Realistic Independent California

[David S Poepoe]

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.

Well, the Spanish got around Latin America a lot and that was mostly by ship. The bulk of any settlement in the 1700s would probably be by Filipinos. They would be brought over in greater amount on the Manila galleons. It is entirely likely that California may develop a greater maritime tradition because of its orientation towards the Far East. There probably wouldn't be much immigration from Europe, aside from Spain.

 

[Wolpertinger]

Well, the Spanish got around Latin America a lot and that was mostly by ship. The bulk of any settlement in the 1700s would probably be by Filipinos. They would be brought over in greater amount on the Manila galleons. It is entirely likely that California may develop a greater maritime tradition because of its orientation towards the Far East. There probably wouldn't be much immigration from Europe, aside from Spain.

Hmm. In that case, conceivably, could there be a significant minority or even majority of second class citizen Filipinos? How did the Spanish Empire treat Filipinos at the time? I only assume they were treated as psuedo-slaves, but I'm not informed on this subject so I may be wrong.

I'm asking because I have this idea in my head of the Californios, ethnically still pretty European and Spanish, rousing the Filipino and Creole peoples, promising them greater rights than under Spanish/Mexican rule. Sort of like the French Revolution, where the bourgeoisie roused the lower classes with similar promises. At least that's the idea I've got, anyways. An army of Filipino Creoles led by Californio officers could definitely fight off any attempts to annex California, especially given the relative isolation compared to other major population centers on the continent.

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.....

This is definitely a good idea, but did Calhoun have enough power at the time to stalemate the question of western territory annexation? Also, while the Oregon provisional government could have worked (Before it's annexed into the greater California nation, of course ) did New Mexico or Deseret have anything going for it at the time? According to Zioneer, any state of Deseret would have only 1,611 Mormons at it's head, adding any natives who agreed to be a part of it (Probably not many) or any slaves (Did the Mormons hold slaves?) they brought along. I don't know about any sort of provisional government New Mexico may have had, but again, I am ill-educated on these subjects, so feel free to inform me otherwise.

 

[TFSmith121]

Three-way Anglophone split in North America

...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? ...On the reverse, would the U.S. then involve itself more in the Caribbean or even Africa?

Why? God knows all three would have plenty of wide open spaces, as they do even today.

Something to consider is the closest historical example to this sort of threeway split on one "Western" continent, largely because of geography, in the Nineteenth Century.

Argentina and Chile's "frontiers" were (generally) the southern cone (although the Chileans picked up territory from Peru and Bolivia in the War ofthe Pacific); Brazil's frontier was the interior, specifically the Amazon, where they picked up territory from Bolivia, although mostly by negotation and presenting a fait accompli.

None of the three went particularly afield from their obvious "natural" or continental boundaries; I don't see much interest in a similar situation from the "possible" United States, Republic of California, and whatever British North America becomes (if it becomes anything, actually). If there is not a continental nation to the south, BNA may remain as loosely affiliated as British West Africa and British East Africa were.

My guess is Russian America and (possibly) Greenland and/or St. Pierre et Miquelon may be acquired by one or more of the Anglophone powers along the way, but that's about it.

The question of the Oregon Country in the 1840s will be an interesting one; if the putative Californios support the US, and the boundaries are drawn more or less historically, the US will be a Pacific power, albeit in a more limited way than historically; the US will have the reason and the resources to acquire Russian America, and reason to pursue an isthmian canal and (presumably) Hawaii, although the archipelago might also become a US-Californian "condominium" like the New Hebrides.

Or the British may try and pick up the Hawaiian Islands as a stepping stone to British Columbia from New Zealand.

Best,

 

[katchen]

I think Calhoun did have that kind of power. Calhoun was one of the power brokers of the Senate. His strength was in the Deep South, from his native South Carolina to North Carolina to Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and possibly Arkansas. Basically the Cotton Kingdom.
There were two other Southern power brokers, however. Henry Clay of Kentucky and Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri. Those two senators were more amenable to compromise because THEIR states were border states and THEIR constituents were losing slaves to Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad ferrying runaway slaves to Canada. So a strong Fugitive Slave Act was high on the list of THEIR priorities. Which was finally the basis for the Compromise of 1850--which still would not have happened had Zachary Taylor not died and been replaced in the White House by Millard Fillmore.
As close a thing as the Compromise of 1850 was IOTL, yes, in another time line, Calhoun likely could have derailed it. And if he had, both a California growing by the week due to gold seekers and a Deseret growing by the week due to immigration from England and Scandinavia would likely have become independent nations. Because they were well organized--too well organized to need the Federal Government to run them as US territories. Making them affiliated independent countries like Texas had been would finally be the best way for the South to ease the unrelenting Northern pressure to admit them as the Free States they wanted to be and thereby put the US Senate in the control of Free Soilers. As Texas proved, affiliated independent nations could always be granted statehood later once a slave state had a free state to retain balance and vice versa. Even Minnesota Territory (Greater Minnesota Territory) could be granted interim independence until a slave state could be found to retain the balance when it joined the Union.
Of course if that never happened, the US would end up as a "Commonwealth of Independent States" resembling the successor to the USSR IOTL more than anything else with one big United States surrounded by a cluster of smaller disunited Anglo-American states including California.

 

[Zioneer]

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.

Well, Mormon pioneers had a generally united cultural identity, and many just wanted a place to practice their faith and call their own, so they would definitely stick around in Deseret (which I presume would be a province of California). They had a dislike for Americans, yet a pride for American institutions (like freedom of religion, which unfortunately wasn't respected in their case). If the Californian government can guarantee their right to worship how they want, the Mormons will probably be loyal.

There will be a few Mormons like Samuel Brannan that will probably move to California proper, but they were going to do that anyway.

The early Mormons had an independent streak, but as long as you didn't bother them and let them worship how they wanted, they generally didn't mess with you, other than sending missionaries because that's what Mormons do.

This is definitely a good idea, but did Calhoun have enough power at the time to stalemate the question of western territory annexation? Also, while the Oregon provisional government could have worked (Before it's annexed into the greater California nation, of course ) did New Mexico or Deseret have anything going for it at the time? According to Zioneer, any state of Deseret would have only 1,611 Mormons at it's head, adding any natives who agreed to be a part of it (Probably not many) or any slaves (Did the Mormons hold slaves?) they brought along. I don't know about any sort of provisional government New Mexico may have had, but again, I am ill-educated on these subjects, so feel free to inform me otherwise.

Ah, let me clarify on that; the 1,611 number was simply the first pioneer group to get to the Salt Lake Valley. Probably about 10-20,000 got to the valley by 1860. So it's not like it would be completely unpopulated.

And there were slaves, but only like a dozen in all of OTL Utah (the few Southerners who converted to Mormonism occasionally paid tithing in slaves). Utah was intended to be a slave state to balance out California when both were supposed to be admitted, but nothing ever came of it.

Deseret/Utah probably had more going for it than New Mexico, considering that the Mormons were generally culturally and religiously united, and couldn't really be lumped in with anyone else.

 

[Wolpertinger]

<snip>

Hrmm, certainly some things to think about. Thank you kindly.

<snip>

I assure you, my friend, that those "smaller disunited Anglo-American states" on the Rockies and west will find themselves in the good embrace of the Mother Bear, sooner or later.

Regardless, I think I might be able to work with that. Thanks again.

<snip>

Thanks for linking that Samuel Brannan fella. I should definitely be able to use him in any potential TL.

Also, the 10-20,000 number is only applicable if we're talking 1860, yes? katchen was talking about an independent Deseret state in 1847, which assumably would have only the 1,611. Obviously that number would grow (Assumably faster than OTL if California controls Deseret and guarantees their religious traditions, offering a sort of "safe haven" for Mormons and their beliefs.) but in 1847 I'm not sure 1,611 people could effectively be an independent state on their own, especially with the United States to the direct east.

P.S. Reading that wiki article:

"After the murder of church leader Joseph Smith, Jr., in June 1844, the Latter Day Saints decided to relocate their center from Nauvoo, Illinois. Several possible destinations were discussed, including the Mexican territory of Alta California."

"Brannan urged Young to bring the Mormon pioneers to California but Young rejected the proposal in favor of settling in what is today Utah, and Brannan returned to northern California."

Could this be a potential change in the timeline, would you say? I think I asked it before, but after seeing this, I'm curious. Could Brannan have convinced Young to bring the Mormons to California proper? Especially if California is already an established state by this point and has already agreed with Brannan to guarantee their religious rights?

I ask only because even if California does control the traditional Deseret region, that's still quite far and a couple of mountain ranges away from any theoretical center of government for the Bear Flag nation, so administratively I imagine it might be a nightmare.

Thanks again for all the help.

 

[Zioneer]

Thanks for linking that Samuel Brannan fella. I should definitely be able to use him in any potential TL.

Also, the 10-20,000 number is only applicable if we're talking 1860, yes? katchen was talking about an independent Deseret state in 1847, which assumably would have only the 1,611. Obviously that number would grow (Assumably faster than OTL if California controls Deseret and guarantees their religious traditions, offering a sort of "safe haven" for Mormons and their beliefs.) but in 1847 I'm not sure 1,611 people could effectively be an independent state on their own, especially with the United States to the direct east.

P.S. Reading that wiki article:

"After the murder of church leader Joseph Smith, Jr., in June 1844, the Latter Day Saints decided to relocate their center from Nauvoo, Illinois. Several possible destinations were discussed, including the Mexican territory of Alta California."

"Brannan urged Young to bring the Mormon pioneers to California but Young rejected the proposal in favor of settling in what is today Utah, and Brannan returned to northern California."

Could this be a potential change in the timeline, would you say? I think I asked it before, but after seeing this, I'm curious. Could Brannan have convinced Young to bring the Mormons to California proper? Especially if California is already an established state by this point and has already agreed with Brannan to guarantee their religious rights?

I ask only because even if California does control the traditional Deseret region, that's still quite far and a couple of mountain ranges away from any theoretical center of government for the Bear Flag nation, so administratively I imagine it might be a nightmare.

Thanks again for all the help.

Well, Brigham Young (who controlled the church at that point, but wasn't a prophet yet) wanted to keep the Mormons in an isolated area, to ensure that they didn't fall away from the church, and that there weren't too many "Gentiles" to tempt them away. I think that's the main reason he didn't settle in California (that and he saw that it was obvious that the United States was going to annex it, while isolated Deseret could've been left to being an American territory in legalese only).

Plus, the Mormons trekked across an entire continent; I think they were just plain tired at that point. Trekking to California, even if it is more fertile and rich, could potentially just be too much for the Mormon pioneers.

Though yeah, it's likely that if you can get a fertile enough area for the Mormons, yet isolated enough that they feel secure in their religious identity, Brigham Young probably could convince them to keep on walking to California. Once they got the 20,000 Mormons though, you'd have to split their territory off.

 

[TFSmith121]

One thing to keep in mind:

The Californios - if an 1835 declaration of independence is the point of departure - may not have any sway over anything east of the Sierras. Although what became Nevada and Utah was "governed" (extremely loosely, to the point of not at all) by Mexico from Monterey (Alta California), realistically, Santa Fe (Nuevo Mexico) was the center of what passed for Mexican political and military authority east of the Sierra Nevada.

Worth remembering that as tough an obstacle as the Rockies were in the early part of the century, in some ways, the Sierra Nevada, despite being lower overall, are actually harder to cross from the east - time and distance from the Mississippi being the biggest issue. You can get from Independence to the Rockies easily by summer; getting across the Basin and over the Sierra by winter is tough.

Just ask the Donner Party.

"Remember, never take no cutoffs and hurry along as fast as you can..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/donner-transcript/

Best,

 

[maronruec]

Cool, will you actually make a gee-es-gee mod out of this?

 

[Wendell]

Is anyone else intrigued by the idea of a Mormon state consisting of all of Alta California?

 

[TFSmith121]

Not enough Mormons; plenty of Catholics and Protestants

Is anyone else intrigued by the idea of a Mormon state consisting of all of Alta California?

There's a reason the "promised land" ended up being the Salt Lake country, and not Illinois, Missouri, or San Bernardino County.

All kidding aside, as fascinating an example of early-Nineteenth Century American religious creativity the LDS are (and I mean no disrespect, but even compared to the Shakers or the Swedenborgians, the LDS were pretty damn creative), they never had the numbers to prevail anywhere that anybody else really wanted.

Polygamy was criminal in the eyes of the dominant culture in the US AND most everywhere else in the Americas - including Mexico.

It was winked at, here and there (jack mormons up in the hollers) but that's about it.

Best,

 

[Zioneer]

There's a reason the "promised land" ended up being the Salt Lake country, and not Illinois, Missouri, or San Bernardino County.

All kidding aside, as fascinating an example of early-Nineteenth Century American religious creativity the LDS are (and I mean no disrespect, but even compared to the Shakers or the Swedenborgians, the LDS were pretty damn creative), they never had the numbers to prevail anywhere that anybody else really wanted.

Polygamy was criminal in the eyes of the dominant culture in the US AND most everywhere else in the Americas - including Mexico.

It was winked at, here and there (jack mormons up in the hollers) but that's about it.

Best,

Again, that's why I proposed some isolated part of OTL California (apologies, I don't know enough about California to offer a specific place) that the Mormons could settle if the OP is deadset on not having them settle in Utah.

 

[Wendell]

Again, that's why I proposed some isolated part of OTL California (apologies, I don't know enough about California to offer a specific place) that the Mormons could settle if the OP is deadset on not having them settle in Utah.

Yeah, I cannot imagine that much of Alta California outside of some coastal areas was really under Mexican control.

 

[TFSmith121]

There actually was an LDS attempt at a farm colony

in southern California, in what became San Bernardino County. It was not very sucessful, for the reasons one would expect.

Best,

 

[Wendell]

in southern California, in what became San Bernardino County. It was not very sucessful, for the reasons one would expect.

Best,

When was this?

 

[TFSmith121]

1851, in the aftermath of the US-Mexican War

See here to start, but there's material all over the web:

http://www.sbcounty.gov/main/history.asp

Here's Jefferson Hunt:



Best,

 

[fox~ringo]

Resurrecting this thread...

What about an independent California post-Gold Rush? Say Henry Clay is elected in 1844 and the Mexican-American War is avoided. Mexico retains California through the gold rush but it goes independent when the French invade. Perhaps Britain would supply most of the support for the new nation. Of course, this would depend on where the United States sits with its sectional crisis and civil war.

 

[Wendell]

Resurrecting this thread...

What about an independent California post-Gold Rush? Say Henry Clay is elected in 1844 and the Mexican-American War is avoided. Mexico retains California through the gold rush but it goes independent when the French invade. Perhaps Britain would supply most of the support for the new nation. Of course, this would depend on where the United States sits with its sectional crisis and civil war.

The best POD for an independent California is a shorter inaugural from William Henry Harrison.

 

[fox~ringo]

The best POD for an independent California is a shorter inaugural from William Henry Harrison.

He was against expansion, especially anywhere slavery could spread. I still think Texas annexation would have been an issue come the late 1840s (even with Clay being his likely successor in 1844). Two solid Whig Presidents back-to-back could dampen down expansion fever enough to give California a chance, I suppose.