WI: California Secedes During the US Civil War

What would happen if California were a state which was sympathetic to the South and seceded during the American Civil War?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
California was a free state, and had been since

What would happen if California were a state which was sympathetic to the South and seceded during the American Civil War?

California was a free state, and had been since statehood in 1850, and of course had been a free territory since 1848, and had been free as Mexican territory since independence in the 1820s.

In addition, Lincoln won California in 1860, and Breckinridge (the Southern Democrat) came in third in the field, after Lincoln and Douglas. Counting Bell, almost 72 percent of the electorate voted for someone other than Breckinridge.

in 1861, the governor was a Unionist Democrat who supported Douglas; both senators were Unionist Democrats; and Republicans were elected to the governorship and one of the two Senate seats in 1862.

In addition, the state was credited with almost 16,000 enlistments in the US forces during the war, which doesn't include Californians who served in the regulars or in volunteer units from other states or territories (notably Washington Territory) the California Adjutant-General estimates at least 17,000 California residents served in the US (federal) forces during the conflict; in addition, some 3,000 men served in the organized (drilling) state militia during the war.

The grand total of Californians who went east to serve the rebels was something around 20, which sort of suggests the disparity between loyalist and rebel sympathies in the state.

Basically, it's not going to happen.

Best,
 
You'd need a PoD that predates California's entry to the union. And then the butterflies could stop the South from seceding.
 
The grand total of Californians who went east to serve the rebels was something around 20, which sort of suggests the disparity between loyalist and rebel sympathies in the state.

Basically, it's not going to happen.

Best,

I wonder if more might have served had there ALREADY been a transcontinental railroad. IOW, for some soldiers it may have been a case of what was more convenient to reach rather than any personal principles.
 
I wonder if more might have served had there ALREADY been a transcontinental railroad. IOW, for some soldiers it may have been a case of what was more convenient to reach rather than any personal principles.

You mean when CA would be even more bound to the North due to trade with the East Coast? :confused:
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Risks of California splitting off from the Union were sort of overstated seeing how integral the military presence there was to continued growth.

However, there is something to be said about different kinds of movements ending in a sort of California Civil War of sorts. There were some Texans who moved to Southern California who were a threat, but more than that, the local Mexican population was still agitated. The desire to form a Pacific Republic was substantial enough that local Southerners went to A.S. Johnston and tried to get him in on it before the war started.

Basically, I don't see California seceding, but more substantial amounts of violence occurring in 1861-62 is very possible if the Southern parts of the state are more forceful in raising secessionist troops, often with the Californios getting involved. Moreover, had the Texas Government taken the western theatre more seriously, perhaps because the Union does not take New Orleans and Galveston as OTL, expeditions west might have been more frequent and stronger in numbers.

California was a tinder box of potential violence in OTL, and perhaps luckily for the Union authorities, that violence was directed at the Indians in the area for much of the war. Secessionism had been trampled by mid 1862 as any kind of existential threat.
 
There seem to be some curious changes during this period.

In 1860 Lincoln takes it in a three-way race, though the combined Democratic vote massively exceeds his. Total turnout is about 119,000.

In 1864 things are more or less reversed with Lincoln getting 62,000 to 43,000 for McClellan. Total turnout has fallen by abt 14,000. Had a lot of people gone back east, or were suspected Rebel sympathisers just being "discouraged" from voting?

In 1868 the total has risen, but only very slightly, to about 108,000 - now split between Grant and Seymour in a virtual dead heat.

In 1872 Grant's vote is almost unchanged, still abt 54,000. But Greeley only gets 40,000, perhaps because a lot of Democrats just can't stand him. Total turnout is below 100,000 for the first time since the 1850s.

In 1876 total turnout finally manages to exceed 1860 - abt 150,000. Again, tough, this is split almost evenly, with Hayes managing a slender win over Tilden.

This pretty much continues down to the end of the century, with the Republicans usually carrying CA, but only by narrow margins. But there seems to have been a lot of gyration during the 1860s. Any thoughts on why, and how come voting stayed relatively static from 1864 until 1876? Why did the 1860 turnout take so long to be surpassed?
 
There seem to be some curious changes during this period.

In 1860 Lincoln takes it in a three-way race, though the combined Democratic vote massively exceeds his. Total turnout is about 119,000.

In 1864 things are more or less reversed with Lincoln getting 62,000 to 43,000 for McClellan. Total turnout has fallen by abt 14,000. Had a lot of people gone back east, or were suspected Rebel sympathisers just being "discouraged" from voting?


Ronald C. Woolsey, "The Politics of a Lost Cause: 'Seceshers' and Democrats in Southern California during the Civil War", California History, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Winter, 1990/1991), pp. 372-383 http://www.jstor.org/stable/25462443?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents notes that "...voter participation in the region declined between 1862 and 1864. The Los Angeles Star decried public apathy and 'men pretending to be Democrats who absented themselves from the polls.'57 The Democrats' concerns suggested that emigration of southern loyalists, intimidation, and public disinterest in war politics had all affected voter turnout."

One thing to remember is that turnout in 1860 was extremely high: nationwide about 82 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. https://books.google.com/books?id=BoMyBVw0rW4C&pg=PA21 Maybe it shouldn't be surprising that such turnout was hard to maintain in subsequent elections.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Again, California was a free state and a free territory

I wonder if more might have served had there ALREADY been a transcontinental railroad. IOW, for some soldiers it may have been a case of what was more convenient to reach rather than any personal principles.

Again, California was a free state and a free territory ... None of which, of course, seceded, unlike the slave states that remained loyal.

And even a vote for Breckinridge in 1860 does not equate to secession; otherwise Delaware and Maryland would not have remained loyal to the tune of ~90,000 enlistments into the U.S. and state forces.

Best,
 
In my opinion the possibility of a CA secession has little to do with pro-Confederate sentiment and much to do with CA particularism. I think two POD's are necessary:
No Gold Rush - which leaves CA populated by a scattering of adventurers, some agricultural pioneers, and the Californios
Telegraph invented later and not in common use - The prospect of immenent telegraphic communication with Back East was a strong in binding this distant land to the common Union
A CA that feels less connected to the greater US and with a more prominent place for Californios and miscellaneous adventurers may well have been a fertile breeding ground for a second Bear Flag Republic, perhaps abetted by the presence of the British Pacific Fleet on the look out for a main chance.

A Confederate CA, no chance,
A secessionist CA for independence, possibly
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except that California's biggest market, absent the Gold Rush,

In my opinion the possibility of a CA secession has little to do with pro-Confederate sentiment and much to do with CA particularism. I think two POD's are necessary: No Gold Rush - which leaves CA populated by a scattering of adventurers, some agricultural pioneers, and the Californios. Telegraph invented later and not in common use - The prospect of immenent telegraphic communication with Back East was a strong in binding this distant land to the common Union. A CA that feels less connected to the greater US and with a more prominent place for Californios and miscellaneous adventurers may well have been a fertile breeding ground for a second Bear Flag Republic, perhaps abetted by the presence of the British Pacific Fleet on the look out for a main chance. A Confederate CA, no chance; A secessionist CA for independence, possibly

Except that California's biggest market, absent the Gold Rush, is the New England leathergoods and shoe industries.

The only wealth the Californios had were cattle, and the only product they had that could be sold for anything other than local uses were hides.

And the hide and tallow trade (hides to New England, tallow to the west coast of Mexico and Central and South America and Asia) was already in decline in the 1840s; the only thing that saved ranching in California in the 1840s and 1850s was the Gold Rush.

Which reinforces the fact that California was too weak to defend itself, as the realities of the US forces deployed in 1846-47 make clear; without a major power patron - and given the realities of the North American geostrategic situation, the only one possible is the U.S. - there's no way to provide the stability necessary for any economic growth. It's basically the same pattern that Texas went through, except the Californians were smart enough not to pretend for a decade.

Of course, without the Gold Rush, there's no reason for any other power but the US to care.

Best,
 
I Agree with David T

The "Southern California Secesh Movement" was never serious. As for Mexicans in California, please remember that they may have disliked, or even hated Yankees, but they absolutely despised Southrons, who after all made up 75% of the US Army that invaded Mexico in 1848, and represented nearly all of the Texas settlers that took the state away from Mexico in 1836. So if its a choice between the Union and the Confederacy, for Mexican-Americans that's no choice at all. And before anyone says it, with the Imperial French invasion, a "return to Mexico" is the least savory choice of all.
 
The biggest problem for a CA secession movement is that it was a Free State and its economic ties were with the North. CA really has nothing to gain from either complete independence or joining the CSA.
 
Top