WI: Monterey remains the capital of California?

So as you all know (or maybe not), the city of Monterey was the territorial capital of California until 1845, until the constitutional convention (also held in Monterey) decided to move it elsewhere.

So for those who know California history (and hopefully the nature of the Central Coast), what happens if we decided to keep it here in Monterey?

It's good to keep in mind that the Central Coast is, all things considering, rather rugged, low on water and as a consequence, pretty under populated. It's rather small town, nature-y and tourism-based. Could the area ever host the capital of a large state, with all the requirements that come with it?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
When Salinas (pop 150K) is the big city in the region, and

So as you all know (or maybe not), the city of Monterey was the territorial capital of California until 1845, until the constitutional convention (also held in Monterey) decided to move it elsewhere. So for those who know California history (and hopefully the nature of the Central Coast), what happens if we decided to keep it here in Monterey? It's good to keep in mind that the Central Coast is, all things considering, rather rugged, low on water and as a consequence, pretty under populated. It's rather small town, nature-y and tourism-based. Could the area ever host the capital of a large state, with all the requirements that come with it?

When Salinas (pop 150K) is the big city in the region, and Sacramento has a population of almost 500,000, I think the answer is pretty clear... there's just not enough water (as you point out), it's pretty hard to get there from anywhere else other than by sea, and it doesn't deal with the "balance" required between regions within the state.

The Central Coast is beautiful, but it's a long way from the two true centers of the state's population and wealth today, and even farther from the two in the 1850s (San Francisco Bay and the Mother Lode).

Benicia made more sense then; Sacramento made even more.

Today?

Bakersfield or Fresno, presumably.;)

Best,
 
IIUC LA doesn't have any water either, but it's massive. Could water be dragged in from elsewhere?
 
IIUC LA doesn't have any water either, but it's massive. Could water be dragged in from elsewhere?

Possibly... but the LA basin simply has waaaay more space. The Central Coast is pretty rocky and unusable..... OR way too fertile to waste on being a city...
 
Sacramento is a great place to have the capital as it is in the middle of a massive plain and information could be spread from there to any place in the state relatively quickly. San Francisco was also very centered, but in the 1840's was too much of a rugged backwater. The same goes for Longerey, they're still a town based around an almost century old mission, and, other than being a large town on the coast, have got much going for them. Their terrain is too rugged to send information out pre-radio style, and to develop it would mean millions of dollars (even back then).

It just doesn't make sense, compared to the flat, fertile, and centered spots in the Valley.
 
I live near there, in Morro Bay, on the other side of Big Sur. I was there the other day. Making Salinas capital would have messed up its agricultural productivity which is the basis of its economy.

Big Sur and the Santa Lucia mountains make great scenery, but the steep mountains make it hard to develop the region south of Monterey and that's why there's only a few small tourist towns in there. It used to be a hiding spot for bandits I've read.

Getting between there and LA or what were the missions in Santa Barbara or Santa Ynez then would be hard with the natural obstacle.
 
All the responses are about what I expected, but it's still an interesting thought. The area would certainly be quite odd if by chance Monterey had remained the capital. It'd be pretty silly to see a state of nearly 40 million run by a town that in OTL only has a couple dozen thousand people. :D


As said above, Salinas could maybe pull it off, but it'd be an awful waste of really fertile soil...
 
All the responses are about what I expected, but it's still an interesting thought. The area would certainly be quite odd if by chance Monterey had remained the capital. It'd be pretty silly to see a state of nearly 40 million run by a town that in OTL only has a couple dozen thousand people. :D


As said above, Salinas could maybe pull it off, but it'd be an awful waste of really fertile soil...


Then again, isn't Sacramento a waste of fertile soil too? Wouldn't something like San Francisco of another big bully town be less of a waste?
 
Getting between there and LA or what were the missions in Santa Barbara or Santa Ynez then would be hard with the natural obstacle.

Wouldn't traveling by sea be easier in any case at the time? Monterey being a coastal town, it seems like it would be easier to get to Santa Barbara or Los Angeles from there than from landlocked Sacramento. Granted, Sacramento has its rivers, but still...
 
Wouldn't traveling by sea be easier in any case at the time? Monterey being a coastal town, it seems like it would be easier to get to Santa Barbara or Los Angeles from there than from landlocked Sacramento. Granted, Sacramento has its rivers, but still...

I mean yes? But keep in mind that LA and SB were basically not places in the 1850s...
 
Top