WI: Southern California secedes from the Union during the American Civil War?

There was quite a lot of secessionist sentiment in Southern California as the Civil War started, to the point where there was serious discussion of seceding and forming their own CSA-aligned state. What would the effect on the Civil War have been if this had happened?
 
They'd last about five minutes as the militia that was mustered to repulse the (ultimately pointless) Confederate invasion of Arizona and New Mexico would actually have something to do.

All the industry, population, and much of the agriculture not to mention the gold and silver strikes in California as of 1860 were all concentrated in the northern end of the state around San Francisco, Sacramento, and the San Joaquin River Valley. Los Angeles was, quite literally, a one street fishing town and ranchers' market, San Diego wasn't much bigger, and the rest was sparsely populated shrubrush dominated by the remaining indigenous population. The CSA would gain nothing from it and California would probably see a handful of skirmishes that are referred to as "battles" only because they'd be the largest armed confrontations in the state since the Mexican American War.
 
South California would be re-annexed to California in couple weeks. So this would be only curious fact on the Civil War and probably all will goes as in OTL.
 
I agree that it wouldn't be able to last long. But how about it creating more of a Southern California identity? My guess is that even if it does, it will be outweighed by the antipathy people will have for the Confederate past of the region. But it may slightly increase the chance that the US splits the state of California.
 
I agree that it wouldn't be able to last long. But how about it creating more of a Southern California identity? My guess is that even if it does, it will be outweighed by the antipathy people will have for the Confederate past of the region. But it may slightly increase the chance that the US splits the state of California.

What identity? Right to won people? I don't think that there will not develope separate Southern Californian identity. Whole thing probably is remember just act of some nutheads. Idea about independent state of South California probably will end be so dead as idea of independent CSA.
 
I agree that it wouldn't be able to last long. But how about it creating more of a Southern California identity? My guess is that even if it does, it will be outweighed by the antipathy people will have for the Confederate past of the region. But it may slightly increase the chance that the US splits the state of California.

Not likely. The US had the option of splitting Texas, who went whole hog Confederate during the Civil War, into up to five states following annexation and refused to do so. With how isolated and sparsely populated SoCal was at the time there'd be even less incentive to do so.
 
Not likely. The US had the option of splitting Texas, who went whole hog Confederate during the Civil War, into up to five states following annexation and refused to do so. With how isolated and sparsely populated SoCal was at the time there'd be even less incentive to do so.

I was thinking gradually, like the 1940s or something.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
California was a free state and had been since statehood, more

There was quite a lot of secessionist sentiment in Southern California as the Civil War started, to the point where there was serious discussion of seceding and forming their own CSA-aligned state. What would the effect on the Civil War have been if this had happened?

California was a free state and had been since statehood, more than a decade earlier. No free states seceded; not even all the slave states seceded.:rolleyes:

In the 1860 election, only 28 percent of the electorate went for Breckinridge (which in itself was not a marker for disloyalty; many Southern Democrat voters remained loyal, including Breckinridge's running mate), which means at least 72 percent of the electorate voted in favor of overtly anti-secession candidates. A Republican was elected governor early in 1862, succeeding a War Democrat.

During the course of the war, some 17,000 Californians are estimated to have enlisted for the duration with the US forces; another 3,000 served in the state's organized militia during the conflict, for a total of 20,000 from an 1860 census population of ~380,000. Sources are Dyer, the Official Records, and the California Adjutant General.

At the same time, a grand total of 21 Californians are known to have made the effort to head east to offer their services to the rebellion. 20,000 to 21 is roughly 900 and some change to 1.

So the odds seem rather high.;)

Best,
 
Last edited:
in 1859 the California legislature actually votes to split the state into the state of California in the north and the territory of Colorado in the south. This was the only time a complete legislature has ever sent this request to congress but congress was somewhat busy in 1859 with more pressing matters
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
And by 1861, it was yesterday's news

in 1859 the California legislature actually votes to split the state into the state of California in the north and the territory of Colorado in the south. This was the only time a complete legislature has ever sent this request to congress but congress was somewhat busy in 1859 with more pressing matters

And by 1861, it was yesterday's news...

Between 1858 and 1862, California had five different governors from three different parties, and five different US senators; good luck trying to make a case for political constancy.

It's worth noting that after Stanford was elected governor in January, 1862, the Republicans held it until 1867. It wasn't exactly a rebel state...

It's also worth noting the "Pico Bill" referenced above was largely an outgrowth of the struggle over political control in San Francisco, and that the author, Andres Pico, was a loyalist who was a commissioned general officer in the California militia during the Civil War and served in the state Legislature, albeit as a Democrat, while Stanford was governor. Again, not exactly a fire eater.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Top