encouraged California to remain independent so long as it avoided an open alliance with Great Britain or another foreign power. Certainly, the possibility that California could have flourished as a separate nation deserves serious consideration. The historical geographer D.W. Meinig has written, '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, fronting on the world's greatest ocean, focused on one of the world's most magnificent harbors?'

"Alternatively, under pressure from Democratic expansionists in Congress, a President Clay might have proposed pairing the annexation of Texas and California—a reprise of the Missouri Compromise with its coupling of Missouri and Maine. But that scenario seems less probable than the establishment of an independent California because it presupposes Mexico's peaceful acquiescence, a most unlikely development. In keeping with past policy, Britain would have supported Mexican objections to American annexation (as distinct from Texan or Californian independence), and Clay would have backed away from a war for territorial expansion. His commitment to diplomacy, rather than force of arms, would almost surely have curtailed the country's westward growth for the duration of his presidency."

Gary J. Kornblith, "Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise", Journal of American History 90 (June 2003): 76-105
https://web.archive.org/web/20050512085620/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/90.1/kornblith.html

 

[Strategos' Risk]

What if there's an exodus of Tejanos from independent Texas, who warn the Californios to not allow the Anglos from dominating their country?

 

[Malta]

Hmmm. It would seem a separate Alta California Republic may have some grounds for traction, especially if it absorbs Hispanic and Black elements dissatisfied with White administrations in former Mexican territories.

 

[Zioneer]

How would this affect the internal politics of any independent California (Or I suppose now a West-Coast) nation? How large was the population of Deseret around this time? Enough to be the majority in any unified California/Deseret nation? At least large enough to provide a substantial minority which would likely lobby for conservative religious policies in the legislature?

I don't think there's any data on the population within Utah, but according to Wiki, by the end of the Mormon Exodus in 1869, about 70,000 pioneers had traveled towards the Salt Lake Valley. The first group to arrive in 1847 was only 1,611 strong though. Assuming that the rate of migration is the same, you won't see a substantial minority for a couple of decades. Though if the Californians allow Mormon missionaries to use their ports, Mormons could replace any lost European pioneers (who might not want to travel across two nations if the US and California have frosty relations) with pioneers from the Pacific.

 

[Wolpertinger]

Maybe we can make that old favorite, Clay beating Polk in 1844, the POD:

"The destiny of California under a Clay presidency is harder to project with confidence. Even without the advent of war with the United States, Mexico would have sustained its claims to sovereignty only with difficulty. In early 1844 the beleaguered governor of California, Manuel Micheltorena, recommended to his superiors in Mexico City that they consider handing the province over to British creditors rather than let it fall into the hands of American immigrants and californios (Californians of Hispanic descent). 'In August 1844,' wrote David J. Weber, 'a group of californios met secretly with British vice consul James Forbes in Monterey and told him they were ready to drive Micheltorena out of California, declare independence, and ask for British protection.' Without instructions from London, Forbes was stymied, but the rebels nonetheless succeeded in ousting Micheltorena in early 1845. They stopped short of declaring independence, however, and soon divided among themselves. Meanwhile, Americans in California prepared to take matters into their own hands, and in June 1846 they staged the Bear Flag Revolt. 'Even if [the Mexican-American War] had not occurred,' Weber asserted, 'Americans in California had become numerous enough to think they could play the 'Texas game' and win.'[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]0[/FONT] Whether the discovery of gold in 1848 would have prompted President Clay to show more enthusiasm for annexing California than he did for annexing Texas is hard to know. Fellow Whig (but political rival) Daniel Webster had long hoped to acquire San Francisco and the surrounding area for the United States. Yet Clay was more sensitive than Webster to sectional tensions and to the explosive consequences of adding new territory to the federal domain. As with Texas, Clay might well have preferred strong commercial ties with California to the national and international controversies sparked by annexation. For this reason, he would probably have encouraged California to remain independent so long as it avoided an open alliance with Great Britain or another foreign power. Certainly, the possibility that California could have flourished as a separate nation deserves serious consideration. The historical geographer D.W. Meinig has written, '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, fronting on the world's greatest ocean, focused on one of the world's most magnificent harbors?'

"Alternatively, under pressure from Democratic expansionists in Congress, a President Clay might have proposed pairing the annexation of Texas and California—a reprise of the Missouri Compromise with its coupling of Missouri and Maine. But that scenario seems less probable than the establishment of an independent California because it presupposes Mexico's peaceful acquiescence, a most unlikely development. In keeping with past policy, Britain would have supported Mexican objections to American annexation (as distinct from Texan or Californian independence), and Clay would have backed away from a war for territorial expansion. His commitment to diplomacy, rather than force of arms, would almost surely have curtailed the country's westward growth for the duration of his presidency."

Gary J. Kornblith, "Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise", Journal of American History 90 (June 2003): 76-105
https://web.archive.org/web/20050512085620/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/90.1/kornblith.html

This is definitely really interesting! It would, of course, lead to a lot of different stuff happening in the U.S. at the same time, and any theoretical TL would focus largely on California, but I'll definitely take a look at it and see what inspiration I can draw from it. Thanks much!

What if there's an exodus of Tejanos from independent Texas, who warn the Californios to not allow the Anglos from dominating their country?

I'm just concerned that this may lead to the Californios preferring to stay within the protection of Mexico, as an Anglo dominated California would likely lead to annexation by the U.S. I would like to see a balance struck between Anglo and Californio populations, roughly 40%/40%, with minorities making up the other 20%.

Hmmm. It would seem a separate Alta California Republic may have some grounds for traction, especially if it absorbs Hispanic and Black elements dissatisfied with White administrations in former Mexican territories.

Do we know the Afro populations in Alta California territory at the time? I doubt it would be a significant minority, but I could very well be wrong.

I don't think there's any data on the population within Utah, but according to Wiki, by the end of the Mormon Exodus in 1869, about 70,000 pioneers had traveled towards the Salt Lake Valley. The first group to arrive in 1847 was only 1,611 strong though. Assuming that the rate of migration is the same, you won't see a substantial minority for a couple of decades. Though if the Californians allow Mormon missionaries to use their ports, Mormons could replace any lost European pioneers (who might not want to travel across two nations if the US and California have frosty relations) with pioneers from the Pacific.

Conceivably, if California welcomed the Mormons with open arms, would future Mormon immigrants just head straight to California instead of Deseret? Or is there something special and unique about Deseret that demanded Mormons settle there? You obviously know a lot more about this than I do, so I'm curious if the early Mormon settlers would be willing to pledge their loyalty to a nation that guaranteed their religious traditions.

Of course, ideally, the new California nation would encompass the Deseret territory in itself, so that question might be altogether moot. In that case, how would you say the Mormons would act towards the California government? If California guaranteed them their religious traditions, would the Mormons be loyal? Or did the early Mormons have a fierce independent streak which required them to be loyal only to God? If the early Mormons were loyal, were they the kind of people who would gladly take up arms in defense of the nation which guarantees them, or no?

I apologize if any of those questions come off as insensitive, I'm just not all that educated on early Mormonism. I know about Brigham Young, Joseph Smith Jr., their persecution in the (then) western states, and the subsequent Mormon Exodus to Deseret, but that's about all.

 

[katchen]

One of the biggest questions regarding California was never whether California wanted to be part of the Union but whether the United States could bring itself to admit California as a state. I think that it is easy to see John C. Calhoun, seeing the handwriting on the wall over admitting California as a free state costing the South control of the US Senate (it already had lost control of the House due to the low population of free whites in the South and the fact that African-American slaves only counted as 3/5 of a person toward congressional representation) and rallies the Southern Senate Caucus to put it's foot down on the matter even to the point of filibustering---something theoretically permitted at the time but almost unheard of. Calhoun starts by introducing resolutions recognizing the independence of Oregon under it's Provisional Government in 1844, then the California Republic in 1845, then Deseret in 1847 then New Mexico in 1848. When these resolutions fail to pass immediately, Calhoun makes it clear that he will never allow the Senate to consider the ratification of any treaty annexing ANY new territory unless all territory south of the 36 degree 30 minute line permits slavery and half of all new territory annexed is south of the 36 degree 30 minute line. Otherwise, the most that he and the Southern Caucus will permit to even reach a vote by the full US Senate is a treaty with Mexico granting independence to the new territories along with US treaties granting military protection to those new nations and free trade with those new nations. Statehood not to be considered unless and until there is one additional slave state for any additional free state.
And while the US waits for that stalemate to be broken, California, Oregon, Deseret and New Mexico continue to grow as independent nations and statehood slips farther and farther from their agendas.....