What if in 1855 California was split along the 36 30 parallel north into north and south California with south California becoming a slave state? Would the state of Southern California secede with the south in the civil war? How would the two states develop? Would south California be as populated as it is today? Would southern culture spread to South California or no? Would South California be a red state like most of the south or would LA still grow to be as big as it is? How would North California develop? How does American culture change with two Californias?
WI: North South California Split?
- Thread starter The_Russian
- Start date
There is a lot of time for divergences to occur. Even today there are counter-intuitive parts of the south that are legacy Democrat (especially in local elections), and are becoming Democrat again. Parts of southern California were Republican up until recent times, though are now changing to Democrat.
36-30 gives you the southern portion of the central valley but without big irrigation projects the region's agriculture is limited. I don't think slave plantations work well out there.
36-30 gives you the southern portion of the central valley but without big irrigation projects the region's agriculture is limited. I don't think slave plantations work well out there.
Well Arizona allowed slavery when it was a territory, and it’s mostly desert. Let’s say regardless, South California is admired as a slave state. Would it join the confederacy? And how do water rights play out? Does Norrh California keep it all to them self’s? Can South California still grow without help from North California?
Its unlikely they'll join right away, the CSA might send an expedition. Some SC politicians might consider it, and a few Californio hopefuls maybe even their own secession. Slavery or not, in a separate SC the land-owningCalifornio families will have a bit more sway and political power than in the larger California of OTL.
Water would not be an issue just yet. Water rights became an issue as LA exploded in the early 1900s. Even now most of the water comes from the Colorado River. And just like that watershed is shared with Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Mexico the Owen's Valley source will have to be negotiated with North California. Most of the water was used to irrigate the San Fernando and San Bernardino Valleys; assume less development in these areas, and greater development around Ventura County and the Owen's Vaitselfstelf (which might keep some of its water).
SC can still grow, the area has a lot to offer. Remember LA was an oil town and manufacturing hub first and foremost. The coastal counties are great for agriculture. Both San Pedro and San Diego have great inlets on which to build ports on. Like in OTL, it's just a matter of time for a railroad to cross from the Gulf to Southern California. And the weather will always be great to attract immigration. Water or no water SC will figure it out just like Pheonix figured it can pump water to a desert plateau where there shouldn't be enough water to sustain a city its size; yet... there it is.
Would LA still grow to be the 2nd biggest city in the us? Or would it just be a Phionex es on the coast? Does Hollywood still pop up? Do we see more southerners move to South California leading to a cultural connection to the rest of the south or would things be mostly the same?