WI: Pico Act

[wolf_brother]

This is something that I don't think has ever been discussed before. In 1859, Andrés Pico, a Californio hero of San Pasqual and then-state Senator and prosperous ranchero who owned thousands of acres of land in the south of the state, proposed a resolution to divide the state. The reasons he gave were generally those that even modern California state secessionists use; the state was too large to properly manage, and southern Californios were overtaxed and under-represented. The Pico Act proposed to divide the state at the 36th parallel north, creating the 'Territory of Colorado.' On 25 March 1860 the Assembly passed the bill, it was approved by California Senate on 14 April, and then-governor John B. Weller signed it on 19 April. Then, as per the Assembly committee's recommendation, to make the bill even more democratic it was put to a referendum, to which Californians approved by some 75%.

However, the US Congress ignored the act as the Crisis of Southern Succession was just then taking off, and it was all-but forgot about after the Civil War. So in any scenario involving a late avoidance of the Civil War, or one that at least puts it off to a later date, the Act isn't ignored and forgotten. What happens next?

 

[wolf_brother]

Bump. (filler)

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

If the Californian Legislature accepted the proposal, it would then go to Congress as described in the US Constitution (Article Four, Section 3, Clause 1).

As ITTL the ACW is avoided or doesn't happen till later, perhaps one of the two Californias would be admitted as a slave state? Dunno how likely that is, but the Slave holdings states wouldn't be happy about having *two* Free states added to the Union.

 

[wolf_brother]

If the Californian Legislature accepted the proposal, it would then go to Congress as described in the US Constitution (Article Four, Section 3, Clause 1).

As ITTL the ACW is avoided or doesn't happen till later, perhaps one of the two Californias would be admitted as a slave state? Dunno how likely that is, but the Slave holdings states wouldn't be happy about having *two* Free states added to the Union.

By 1859 California has already been within the union as a free state for nearly a decade, and the Missouri Compromise line has already been effectively abolished by the Compromise of 1850. If the Pico Act is agreed to by the US Congress than the new state is pretty well guaranteed to be a free state.

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

I understand that, just pointing out the Slave states wouldn't be happy about it. They'd likely try and block the creation of two Californias.

 

[wolf_brother]

I understand that, just pointing out the Slave states wouldn't be happy about it. They'd likely try and block the creation of two Californias.

Kansas could potentially have been brought in as a slave state in early 1859 if the Lecompton Constitution wasn't rejected by Congress. Perhaps another grand compromise à la 1850 bundles the two issues together.

 

[Bartholome de Fonte]

There you go then.

 

[wolf_brother]

There you go then.

OK... I wasn't meaning to, and as far as I see it I didn't, answer my own thread. I was just pointing out that there would be ways to assuage southern anger over the addition of 'another' free state to the union.

My hope in making this thread is that someone with more background in the period and area would post detailing their thoughts on the immediate and long-term (10+ years) of a Californian split.