1859: California joins the Confederacy

[Street_Disciple]

Scary thought, California came close to becoming a Confederate State, had it not been for a duel between senator David Broderick, a one time stone-cutter from NY., and Senator David Terry. David Terry, a Southerner and former supreme court justice of the California supreme court was a staunch defender of slavery, while Broderick opposed everything slavery stood for. Both men were California Democrats. In California the Democratic party was divided over the issue of slavery. When the Southern senator besmirched Broderick's humble origins, the latter rose to the senate chamber and denounced David Terry as dishonest. Predictably the Southern senator demanded satisfaction, challenging Broderick to a duel. Broderick was killed in the duel but his death rallied Californians to the cause of anti-slavery, and he became a martyr for abolition. The outcome of the duel influenced which side California was to take in the CW. Had California sided with the Confederacy, would the valuable California gold feed the Southern armies and economy, thereby possibly influencing the outcome of the war in favor of the South. What would’ve happen.

 

[David S Poepoe]

What gold? The bulk of the gold was already mined or panned out of California before 1860. There is still a good amount, any amount will help the Confederacy but your not getting any major strikes. In general you'll probably have several battles out here, but its likely the state would be divided, probably similar to how things played out in Missouri. There were very many slaveholders, if any. Albert Sidney Johnston was stationed out here right before the outbreak of the war.

The tough thing, for either the North or the South is the overland connection to California. Because of manpower, I think the North still has the advantage in severing Confederate links with California. The presence of the Union Navy may also play a part in keeping California in the Union. What I think is possible is that the state declares itself neutral in the war, helping neither side or possibly choosing the option of secession and independence (not likely).

 

[robertp6165]

California Gold--The Lifeblood of the Union

What gold? The bulk of the gold was already mined or panned out of California before 1860. There is still a good amount, any amount will help the Confederacy but your not getting any major strikes.

Not actually true. The easy-to-get-at surface gold was mined out. But hydraulic strip mining and traditional underground mining of gold (and silver) continued in California right through the war. It was handled by big mining companies, not individual prospectors, so that is why it is not generally remembered today, as it did not have the romance of the original "gold rush" days. But Abraham Lincoln once stated his own belief that California gold was the "lifeblood" of the Union during the war. So it was obviously still very important.

 

[Ace Venom]

Perhaps if California actually had seceded, a drunk may not have been in charge of the Confederate campaign in New Mexico Territory being that someone competent would be needed to ensure that the overland link between California and Texas remained viable. Of course, this could take away from another front.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

If the gold was that important, I don't think Lincoln would have let the state go, or if it seceded, would take it back very quickly. Whatever Pacific fleet we had at the time would be sitting right in San Franciso and a considerable contingent of Marines would be in Sacramento.

If however, a real fight developed, then supplying and reinforcing the beleaguered California garrison might give impetus to the Railroad. Lincoln had made his career as a railroad lawyer and was a substantial figure in the intercontinental's early plans. What war had delayed it might also promote.

 

[Melvin Loh]

Tyranny of distance

Wasn't California also a little too far away from the CSA on the eastern seaboard ? and what about the US Army detachments stationed in the West (however small they actually were) for Indian fighting ?

 

[Ace Venom]

If the gold was that important, I don't think Lincoln would have let the state go, or if it seceded, would take it back very quickly. Whatever Pacific fleet we had at the time would be sitting right in San Franciso and a considerable contingent of Marines would be in Sacramento.

If however, a real fight developed, then supplying and reinforcing the beleaguered California garrison might give impetus to the Railroad. Lincoln had made his career as a railroad lawyer and was a substantial figure in the intercontinental's early plans. What war had delayed it might also promote.

The coastal enclaves would have fallen easily, but beyond that, the Union would have had a difficult time with partisans in the mountains. They would also have to deal with the possiblity of a better Confederate general moving through New Mexico Territory to secure the link between California and Texas. If the Union follows its trend of putting the best generals in the West and the worst in the East, it won't be a huge problem, but big enough to cause concern.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I thought that it was Californian gold already in the US Mint and banks that permitted the Union to do so well from the beginning. But more the silver from the Comstock Load that kept it afloat during the war.

 

[God_of_Belac]

A civil war in California would probably induce the Spanish population to rebel as well. OTL, they had an abortive one which was defeated by the Union garrisons.

 

[zoomar]

Wasn't California also a little too far away from the CSA on the eastern seaboard ? and what about the US Army detachments stationed in the West (however small they actually were) for Indian fighting ?

Well, actually Texas extended as far west as the Rocky Mountains and New Mexico was very much in play during the early years of the war (Santa Fe was occupied by the confederates for a short time) Had California gone with the CSA, this might have changed the situation elswhere in the thinly populated west as well. I would have had no effect on the ultimate outcome of the war, however.

 

[ConfederateFly]

What if the CSA gets Southern California and US gets Northern California? Would the CSA have a quicker and bigger impact on the pacific and Asia?

 

[Grey Wolf]

What if the CSA gets Southern California and US gets Northern California? Would the CSA have a quicker and bigger impact on the pacific and Asia?

As a what-if the answer is YES, the problem as the posts below imply is the HOW IF

Grey Wolf

 

[Street_Disciple]

Perhaps if California actually had seceded, a drunk may not have been in charge of the Confederate campaign in New Mexico Territory being that someone competent would be needed to ensure that the overland link between California and Texas remained viable

From what I've learned, a lot of Confederate Texans thought the New Mexico-Arizona territory was ripe for plucking early in the war and would open a connection from Texas into California. However, they badly underestimated their supply line, their military ability, the unwillingness of the largely Mexican-American population to be annexed into the Confederacy, the military capability and resistance of Union forces in the territories, and the warlike Apaches who attacked everyone, Union and Confederate alike. The result was an unqualified disaster for Confederate forces in Texas.

 

[Ace Venom]

From what I've learned, a lot of Confederate Texans thought the New Mexico-Arizona territory was ripe for plucking early in the war and would open a connection from Texas into California. However, they badly underestimated their supply line, their military ability, the unwillingness of the largely Mexican-American population to be annexed into the Confederacy, the military capability and resistance of Union forces in the territories, and the warlike Apaches who attacked everyone, Union and Confederate alike. The result was an unqualified disaster for Confederate forces in Texas.

This is true, they did underestime the situation in New Mexico Territory. However, the South was still well on its way to victory in that theater of war, even at Glorietta Pass. The only thing that halted the Confederate advance was the fact that the Union managed to cut the Confederate supply line during the battle.

I don't remember which one of the Confederate commanders was a drunk, but California's secession would make the Confederates take this campaign a lot more seriously (though not much more). I'm not saying it would affect the overall outcome of the war, but I do believe a crushing Confederate victory in New Mexico Territory would force the Union to pay more attention to that front. Wars cost manpower and the Union has to divert manpower from somewhere to bring them into the frontier. The most obvious solution is to concentrate heavily on California.

 

[robertp6165]

This is true, they did underestime the situation in New Mexico Territory. However, the South was still well on its way to victory in that theater of war, even at Glorietta Pass. The only thing that halted the Confederate advance was the fact that the Union managed to cut the Confederate supply line during the battle.

The problem the Confederates had was not that their supply line was "cut," it was that they HAD NO SUPPLY LINE. The forces in New Mexico were essentially isolated and could only maintain themselves with captured Union supplies. They literally carried their entire stock of supplies with them in their wagon train. That is why the Battle of Glorietta was fought...the Confederates were trying to take the big supply depot at Fort Union. And that is why the battle proved a disaster for the Confederates...the Yankees discovered the Confederate wagon train, bayoneted all the horses and set the wagons ablaze, and with them, all the supplies the Confederates needed to continue the campaign.

I don't remember which one of the Confederate commanders was a drunk,

You are thinking of Brigadier General Henry Hopkins Sibley.

...but California's secession would make the Confederates take this campaign a lot more seriously (though not much more).

I disagree. I think California would have been a big enough prize that Jefferson Davis might well have assigned Albert Sidney Johnston to command the Confederate forces in New Mexico (in OTL, he was actually in command there for a brief time) and sent him with those forces into California, where they would have been swelled in size by several thousand, and possibly tens of thousands, of recruits. Once that happened, they would be very difficult to dislodge.

Of course that opens another interesting scenario. If Albert Sidney Johnston is commanding Confederate forces in the southwest and California...who then commands the Confederate defense of Kentucky and Tennessee...and later, at the Battle of Shiloh (if said battle still occurs)?

 

[Street_Disciple]

What if the CSA gets Southern California and US gets Northern California?

Funny that you mention that. When the Southern states seceded in 1860/1861 many Southerners who had migrated to the Confederacy were sympathetic to the Confederate cause. Especially in Southern California present day San Diego and Los Angeles areas although at that time they were barely villages and had seccesonist sympathies further east in the area known as the Inland Empire around the city of San Bernardino (east of Los Angeles between LA and Vegas.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Street Disciple, the US never needs to build Hoover Dam for all the water and electricity in its current form. LA is a minor community of about 50,000 today!

Actually this might have been bad for the South, once committed to an area they had little choice but to stand by a claim(hence Kentucky and Maryland on the CSA flag), on the grounds that reconsidering one secession might weaken them all. Yet the USA would have had every advantage in terms of manpower and of supply. The ability of the CSA to recruit manpower in the southwest would have been virtually non-existant, except a few thousand in California. Remember, the people there voted to be a free state, and went massively for the three union candidates in 1860@90%).

Once involved, the popular mood in California would certainly provide a majority for the USA, not to mention the army forts and Pacific Squadron for support, leaving an outnumbered and outgunned force at the end of a terrifyingly long supply line. Yet a retreat now would have been a disaster for the south. Simply falling a land grab in New Mexico is one thing but losing everything west of Texas would look very bad, no matter how brief the tenancy, perhaps deterring European interest.

And if the Union forces could now open ANOTHER front in western Texas?

The major populations were California(majority free-state), Utah, and Oregon(the latter two overwhelmingly free-state) plus the Navajo. The USA would have had a big edge. Let us also note that Utah in particular would have been an invaluable base. Hmm, another POD, where Utah enters the US thirty years sooner in reward of its loyalty in 1861...

And what would have happened if this DID become a major theater? Most likely an early collapse of the Confederacy, as their ability to provide men, weapons, and gunpowder was all questionable. Supplying a mere 20,000 might have broken the back of the South.

As it was, in OTL, the situation near Richmond was by no means certain for the first year, and the situation in Kentucky/Tennessee bordered on catastrophic. I believe it was A.S. Johnson, an exceptional officer of proven courage, who vowed to avoid and even retreat rather than engage in ANY battle that might be averted, on the grounds he had NO GUNPOWDER!

No doubt less than fully truthful, but if supplying Tennessee was a major problem, Arizona would have been hopeless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I WANTED your opinion I would read it in your entrails

 

[ConfederateFly]

Of course that opens another interesting scenario. If Albert Sidney Johnston is commanding Confederate forces in the southwest and California...who then commands the Confederate defense of Kentucky and Tennessee...and later, at the Battle of Shiloh (if said battle still occurs)?

Johnston was commander of the Department of the Pacific before the war. on his way to Richmond he was put in command of some Texans in Arizona for 4 days then he resigned and went to Tennessee. What if he stayed in Arizona instead of going to Tennessee. They put Leoindas Polk in Command in Tennessee.

The major populations were California(majority free-state), Utah, and Oregon(the latter two overwhelmingly free-state)

Utah wasn't overwhelmingly a Free state because the mormons didn't like the U.S. too much. Could there be a Mormon uprising to distract the U.S. troops? Could the CSA contract the Apaches to help them?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

ConfederateFly, actually the so-called Mormon War of 1857 greatly solidified feelings of Mormon hatred towards the south. It was certain corrupt southern political appointees whose abusive behavior triggered the whole explosion, and several southern cabinet officers and members of congress who prevailed on President Buchanan to deploy the army to crush an armed revolt, that did not exist, and to avenge crimes that had not happened. Utah under Brigham Young would have been delighted to earn rapid admission to the Union, under terms little different from what they got in OTL, while waiting until 1896 to join.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I WANTED your opinion...etc etc...

 

[Ace Venom]

Utah wasn't overwhelmingly a Free state because the mormons didn't like the U.S. too much. Could there be a Mormon uprising to distract the U.S. troops? Could the CSA contract the Apaches to help them?

You would have been more likely to see the formation of the Republic of Deseret, if anything.