WI: California Decides to Stay Independent After Mexican-American War?

What if the Golden Bear Republic decided to stay a Republic instead of gaining statehood? What would the map look like?

I think that almost all of the West would fall under their influence and California, today, would be an economic superpower.

Any thoughts?
 
Western Settlers from the US go in in droves.
They dominate the californian legislature and eventually, it becomes a US state ala Texas.

The only alternative is California relies on Chinese immigration to balance out the American and European immigration;
Most likely, US statehood will happen anyway.
 
The Bear Flag Republic never had a chance of staying independent. It was founded by, and led by Americans including an active duty American military officer for the express purpose of gaining the territory for the United States. Now if the Californios revolted during the Mex-Am War and gained independence, then it will proceed much like Wolfhound described, where California will become American sooner or later due to immigration/goldrush unless it gains a foreign backer. Britain is the only plausible foreign backer, but without massive PODs, I don't see Britain as being interested.
 

Highlander

Banned
I wonder if the best way to make California independent is to grant the same to Texas; without the obvious connection, I doubt it would fall under American influence.
 
Depending on US/UK relations, Britain could be very interested in something that looks like being a counterweight to the USA in North America.

For substantial British help you need Whitehall to think that the Bear Republic is a viable project. I don't know what it would take to achieve that, but if you do you could plausibly have two things, first British ecenomic and industrial assistance, and second closing off the Pacific coast by Oregon either staying British or going to California...

If you can make it plausible that gets MESSY.
 
What if the Golden Bear Republic decided to stay a Republic instead of gaining statehood? What would the map look like?

I think that almost all of the West would fall under their influence and California, today, would be an economic superpower.

Any thoughts?

There used to be a really interesting and LONG timeline by Doug Hoff called "How the West was Weird" which was based on a surviving California Republic and which was really good. Unfortunately, it is no longer posted on the web. Perhaps someone here knows where it can be accessed, or how to contact Mr. Hoff...
 
I think it's somewhat ASB. For trade purposes, if not much else, California was pretty valuable. Ports like San Francisco were a hell of a lot better for trade with Asia than Seattle, do it climate and (I believe) geography. California was also incredibly sparsely populated. This isn't the California of today with a population higher than most countries. This is mostly a desert shithole with a nice line of coast that a couple hundred thousand people settled at. There wasn't a whole lot of Californian nationalism; California didn't have a unique ethnic or religious identity, like you saw in places like the Netherlands (which is historically German). If California remained independent for a long time, certainly, there would be a Californian identity, but not then. So with news that America wanted to annex California, most Californians wouldn't be as pissed off as if America declared it wanted to annex, say, Quebec. Or Mexico.

As long as America wanted California (and it will!), California will end up American. You'd need a really strong reason for California to stay independent.
 
The Bear Flag Republic never had a chance of staying independent. It was founded by, and led by Americans including an active duty American military officer for the express purpose of gaining the territory for the United States. Now if the Californios revolted during the Mex-Am War and gained independence, then it will proceed much like Wolfhound described, where California will become American sooner or later due to immigration/goldrush unless it gains a foreign backer. Britain is the only plausible foreign backer, but without massive PODs, I don't see Britain as being interested.

Exactly my thoughts, although if one imagined an early PoD, in which a Californian independence movement arose among the indigenous Latino population at roughly the same time as the Mexican revolution on 1821 and the state acheived independence as a non-anglo nation in the early 19th century, this might affect later history. For one thing, California and British North America might establish a common border on the Pacific in the 1820's or 1830's, precluding any US claims on Oregon.

A major purpose of the Mexican-American war was to gobble up all of northern Mexico, especially California and reach the Pacific. If California was not part of Mexico, but another latin american republic, this complicates things. Even if a war of conquest with Mexico was justified on the basis of the Texas border disputes, what would be the reason to delare war on California when the dispute was supposedly with Mexico? I could see a situation where the US assimilates the former Mexican territories that become New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, etc., in the 1840's-50's but westward expansion temporarily stops there as the American Civil War puts further expansion on hold for a decade or two. In Through skillfull diplomacy California might prevail on Britain to offer some alliance, although whether or not Britain would want to risk war to keep the US from having a Pacific coast would need to be explained.

However, none of this means an independent hispanic California would end up with the world's 9th largest economy in 2009. This never happened anywhere else in Latin America and it's hard to imagine that, without the influx of American settlers and capital, California would be anything other than a much smaller, less populated, and more impovershed version of Mexico.
 
A major purpose of the Mexican-American war was to gobble up all of northern Mexico, especially California and reach the Pacific. If California was not part of Mexico, but another latin american republic, this complicates things. Even if a war of conquest with Mexico was justified on the basis of the Texas border disputes, what would be the reason to delare war on California when the dispute was supposedly with Mexico?

US has a habit of saying basically

"Hey, you, you wanna be my ally? Cool!"
*war*
"Hey, yeah, umm, since we occupied your land for, uhh, purely defensive purposes and to help you guys out, how about you sign this document letting us annex you? Thanks!"

However, none of this means an independent hispanic California would end up with the world's 9th largest economy in 2009. This never happened anywhere else in Latin America and it's hard to imagine that, without the influx of American settlers and capital, California would be anything other than a much smaller, less populated, and more impovershed version of Mexico.

Very true. It has strong advantages that I think would lead to it being pretty stable and well off compared to other Latin countries, but it wouldn't be nearly as well off as it is today. IIRC, it was Stanford, a New Yorker, that really modernized California and began tapping its potential. Without him, you don't see that for quite a bit longer

They might also be a bit more protectionist during the Gold Rush, trying to give advantages to natives, which means less of a population influx then.
 
US has a habit of saying basically

"Hey, you, you wanna be my ally? Cool!"
*war*
"Hey, yeah, umm, since we occupied your land for, uhh, purely defensive purposes and to help you guys out, how about you sign this document letting us annex you? Thanks!"

What ATL are you writing from? Exactly when has the U.S. done that?
 
Guess you could argue that's kinda how Texas went, but even I wouldn't go that far.

Only outright conquest the US really did was Hawaii. Not our finest hour either.

You really can't argue that Hawaii was conquered by the USA. Fillibustered by American citizens, yes, but not conquered. President Cleveland strongly opposed both the fillibustering and the subsequate attempts to annex the resultant banana (pineapple) republic. The only real outright conquests the U.S. made were the territories gained during the S-A War, and the Mexican Cession.
 
An unlikely scenario;

California starts off the way it did OTL with initial immigration, however sentiment in America changes and the country becomes more isolationist and unwilling to incorporate California, perhaps with protectionism becoming popular, thus cutting the argument for trade ports, eventually California, realizing it won't achieve statehood and would be better off independent either outright declares it or works with the government towards it.
 
Guess you could argue that's kinda how Texas went, but even I wouldn't go that far.

No, not really. The U.S. never sent troops to assist the Texan rebels, who achieved their independence on their own. And Texas asked to be annexed by the U.S. The U.S. did not occupy it and then annex it.

Only outright conquest the US really did was Hawaii. Not our finest hour either.

And it wasn't really a conquest by the U.S., per se. Basically it was a rebellion by American businessmen (albeit with unofficial support by the American Minister to Hawaii, who ordered American Marines to assist the rebels under false pretenses of restoring order). President Cleveland attempted to have the monarchy restored, having investigated the matter of the overthrow of the Hawaiian government and found it highly nefarious. Unfortunately, Congress failed to pass the measure, and the Republicans annexed the islands in 1898 under William McKinley.

As you say, not our finest hour, but hardly an "outright conquest."
 
Only outright conquest the US really did was Hawaii. Not our finest hour either.

You are absolutely right about Hawaii. The US invaded and conquered a peaceful ally. Cleveland later mentioned that is was 'an act of war'. U.S. Minister Stevens spoke with the American businessmen and guaranteed they US support should they seek to overthrow the Hawaiian Government. The overthrow wouldn't have succeeded without the presence of US forces.
 
What ATL are you writing from? Exactly when has the U.S. done that?

We did it a few times with Native Americans. Most prominent one I can think of is the Red Sticks rebellion, where a bunch of the northern chunk of Creeks joined Tenskwatawa's religious group. That started a civil war with between the Creeks, and the US ended up deciding to help out the southern ones. After the rebellion was squelched, the US had the Creeks sign over most of their land. The majority of the land taken was from the southern Creek allies. Look up "Horseshoe Bend" for more details.

Could have north and south mixed up, but either way, that's generally what happened.
 
We did it a few times with Native Americans. Most prominent one I can think of is the Red Sticks rebellion, where a bunch of the northern chunk of Creeks joined Tenskwatawa's religious group. That started a civil war with between the Creeks, and the US ended up deciding to help out the southern ones. After the rebellion was squelched, the US had the Creeks sign over most of their land. The majority of the land taken was from the southern Creek allies. Look up "Horseshoe Bend" for more details.

Could have north and south mixed up, but either way, that's generally what happened.

There's a major difference between doing something like that to what was then considered a tribe of savages and doing that to a recognized nation state, which is what the California Republic would be in this proposed scenario. The U.S. has no history of doing that to nation states, so your original statement is still invalid, even if what you say about the Creeks is true.
 
I know that the POD of a Henry Clay administration is frequently used for the existence of an independent California and Texas.
 
Well, there is the Philippines. The Spanish American War ended in 1898. The US could have just recognized a Philippine government, but the instead spent several more years conquering the place to make it a US territory.

Regarding the Indian Wars, I would not count these. None involved military actions in areas which had not already been been ceded to the US under treaties with Britain, France, Spain, or Mexico. Thus, the Indian wars are more akin to internal ethnic cleansing or police actions, not wars of conquest.
 
Top