California's Close Call

Texas and California, two giants within the U.S., both larger in economy and size than many independent countries, yet with opposite ideologies (with exceptions, of course). It's no secret that both states have had their differences, and at times, they may have wished the other was a bit smaller or even split apart. In this blog, we'll take an unbiased approach and explore these states separately. Today, we'll delve into California's intriguing history, specifically how it came closest to splitting in two right before the Civil War.

While California is often seen as a unified entity, it wasn't always the case. In recent times, there have been occasional discussions about Northern California wanting to secede from the liberal South, as the majority-conservative North seeks a separate path. Interestingly, similar sentiments were expressed in the 1850s, but with the parties and regions flipped.

Back then, Southern California was sparsely populated and home to a mix of former Spanish colonists (Californios) and American southerners who had migrated from Texas and Arizona. Both groups had reservations about the influx of immigrants and Yankees, primarily in San Francisco, and desired to split from California. Economic reasons were cited by one group, while the other group's reasons were rooted in ideology.

In the 1850s, there was an official proposal to divide California, and it wasn't a feeble petition like those we often hear about today. Led by State Senator Andres Pico, Southern California embarked on a full-fledged movement to split from the state. Pico, like many influential Californios, owned ranches and felt that San Francisco didn't represent the interests of ranch owners like himself. His plan was to divide California at the 36th parallel, with everything south of that line becoming a new territory named Colorado.

It's important to note that the Colorado we commonly associate with today didn't exist on the map at that time. The name "Colorado" only applied to the river running alongside the eastern border of Southern California. The land was divided between Utah and a lengthy Kansas territory.

So, why didn't Southern California successfully split off? Did the vote fail? Surprisingly, the vote passed, and it was even signed by the governor before being sent to Washington for approval. However, Washington in 1860 was preoccupied with other matters, and the vote remained in limbo. The crisis of the Civil War overshadowed the movement, and Southern Californians' aspirations were simply swept under the rug.

Southern Californians attempted to revive the idea of splitting a few decades later, but it never gained the same momentum. Eventually, the advent of railroads, followed by the rise of Hollywood, brought an influx of people to the region, transforming it entirely within a span of 50 years.

Now, let's explore an alternate timeline. What if this vote had occurred a few years earlier, just one or two years before it did? In an alternate 1857 or 1858, let's imagine the vote goes through and reaches Washington, where both houses of Congress and the presidency were held by Democrats. Under this scenario, President James Buchanan, a pro-slavery Democrat, gives the go-ahead, and the votes for splitting California are approved. The territory of Colorado emerges as its own entity.

However, Colorado's secessionist tendencies would face a significant obstacle during the Civil War. Although there were deep sympathies for the Confederacy in Los Angeles and much of Southern California, federal troops from the North quickly suppressed these secessionist sentiments. Similar to Missouri or Kentucky in our timeline, the public had strong feelings but never successfully rebelled. So, Southern California's brief venture into a pro-slavery state would be short-lived.

If the territory attempted to secede from the Union, it would have failed. Californian and federal troops would occupy Southern California, but it wouldn't be reabsorbed into California. Instead, Colorado would become federal territory, and its citizens would need to vote again to join California. Given the population's sentiments at the time, the likelihood of them wanting to rejoin California was low, and California wouldn't want to force the issue either. Thus, it's more plausible that both states would go their separate ways.

So, what lies ahead for the territory and eventual state of Colorado in this alternate timeline? As Colorado enters the post-war period, it remains as it was, while California becomes a distinct entity. It would be a unique part of the 19th century, where Hispanics hold significant political power, particularly the wealthy land-owning rancheros. However, an uneasy alliance between Hispanics and Southern aristocracy would prevail due to historical precedent.

Unfortunately, this alliance wouldn't bode well for the Californios. Before Southerners could fully implement their policies, the completion of the transcontinental railroad brought an influx of Yankees, transforming the culture and dynamics of the region. While Los Angeles remained rural for a while, it always benefited from its pleasant Mediterranean climate.

In the 20th century, filmmakers sought to escape the influence of Thomas Edison, drawing them to Los Angeles. Here lies the problem for Colorado or Southern California in this alternate timeline. Southern California would always attract an increasing number of Northerners, thanks to its prime coastal real estate. The same people who desired Colorado's independence would find themselves outnumbered as the 20th century progressed. Southern California's growth was not due to state policies but rather its desirable weather.

Colorado would eventually become a state, experiencing a similar influx of people and the rise of the movie industry, transforming its culture. However, in terms of financial stability, modern Colorado would face challenges, particularly regarding water supply, had its population followed our timeline. Dependence on Californian support during frequent droughts would create difficulties. Nonetheless, this alternate timeline would result in a wealthy, small state, not only due to its coastal cities but also because California never ceased to be an oil state.

In conclusion, the possibility of California splitting in two before the Civil War offers a fascinating historical perspective. Examining the movements, sentiments, and events of that time allows us to envision an alternative path for both California and the hypothetical state of Colorado. While we can only speculate about the exact outcomes, exploring this alternate timeline sheds light on the potential consequences of diverging historical trajectories.