What if California seceeded from the Union during the Civil War to stay neutral?

thezerech

thezerech

For those of you who did not know, California actually did come close to seceding from the Union during the Civil War. The Governor John B. Weller had decided if it came to war between the States, he would try and secede from the Union to form an Independent California Republic. However his term ended in January of 1860, and he was appointed ambassador to Mexico by Buchanan.

Also during the attack on Fort Sumter Confederate General Johnston was still head of the U.S Army in the Pacific and commander of the troops in California. There was a plot to have California secede from the Union, however, when the plotters asked him to support them he said he could never abandon his post like that, in a dishonorable fashion. However, he would later resign from the U.S army and command the CSA troops in Tennessee and Kentucky. He is known for being the one to give General Sherman a nervous break down while W.T Sherman was opposing him in the West.

What if J.B Weller does not become Ambassador to Mexico and runs for reelection (if it was allowed at that time, which I don't know). Assuming he wins, maybe General Johnston decides to cooperate with Governor Weller. Soon, they declare an independent California Republic and claim Oregon territory. How does Lincoln react? How does Davis react? Is this plausible or even possible? How would this Republic look like? How would it affect the civil war? Could this be enough to give McClellen a shot at winning in 1864?
 

David T

Republicans and Douglas Democrats were opposed to California seceding--and together they definitely made up the majority of the state. The pro-southern wing of the Democrats got only 28.4% of the vote for president in 1860 http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1860.txt and 27.96% for governor in 1861. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_1861 "The day following the news of the firing on Fort Sumter, May 8th, the state committee of the Douglas Democrats met and resolved 'that the people of California in the past have been most anxious for peace throughout the land * * * at the same time they are, above all things, for the Union, the country, and the flag; against all assailants." https://books.google.com/books?vid=...RA25-PA209&lpg=RA25-PA209#v=onepage&q&f=false

One reason for the weakness of the secessionists was that the pro-southern "Chivalry" wing of the Democrats had been badly damaged by the Broderick-Terry duel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick–Terry_duel
 

HunterX

California doesn't have the population base in the 1860s to successfully win a war against the Union.
 
thezerech

thezerech

HunterX said:
California doesn't have the population base in the 1860s to successfully win a war against the Union.
Click to expand...
That didn't stop the Confederacy.

I suppose get rid of the duel. Then perhaps maybe Weller would remain as governor of California.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
HunterX said:
The Confederacy lost. And it had exponentially more resources than California.
Click to expand...

I don't think the scenario of a California secession under these circumstances is plausible, because public support was not there. But simply because I can't resist the urge to nitpick, I must point out that California was vastly farther away from the Union centers of logistical strength than was the Confederacy. It was a simply matter to cross the Potomac and invade Virginia. Keeping an army supplied across the vast distances of the deserts and mountains of the American West would have been an infinitely more difficult proposition. So California's much weaker potential strength vis-a-vis the Confederacy would have been compensated by the logistical difficulties that would have been faced by the Union.
 
thezerech

thezerech

Anaxagoras said:
I don't think the scenario of a California secession under these circumstances is plausible, because public support was not there. But simply because I can't resist the urge to nitpick, I must point out that California was vastly farther away from the Union centers of logistical strength than was the Confederacy. It was a simply matter to cross the Potomac and invade Virginia. Keeping an army supplied across the vast distances of the deserts and mountains of the American West would have been an infinitely more difficult proposition. So California's much weaker potential strength vis-a-vis the Confederacy would have been compensated by the logistical difficulties that would have been faced by the Union.
Click to expand...
Exactly, a Confederate Victory is certainly not impossible. While the Union had the power to crush the CSA with its vastly superior population and industry it still took years to do it. If the Union loses a few more key battles it could propel McClellan into to White House he negotiates a peace deal and you've got your independent California and CSA. Since we are AHers after all we can change things like Antietam like Gettysburg, we can make Bull Run even worse etc. The question is, how can we get California to secede if possible?
 

sloreck

Can California secede, yes of course. Let's say it becomes "independent", not part of the CSA. Assuming the war in the east goes as OTL, and frankly California seceding won't affect it much, at the end of the war the Union then turns its attention to California. Sure it will be a bitch to get a lot of troops out there, although the navy can get there fairly easily. California has basically no resources to sustain any sort of military on its own, so it really won't take much of a Union force to deal with the problem. Now the Californians could appeal to the British to help them, but if the British would not halp the Confederates why would they help the Californians. If they do, or attempt to annex California, then it will get very ugly very quickly and they can kiss Canada goodbye, or at least most of it.

Remember it was only a few years before that the Californians had moved heaven and earth to be annexed by the USA, why would they change their mind so quickly.
 

Arkenfolm

The same crew in the New Mexico campaign (including the notorious Col. John Chivington and his unit--who won't be butchering the Cheyenne out of boredom TTL--as well as the famed Kit Carson, who helped defeat the Mexicans in California about 15 years before) is mobilised against California. Maybe reinforced by others. California will have to face that. At least the Union has to march through Arizona and the California deserts before they engage whatever California has.

And would this secession be unilateral? Would there be Unionist groups to link up with in California? That just makes this rebel California Republic's cause even more difficult.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I think a more interesting question is whether a secession movement might have emerged in California in the years following a Confederate victory.
 
thezerech

thezerech

Anaxagoras said:
I think a more interesting question is whether a secession movement might have emerged in California in the years following a Confederate victory.
Click to expand...
It most likely would have in my opinion. As would groups in border states like Maryland and Kentucky in my opinion.
 

naraic

How big a financial impact did California have atthis time. It was the time of the Gold Rush so presumably California would have had a significant financial effect.
 
thezerech

thezerech

Tobit said:
I posted about Weller's noted promise to declare independence but instead of moving him to be reelected, because Weller wasn't that popular I thought it would've given more options if the Civil War itself occured earlier.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ian-empire-breake-free-during-the-acw.403454/
Click to expand...
Honestly that makes so much sense I'm surprised I didn't think of that first. It's much easier, perhaps change something with John Brown's raid. Then have Gen. Johnston go along with governor Weller, and boom California Republic. After that just change enough battles to put McClellan inn the white house by 1864. I assume NM territory is split between the CSA and California. Oregon territory goes to California too. They both make alliances with France and the U.K perhaps France is able to use this to defeat Benito Juarez.
 
Tobit

Tobit

McClellan as president would be interesting, I think in a broken up United States military presidents would be a lot more common. But this POD gets rid of Lincoln as well, so 1860 is up for grabs.
 
thezerech

thezerech

Tobit said:
McClellan as president would be interesting, I think in a broken up United States military presidents would be a lot more common. But this POD gets rid of Lincoln as well, so 1860 is up for grabs.
Click to expand...
I imagine Lincoln could still win. Granted I don't see the South seceding if they think they can still get a Democrat in the White House. Even a Douglas.
 

Shinsu

Anaxagoras said:
Keeping an army supplied across the vast distances of the deserts and mountains of the American West would have been an infinitely more difficult proposition. So California's much weaker potential strength vis-a-vis the Confederacy would have been compensated by the logistical difficulties that would have been faced by the Union.
Click to expand...

Depends on how many men would even be needed to subdue California. The states population in 1860 is 380,000 around the whole state and you could maybe bring up 20,000 militia units at most from the state? (I can't imagine much more then 20,000) The U.S regulars in the west numbered around 8,000 (half of that would be facing Sibley in New Mexico with an additional 1,900 Coloradoan militia). The southern section of California tried to secede during the war and that was put down by Regulars in the state that were brought in from the Washington territory and Oregon state.
 
Bytor

Bytor

Monthly Donor
naraic said:
How big a financial impact did California have at this time. It was the time of the Gold Rush so presumably California would have had a significant financial effect.
Click to expand...

The gold rush started in '48 and by '65 had already been over for a decade, but it was gold rush money that built the western leg of the transcontinental railway. Also, the population influx did not stop. In 1850 the state population was ~98,000 and in 1860 it was ~380,000, a 310% increase and in the three decades following the increase was 40-55%. So even without the gold rush, California was an economic juggernaut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top