WI: California War for Independence After Successful Southern Secession

Greenville

Banned
What if California and other surrounding territories seek to acquire independence after southern states successfully secede during the failed American Civil War?
 
Yeah this isn't likely without some large POD that goes back quite a few years. Some ways I could think of...

1) Possibly a larger Mexican population spread throughout California when it is "annex/liberated" that keeps up in numbers with the migrating population and faces discrimination which results in dissent though something would be needed to get the Anglos and other migrants on board. (This maybe mixed with 2).
2) For some reason there is a belief in a likely or decent chance of revolt in California which leads to a larger military presence which alienates the locals, though again this would need other factors mixed in.
3) California finds itself with a non-Anglo majority, possibly larger Chinese and Mexican immigration along with factors slowing the Anglo-American migrants like an earlier settlement of the Oregon territory and a late discovery of gold in California temporarily pushes settlement further north? Not to sure on plausibility of this one.

But one or a mixture of these things could alter the Civil War itself which complicates the issue.

If I think of more after some research/thinking I'll edit.
 
The closest thing to a secessionist movement in California was that some Californians had wanted to split into two fee states that were part of the Union. Existing business interests strongly supported the Transcontinental railroad, which had been under construction since 1863. An attempted Califonia secession is wildly unlikely and has no real chance of success.
 

Deleted member 97083

Mexico isn't the US.
The Rockies and Great Plains aren't the Rio Grande. Logistically, the US prosecuting a war in California in 1862/1863 is as difficult or more difficult than Mexico in Texas in 1836. Especially if they've lost the ACW and the Transcontinental Railroad is behind schedule.

While it's unlikely California would secede in the 1860s, if they did somehow have the motivation, they have at least the chance that Texas had to acquire independence.
 
What would be the motivation for such a move. The population of California was mostly Anglo, there were no movements for independence in California at that time, unless you go ABS.

Thank you,
MrBill
 
The Rockies and Great Plains aren't the Rio Grande. Logistically, the US prosecuting a war in California in 1862/1863 is as difficult or more difficult than Mexico in Texas in 1836. Especially if they've lost the ACW and the Transcontinental Railroad is behind schedule.

While it's unlikely California would secede in the 1860s, if they did somehow have the motivation, they have at least the chance that Texas had to acquire independence.

The US wasn't a little behind Mexico but a lot. Outside the South it was also more stable.
 
What would be the motivation for such a move. The population of California was mostly Anglo, there were no movements for independence in California at that time, unless you go ABS.

Thank you,
MrBill

Enough with the "improbable event X is ABS"! Look at the site's help forum to see why that doesn't count.

Back to the OP's desired question... I don't see why they couldn't win given that all it would take is cutting a few rails to make supplying a recapturing force difficult. The question is, where to go from there since that kind of kills California's own economy.

Well, it's self sufficient for agriculture (they haven't yet outgrown their water supply). Perhaps the succession goal is that they feel that the federal government will intrude into state business more and take lots of money in the form of taxes (and... if that's the motivation that fear would be well grounded)? So poorer and free is better than far away control but richer (hey... it's 1776 all over again)? If this is the case, then the newly independent republic needs to focus on getting a good merchant economy running. Ironically, this would mean their primary partners for the first few decades would be Meji Japan and the British.
 
What if California and other surrounding territories seek to acquire independence after southern states successfully secede during the failed American Civil War?

The Union has a large navy and hundreds of thousands of troops. California loses badly.
 
California did have pro-slavery advocates and Southern sympathizers in Southern California. Some of them approached then Union General Albert Sidney Johnston to secede with Oregon to form a Pacific Republic. Idea never took off, but Johnston did join the CSA later. Another thing to note, California supported John C. Beckenridge with 28.3% of the vote and Stephen Douglas with 31.7% of the vote. Succession is possible but unlikely.
 
The Rockies and Great Plains aren't the Rio Grande. Logistically, the US prosecuting a war in California in 1862/1863 is as difficult or more difficult than Mexico in Texas in 1836. Especially if they've lost the ACW and the Transcontinental Railroad is behind schedule.

While it's unlikely California would secede in the 1860s, if they did somehow have the motivation, they have at least the chance that Texas had to acquire independence.
Mexico was a completely unindustrialized nation that had been wracked by political upheaval since its inception. Its (conscript) forces were led personally by a military dictator whose credentials were dubious at absolute best. He decided to brake off with only a few hundred men, his plans were captured by spies, and his army was literally caught napping. He signed a peace treaty with a gun to his head, and Mexico was unable to send another army because it was also facing multiple other rebellions. Logistics were far from the primary obstacle. It was the weaknesses of Mexico rather than the strength of the Texans that settled things. This compared to the United States, which even after losing a Civil War is a large, wealthy, industrial power. The US could mobilize more soldiers than there were people in California.
 
California did have pro-slavery advocates and Southern sympathizers in Southern California. Some of them approached then Union General Albert Sidney Johnston to secede with Oregon to form a Pacific Republic. Idea never took off, but Johnston did join the CSA later. Another thing to note, California supported John C. Beckenridge with 28.3% of the vote and Stephen Douglas with 31.7% of the vote. Succession is possible but unlikely.

Breckenridge got 37.5% off the vote in Pennsylvania, but there was no chance of Pennsylvania joining the Confederacy. Very few people who came from from free states and voted for Beckenridge supported the Confederacy. Douglas supporters from free states were almost entirely pro-Union. Counting guerilla/bandits perhaps 200 Californians fought for the Confederacy. About 50 Californians joined the Confederate army, as opposed to about 5000 who joined the Union army.
 
Last edited:
Breckenridge got 37.5% off the vote in Pennsylvania, but there was no chance of Pennsylvania joining the Confederacy. Very few people who came from from free states and voted for Beckenridge supported the Confederacy. Douglas supporters from free states were almost entirely pro-Union. Counting guerilla/bandits perhaps 200 Californians fought for the Confederacy. About 50 Claifonians joined the Confederate army, as opposed to about 5000 who joined the Union army.

Exactly, and Douglas was strongly pro-Union and thought Lincoln didn't call up enough troops as he thought it should have been 200,000 not 75,000. http://www.authorama.com/life-of-abraham-lincoln-27.html In this he was obviously right. I agree with the link that Lincoln didn't call that many up because it was impossible at the time due to Buchanan's incompetence.
 
Last edited:
If California wanted independence, they would not want to become part of the British Empire.

Yep, and short of it becoming part of the British Empire I don't see how it pays off for the Brits to piss off the US for no particular reason.
 
It is also important to note though Breckenridge joined the CSA he ran as a Unionist in the 1860 election http://www.history.com/topics/john-c-breckinridge. That he was obviously lying does not change the fact that he did NOT run on a pro-secession platform. Many who voted for him, particularly north of the Mason-Dixie line no doubt believed that he was telling the truth when he ran AGAINST secession. The average voter had no reason to suspect he was a liar without shame and had no sense of honor.
 
Top