California is usually not considered as politically or militarily significant to the national

conflict of the Civil War. The state was admitted into the Union in 1850 and the gold rush took

place immediately afterwards. The nation-wide migration to the West in search of gold, land, and

prosperity isolated California from the rising conflict between the North and the South. As

Northern free-states and Southern slave-states debated the purpose and morality of slavery, gold

mining was developing a new and distinct culture in California. In addition to being culturally

separated, California was geographically separated from what was going on in the nation by a

wide territory of non-states that the United States had not yet developed. For these reasons,

California in the gold rush years and California in the Civil War are often seen as independent

from one another. Yet, despite California’s seemingly lack of involvement in the national

conflict, Californians understood the magnitude of the nation’s increasing political division and

voiced their opinions on the issues of slavery and secession. Differing opinions and loyalties

turned California during the Civil War period into a stage for a debate between its northern and

southern counties.

California never seceded from the Union, but there was a loud public discussion of

whether to remain loyal to the federal government or support, and possibly join, the seceding

states. Furthermore, some migrants from the slave states, who were members the California

legislature, openly pushed for seceding from the Union. Newspapers discussed secession in

articles and editorials that reflected the particular political attitude of the county in which they

published. While officially the state of California appeared to support the Union, newspapers

carried conflicting messages. The newspapers in Northern California seemed committed to the

Union cause and the federal government, while those of Southern California were much less

clear and at times seemed supportive of secession and the Confederacy. This reflected the

1
population differences between Southern and Northern California, the Southern counties having

a higher population of slave-state migrants, several open secessionists, and a large discontented

non-white population from Spain and Mexico. The ambiguity expressed in the newspapers over

time brought California’s loyalty into question in the early years of the Civil War.

The secessionist attitude in Southern California newspapers did not put California into

the limelight of Civil War history. Nevertheless, the topic of California secession was of interest

to scholars within two decades after the war’s end. Its historiography began with broad

examinations of the differences between Northern and Southern California that led to movements

for state division before the war. The first was J. P Widney’s article, “A Historical Sketch of the

Movement for a Political Separation of the Two Californias, Northern and Southern, under both

the Spanish and American Regimes,” which was written in the late 1880s and examines attempts

to divide Northern and Southern California under both United States and Mexican control.1 In

1905, J. M. Guinn published his article, “How California Escaped State Division,” in which he

focuses more than Widney on the measures taken to preserve California as a single state.2

William Henry Ellison followed the footsteps of Widney and Guinn almost 50 years later by

more thoroughly examining the social, economic, and political differences between the Northern

and Southern regions of the state. In his book, A Self-Governing Dominion: California, 1849-

1860, written in 1950, Ellison briefly looks at movements to divide California while focusing

primarily on the population’s desire for independence before the Civil War.3

1
J. P. Widney et al, “A Historical Sketch of the Movement for a Political Separation of the Two Californias,
Northern and Southern, under both the Spanish and American Regimes,” Annual Publication of the Historical
Society of Southern California 1, no. 4 (1888-9): 21-24.
2
J. M. Guinn, “How California Escaped State Division,” Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern
California 6, no. 3 (1905): 223-232.
3
William Henry Ellison, A Self-governing Dominion: California, 1849-1860 (Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1950).

2
 Beginning in the early twentieth century, scholars gave attention to California specifically

during the Civil War. Imogene Spaulding’s article, “The Attitude of California to the Civil War,”

written in 1912, was the first to place California exclusively in the context of the war. Spaulding

looked at how the conflict caused political and social turbulence between Unionists and

Confederate supporters in the state. 4 The Sacramento Daily Union then published an article in

1917 that focused primarily on Sacramento’s role in California during the war. In the article,

“Sacramento Played Brave Part in Saving California to Union in Dark Days of Civil War,” Judge

W. A. Anderson argues that patriotism and Union loyalty prevented California secession and

claims that Sacramento during the Civil War displayed the most patriotism in the state.

According to Judge Anderson, multiple Union militias were organized in the city that defended

California from a secessionist plot formed by the secret, Confederate-supporting organization,

Knights of the Golden Circle.5 California’s attitude toward the war remained of interest to

scholars almost a century later, as seen in Daniel Barbeau’s 2007 article, “Pacific Rebels:

California’s Civil War Monetary Secession,” which claims that the state’s economic autonomy

toward the end of the war led to a “monetary secession” that other Pacific states followed.6

Among examinations of California before and during the war, there has been in-depth

attention to specific groups that played key roles in the secession issue. In 1990, Ronald Woolsey

wrote the article, “The Politics of a Lost Cause: ‘Seceshers’ and Democrats in Southern

California during the Civil War,” in which he claims that Southern California was home to many

Democrats from the South who spoke out against the federal government and openly supported

4
Imogene Spaulding, “The Attitude of California to the Civil War,” Annual Publication of the Historical Society of
Southern California 9, no ½ (1912-13): 104-131.
5
W.A. Anderson, “Sacramento Played Brave Part in Saving California to Union in Dark Days of Civil War,”
Sacramento Daily Union, October 28, 1917.
6
Daniel D. Barbeau, “Pacific Rebels: California’s Civil War Monetary Secession,” (Master’s thesis, California State
University, Fullerton, 2007), accessed October 11, 2017, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

3
secession. Woolsey then argues that these Southern Democrats believed they were being

mistreated because of their political views, and thus “demanded fair pay, an end to harassment,

and the right to the personal liberties of speech and press.”7 In 2013, David Keehn focused on a

more secretive group in his book, Knights of the Golden Circle: Secret Empire, Southern

Secession, Civil War, in which he looks briefly at California’s role in a major scheme designed

by wealthy Confederate supporters to preserve the institution of slavery.8 Gene Armistead

brought another Confederate-sympathizing group into focus in 2016 in his article, “California’s

Confederate Militia: The Los Angeles Mounted Rifles.” Armistead shows that Confederate

supporters in Los Angeles were willing to fight for the South as they organized a Confederate

militia called the Los Angeles Mounted Rifles.9 The formation of a Confederate militia in

California speaks to the level of Southern support that lived in the state’s Southern counties.

Individuals who played a part in the California secession debate were also important for

scholars approaching the topic. In her article, “Thomas Starr King and the Secession

Movement,” written in 1961, Ann Casey looks at efforts made to prevent California secession by

Unitarian Minister Thomas Starr King. King used fierce patriotism and charisma to rally support

for preserving California’s statehood and “give strength to the Union to which it belonged.”10

Two decades later, in 1981, an opposite figure to King was examined by John Robinson in his

article, “A California Copperhead: Henry Hamilton and the Los Angeles Star.” Robinson argues

that Henry Hamilton, a Southern-born Democrat and the editor of the Los Angeles Star

7
Ronald C Woolsey, “The Politics of a Lost Cause: ‘Seceshers’ and Democrats in Southern California during the
Civil War,” California Historical Society 69, no. 4 (Winter 1990/1991): 372.
8
David C. Keehn, Knights of the Golden Circle: Secret Empire, Southern Secession, Civil War (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, 2013).
9
Gene C. Armistead, “California’s Confederate Militia: The Los Angeles Mounted Rifles,” California Military
Department: California State Military Museums, Last Modified February 2016, Accessed October 12, 2017.
http://www.militarymuseum.org/.
10
Ann Casey, “Thomas Starr King and the Secession Movement,” The Historical Society of Southern California
Quarterly 43, no.3 (September 1961): 246.

4
newspaper during the war, claimed to be a Unionist despite protesting the federal government

and rallying support for the Confederacy in his newspaper.11 In 2012, Glenna Mathews brings

attention back to Thomas Starr King in her book, The Golden State in the Civil War: Thomas

Starr King, the Republican Party and the Birth of Modern California. Mathews argues that

King’s Unionist efforts helped the Republican Party gain support in California and become the

dominate party of the state during the later years of the Civil War. The dominance of the

Republicans in the state, though short lived, led to a boost in Union support that therefore

prevented California secession.12

The historiography of California secession does not follow a specific pattern in its

chronology. Scholars have approached the topic in different ways, with similar approaches

sometimes being decades or centuries apart. The various approaches, however, tend to leave out

California newspapers, the primary source of media in the state during the nineteenth century.

This paper will look at the issues explored throughout the topic’s historiography—differences

between Northern and Southern California populations that inspired a state-division movement,

pro-slavery and pro-secession attitude in the state’s southern counties, the question of

California’s loyalty to the Union—and place them in the context of the Southern and Northern

California newspapers. It will argue that California’s loyalty to the federal government during

the Civil War was ambiguous because, despite being in a Union state and claiming loyalty,

Southern California newspapers displayed secessionist and pro-Confederate undertones, which

caused disagreements and tensions with devout Unionist newspapers in Northern California. This

11
John W. Robinson, “A California Copperhead: Henry Hamilton and the Los Angeles Star.” Arizona and the West
23, no. 3 (Autumn, 1981): 213-230.
12
Glenna Matthews, The Golden State in the Civil War: Thomas Starr King, the Republican Party and the Birth of
Modern California (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

5
ambiguity brought negative attention to California from the Eastern U.S. and resulted in federal

efforts to stifle Confederate support in the state.

California from Spanish, to Mexican, to American Rule

The tensions between Northern and Southern California newspapers during the Civil War

were rooted in the differences between the population from each region. Therefore, it is

important to look at California’s early, pre-U.S. history to examine how two separate populations

eventually came to live in one state. Native American tribes were the only inhabitants of the land

that is now California until the mid-1530s, after European contact was made by Spanish explorer

Cortez and his men who traveled its lower (Baja) half. Spaniards sailed to the land’s upper (Alta)

half by 1542, and an expedition that year led by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo established Spanish

control over locations as far north as present-day Santa Barbara. These explorers found the

newly-discovered land beautiful and referred to it as California, the name based on a fictional

island paradise in a 16th century Spanish romance popular at the time.13

More Spaniards began to sail into Baja California, but voyage difficulties in reaching

Alta California delayed its settlement for more than two hundred years. Serious colonization

efforts were made in 1769, after the first military fort (presidio) and mission church were

established in San Diego that year. Throughout the next half-century, three more presidios and at

least twenty missions were created in Alta California. The presidios and missions led to the

formation of connected small towns (pueblos). In 1777, the first independent civil pueblo was

13
“The Name and Geography,” Library of Congress, accessed January 12, 2018,
https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/early-california-history/name-
and-geography/

6
created in San Jose, and others followed afterward. The pueblos, the presidios, and the missions

were the main areas of population in California under Spanish rule.14

California was under new leadership after 1821, when Spain’s American colonies gained

their independence and established the Republic of Mexico. The Mexican Republic instituted

land and settlement policies that were different from those of the Spanish monarchy. Few land

grants were given to individuals under Spanish rule. In contrast, Governors of the Mexican

Republic were encouraged to make more land grants to individual ranchos. The Mexican

Government also began to secularize the California missions in 1834, removing the control of

the missionaries, and granted their lands to white Californians and well-connected immigrants

from Mexico. This increased the number of land grants tremendously—only 50 were granted in

the decade before mission secularization and 600 were granted in the decade after. The boom in

rancho land grants led to the rise of the ranchero culture in California, and cattle-raising became

the main factor of economic life. The population of Mexicans in California settled mainly near

the Southern California coasts because many of the ranchers’ lands were in that region. In

Northern California, the number of non-Mexicans gradually increased as British, Canadian, and

U.S. settlers crossed the Oregon border while participating in the fur trade. The number of non-

Mexican residents remained low until the 1840s, when the U.S. plotted to expand its borders

westward.15

The U.S. made efforts to gain control of California in the mid-1840s, which upset its

relations with Mexico and led to war between the two countries. The Mexican-American War

14
“Spanish California,” Library of Congress, accessed January 12, 2018, https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-
first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/early-california-history/spanish-california/.
15
“Mexican California,” Library of Congress, accessed January 12, 2018,
https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/early-california-
history/mexican-california/.

7
began in 1846 and lasted almost two years, with several battles fought in California between not

only Mexican and American soldiers, but also Californian rancheros and U.S. settlers.16 The

conflict ended with Mexico’s surrender in 1848, and the U.S. gained control over the large the

large New Mexico territory and Upper California. The large Mexican population in California

initially made its social and political future under U.S. rule uncertain. The discovery of gold in

California in 1848, however, led to major population and economic changes that caused a

political dispute over whether the land should become a territory or state government.17

The Gold Rush Creates Political Dispute Between California’s Old and New Population

The greatest factor that led to separate populations in Southern and Northern California,

and the subsequent tensions between them, was the gold rush in the state. Shortly after being

obtained by the U.S., California went through major social, economic, and political changes

because of the discovery of gold. When gold was first found in California in 1848, the land

belonged to Mexico and most of its population were Mexican rancheros near its southern coasts.
18
The U.S. obtained control of California just as news of gold in its northern region began to

spread, resulting in major changes to the land’s population. Within the next few months, people

from Europe, Asia, and the eastern part of the U.S. heard rumors of the land’s natural wealth and

began streaming into Northern California by sailing through the Pacific or traveling the Plains. In

June 1848, U.S. Army officer William Tecumseh Sherman visited the land and confirmed the

16
“The United States and California,” Library of Congress, accessed January 12, 2018,
https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/early-california-history/united-
states-and-california/.
17
Tom Gray, “The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,” National Archives, last modified October 9, 2016, accessed on
January 12, 2018, https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/guadalupe-hidalgo.
18
“The Discovery of Gold,” Library of Congress, accessed January 13, 2018,
https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/early-california-
history/discovery-of-gold/.

8
rumors as true. This encouraged President James K. Polk to announce to Congress that there was

gold in California in December of that year. The California Gold Rush officially began, and in

1849 its population exploded.19

The gold rush attracted people from various countries to California, but most of those

coming were U.S. citizens from the eastern half of the country. The westward migration to

California brought with it an economic and social division between the new Anglo arrivals

settling in the north and the old Hispanic population in the south. Gold-digging and mining

quickly replaced agriculture and cattle-raising as the predominant economic interests of

Californians. 20 The result was a greater flow of people into towns near the most gold, shifting

California’s population centers from surrounding the ranchos near the southern coasts to the

mines and rivers in the northern Sierra. The Hispanic population in Southern California quickly

became the minority.21 Nevertheless, Southern California rancheros were determined to

maintain their traditional way of life while the new order overpowered the old.

The population shift caused by the gold rush brought into question whether California

should enter the Union as U.S. territory or a full-fledged state. Hispanics in Southern California

desired a territory because they distrusted their new northern neighbors and did not want to share

their livelihood with a population so different from their own. They also feared that in a state

government they would be politically underrepresented and heavily taxed. These concerns were

expressed by Southern California representatives between 1849 and 1850 at three political

conventions called to draft a California constitution. Southern California citizens actively worked

19
“The Forty-Niners,” Library of Congress, accessed January 13, 2018, https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-
first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/early-california-history/forty-niners/.
20
Ellison, A Self-Governing Dominion, 168.
21
Ibid.

9
to form a territorial government by petitioning to sever the lower counties from their northern

counterparts. In early-to-mid 1850, petitions were made and proposals were sent to the U.S.

Congress to divide California and turn its southern half into a territory. None of the division

proposals carried in Congress because California’s northern half was home to an Anglo-

American population that outnumbered Hispanics in the south and there was still extractable

gold in the mines and the hills. The question of territory or state seemed answered on September

7, 1850, when Congress admitted California into the Union as a single, free state.22 However,

arguments for making a territory out of Southern California continued and state division became

a dominant issue throughout the decade. These arguments created tensions between Northern and

Southern Californians that were reflected by disputes between the state’s newspapers during the

Civil War.

The Movement for State-Division in Southern California

The gold rush and the newly obtained statehood made California a popular destination

throughout the 1850s for thousands of U.S. citizens to settle. Yet, Southern Californians

remained passionate about state division and turning their region into a territory or a separate

state. Two factors were behind the continuing push for state division. The first factor was the

Hispanic population in Southern California, upset that their political interests were ignored by

Congress and quickly seeing their fears of underrepresentation and over-taxation become

reality.23 In the new state government, Southern Californians felt they were being “treated as

22
Ibid, 169-172.
23
Ibid, 173.

10
stepchildren” and “believed that separation of the southern from the northern part of California

was the only remedy for the ills suffered.”24

By mid-1851, the desire in Southern California for state division was met with action. On

August 9, the San Francisco Daily Alta California reported that the state’s southern half was

planning a convention of delegates in either Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, or Monterey to petition

Congress to divide California. Reasons given were that the Southern California population relied

on cattle-raising and agriculture, was “little fitted for commerce,” and had to “remain at the

mercy of the strong and active community of the north.”25 By the end of the year, a series of

conventions and other meetings were held regarding state division, and the complaints of

Southern California Hispanics remained at the center of the issue.26 However, motives for state

division became more complicated in 1852 because of an increase of slavery supporters from the

Southern U.S. migrating and settling California’s southern cities.

The second factor behind the push for state division was a wave of Southern, slave-state

migrants toward the mid-1850s that settled mostly across Southern California. Los Angeles

county alone became “overwhelmingly Democratic and many of its residents retained close

family and emotional ties with the South.” 27 Despite their view on racial superiority of whites,

citizens from slave states integrated with the non-white population of Southern California

because of their shared discontent toward the federal government. Tensions between the pro-

slavery South and the pro-abolition North increased throughout the nineteen century as national

support for slavery declined, and in the 1850s the federal government upset the South by giving

24
Ibid.
25
San Francisco Daily Alta California, August 9, 1851.
26
Ellison, A Self-Governing Dominion, 174-176.
27
Robinson, “A California Copperhead,” 213.

11
more support to the North and the end of slavery.28 In addition, Southerners who were

accustomed plantation life were comfortable with the agricultural setting that the rancheros

maintained and thus made integration simple. Slave owners found ways around California’s

restriction on slavery at the start of the gold rush,29 and within a few years slavery supporters

“occupied leading positions in the civic, business, and social life of the community.”30

The harmony between the Hispanics and the slave-state migrants made Northern

Californians believe that the central motive for state division was to create a slave territory out of

Southern California. In February 1852, the San Francisco Daily Alta California expressed this

suspicion by saying that “this impracticable and deceitful scheme for the division of the State is

mainly urged on by persons known to favor the establishment of slavery upon this coast.”31 The

Los Angeles Star defended the interests of its local population against such claims. The

newspaper expressed that “the people of the south greatly resented the introduction of slavery

into the discussion, for it pushed the real issues into the background.”32 Although local desires

for equal political representation and less taxation stayed at the front of the state-division

discussion during the 1850s, suspicion toward the slave-state migrants in Southern California

remained attached to the issue.

Other attempts to divide California were made throughout the 1850s, and in 1859 the

movement reached its climax after Assemblyman Andres Pico offered a division proposal that

progressed farther than any previously made. On February 5, Pico introduced a resolution bill to

separate the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, Lan Luis Obispo, San

28
“Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War,” National Park Service, accessed January 14, 2018,
https://www.nps.gov/shil/learn/historyculture/upload/SLAVERY-BROCHURE.pdf.
29
Spaulding, “The Attitude of California to the Civil War,” 105-106.
30
Robinson, “A California Copperhead,” 213.
31
San Francisco Daily Alta California, February 13, 1852.
32
Ellison, A Self-Governing Dominion, 178.

12
Bernardino, and Santa Barbara and create a government called the “Territory of Colorado.” The

State Assembly and Senate both passed the measure, and in April the election for state division

took place. More than two-thirds of the vote was for the measure, and the creation of a territory

in Southern California finally seemed underway. 33

In January 1860, California Governor Milton S. Latham sent a statement of compliance

with the division measure and its election results to Congress for review. In March, the House of

Representatives voted in favor of state division and a committee in the Senate drafted a bill

approving Southern California’s separation. Within a few months, however, the progress of

Pico’s division resolution ceased entirely. The reason for its sudden end was a national conflict

brewing in the eastern half of the country.34 Tension between the country’s Northern free and

Southern slave states led to a crisis that fractured the U.S. in 1860 and overshadowed the

political desires of Southern Californians.35

The secession of the U.S. South in 1860 and formation of the Confederate States of

America, known as the Confederacy, in February 1861 thwarted the process of California

division within the federal government.36 The national crisis abruptly replaced state division as

the most glaring issue in California at that time. Consequently, political and media attention

shifted from the issue of dividing Southern California from Northern California to the issue of

the state’s relationship to the unfolding events in the East. The question of territory versus state

and state division transformed into the question of whether California should secede or remain

loyal to the Union. Public opinion differed by region: Southern Californians seemed to favor

33
Ibid, 183-187.
34
Ibid, 187-189.
35
“Lincoln on Secession,” National Park Service, last modified April 15, 2015, accessed January 14, 2018,
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=327.
36
“The Secession Crisis,” Digital History, accessed January 14, 2018,
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=327.

13
secession and the Confederacy while the state’s northerners favored Union loyalty. Newspapers

across the state acted as the stage for the discussion over California secession. Southern

California newspapers showed that there was support in the state for secession in spite of

California remaining in the Union. By contrast, Northern California’s newspapers were

advocates for Union loyalty.

Southern and Northern California Newspapers Disagree Over Secession and Civil War

The pro-slavery population in Southern California started to voice its political opinions

about the formation of the Confederacy and the oncoming Civil War through newspapers that

supported Confederate interests. One of the most popular of these newspapers was the Los

Angeles Star, which since 1856 was owned and edited by a migrant from Louisiana named

Henry Hamilton. His ownership of a Los Angeles newspaper proved that journalistic publishing

was one of the “leading positions of civil, business, and social life” in Southern California

occupied by slave-state migrants.37 Hamilton’s pro-Southern views in his newspaper were

popular at the start of 1861, which reflected the views of people in Southern California who

favored Confederate interests.38

Despite running the newspaper in a free state, Hamilton frequently expressed pro-

Confederate and pro-slavery views in articles and editorials almost immediately after the

Confederacy was formed.39 On March 16, 1861, the Los Angeles Star said that the inaugural

address of Confederate President Jeffery Davis was a “calm and able document,” and that “the

37
Robinson, A California Copperhead, 213.
38
Ibid, 230.
39
Ibid, 213-214.

14
Confederacy is a fixed fact.”40 The article also claimed that people of the Confederacy. were

“acting merely in self-defense…and... are only carrying out the American idea, ‘the right of the

people to alter and abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which

they were formed.’”41

The Los Angeles Star and other Southern California newspapers often spoke out against

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, who was elected at the end of 1860 and favored the abolition

of slavery. In contrast to its opinions about President Davis and the Confederacy, the Los

Angeles Star denounced the Lincoln administration at its start. On March 23, 1861, the

newspaper expressed that “on the whole, we think the inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln a great

failure.”42 On March 22, the Los Angeles Semi-Weekly Southern News spoke against Lincoln’s

anti-slavery stance and published a plea of warning about his administration: “Look out…all ye

poor men in the South, who don’t own negroes! Your condition is to be worse [during the

Lincoln Administration], and your social position far below that of free negroes!”43 According to

the Los Angeles Star, Southern Californians were also bothered by Lincoln’s refusal to

acknowledge the seceded states as a new government and cooperate with them to achieve

coexistence. On February 16, the newspaper warned that Lincoln’s “refusal to meet [with the

Confederacy] and take council together, will be disastrous in the extreme.”44 These political

opinions made clear that Southern California sympathized with the Confederacy rather than

President Lincoln and his administration, which vastly differed from the opinions given in

Northern California.

40
“The Southern Confederacy,” Los Angeles Star, March 16, 1861.
41
Ibid.
42
“Presidents Inaugural,” Los Angeles Star, March 23, 1861.
43
“Poor White Men at the South,” Los Angeles Semi-Weekly Southern News, March 22, 1861.
44
Los Angeles Star, February 16, 1861.

15
 Northern Californians were mostly devout Unionists who defended Lincoln in their local

newspapers after his election. On December 27, 1860, the San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin

stated: “It is true, he [Lincoln] is unaware of…having inflicted any wrong upon the South, and

hence he may feel assured of the approbation and support of all well-meaning, reflecting, Union-

loving citizens, and confident of a historical verdict in his favor.”45 Though not explicitly saying

so, the article suggests that the anger among the people of the Southern U.S. is unfounded since

Lincoln was “unaware” that he posed any threat to them. Northern California newspapers

continued to support the President-elect after his inauguration into office the next year. On

March 19, 1861, the Sacramento Daily Union spoke highly of Lincoln’s inaugural address when

it stated that “the general impression created by the new President’s introductory [speech] is

favorable,” and that “all agree that it is creditable to his heart. . .”46

Northern California newspapers agreed with Lincoln’s anti-slavery views and opposed

the institution after his election. On December 31, 1860, the San Francisco Daily Evening

Bulletin stated that the seceded Southern states were “ignoring the historical lesson that no

people every yet achieved greatness as a Republic based on slavery,” and that a “servile

population, sooner or later, proved the overthrow of their masters…”47 On March 12, 1861, the

Bulletin expressed: “In our own way, we have upheld freedom and resisted the extension and

aggression of slavery; while in this line of duty, we shall ever be faithful…” The article later

stated that “we will go to death, if need be, for the Union...”48 With support for President Lincoln

45
“From Home of the President Elect,” San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, December 27, 1860.
46
Sacramento Daily Union, March 19, 1861.
47
“Second Letter from Washington,” San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, December 31, 1860.
48
San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, March 12, 1861.

16
and opposition toward slavery, there was little wonder in this period of where Northern

California newspapers would stand on the secession crisis and formation of the Confederacy.

While Northern California newspapers supported Lincoln and denounced slavery, they

also expressed their opinions about secession and the formation of the Confederacy. On

December 20, 1860, the San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin published this bleak prediction as

to what would happen to the Southern slave states after secession: “Separated, …the South first

becomes a Despotism, running riot for a season, with unrestrained African slavery, to share, in

time, the fate of every tropical nation, whether Despotism, Monarchy, or Republic. That fate,

induced by indolence, luxury and laxity of the privileged few over the oppressed, degraded,

enslaved many, is anarchy and destruction.”49 On February 25, after the formation of the

Confederacy, the San Francisco Daily Alta California said, “the leaders of the secession

movement in the Cotton States have made up their minds to force the people in that region to try

the experiment of independence.”50 The Confederacy was seen as something not chosen by the

people of the South but was instead forced upon them by their state officials.

After the official start of the Civil War on April 12, 1861, the pre-existing tensions

between Southern and Northern Californians were intensified and the opposing political opinions

between their newspapers diverged further51. Southern California newspapers were firm and

vocal about blaming the Union for being the cause of the war. On May 4, the Los Angeles Star

said: “The tocsin of war has rung out over the land…Fraternal blood flowing in living streams;

cities sacked; homes laid waste; fields covered with the dying and the dead—such are the

49
“Thurlow Wood on the Crisis,” San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, December 21, 1860.
50
“Programme of the Secessionists,” San Francisco Daily Alta California, February 25, 1861.
51
“Civil War Timeline,” National Park Service, last modified March 25, 2015, accessed January 21, 2018,
https://www.nps.gov/gett/learn/historyculture/civil-war-timeline.htm.

17
pictures… And to this deplorable condition has our glorious country been reduced. And why?

Because the North would not cease to interfere in the affairs of a people with which they had no

rightful concern.”52 This implies that the Union was the main reason for the war since it intruded

on the rights of the Confederate population.

Northern California newspapers referred to the Civil War as a rebellion against the

federal government rather than a revolution to overthrow an oppressive regime. On May 4, 1861,

the Sacramento Daily Union stated that “it is clear…that this revolution—secession—

rebellion— [call it] what you will, must have its price. And it is the policy of our government,

unless it has all along been a delusion, to make the price for forcibly going out of the Union—for

trampling on the constitution—that in all time to come no state will be willing to pay it for slight

and trivial cause.”53 On May 24, the newspaper expressed that the Confederacy was morally and

financially unsupported when it stated: “The rebellion of the Cotton States meets with no moral

encouragement from any portion of the world. …They will be left to their own resources, and

those resources are likely to be exhausted long before the war terminates.”54 The doubt expressed

in Northern California newspapers over the moral justification and financial stability of the

Confederacy reflected the local opinion that the rebellion against the Union was bound to fail

from its start.

Between 1860 and 1861, Northern and Southern California newspapers disagreed over

the state’s role in the Civil War. Southern California newspapers expressed that the state would

likely be affected by the war and need to play a larger role while still criticizing the federal

government. On April 20, 1861, the Los Angeles Star stated that Lincoln “must be willfully or

52
Los Angeles Star, May 4, 1861.
53
The Right of Revolution,” Sacramento Daily Union, May 4, 1861.
54
“News of the Morning,” Sacramento Daily Union, May 24, 1861.

18
stupidly blind to the mainsprings of human and national action, who cannot see that the exercise

of such acts of sovereignty in their ports by what they regard to be a foreign power, would never

be a submitted for a moment without collision. … California may not as yet have felt the shock

of disturbing elements as deeply as some of her sister states, but there is more in store for her.”55

In contrast, Northern California newspapers expressed Union loyalty after the start of the war

and supported fighting for the Union if necessary. On May 5, 1861, the San Francisco Daily Alta

California said the following: “With this rebellion, California has not and can have no sympathy.

She is loyal to the core, and will stand by the Stars and Stripes as long as the vestige of them

remain. …if we should be called upon to furnish troops to maintain the Government…, it would

be our duty to comply.”56 Though Northern California newspapers were confident that the state

would remain loyal to the Union, the possibility of secession came from Southern-supporters

who plotted to remove the state from the Union and establish its independence in the West.

A Pacific Republic: The Movement for California Secession and Independence

At the same time that the northern and southern newspapers were publicly debating the

merits of secession and the coming war, there were actual, secret secession plans afoot in

California. The orchestrators of these plans were wealthy, politically active slave-state migrants

who worked to remove California from the Union and aid the Confederacy. Most were members

of the Knights of the Golden Circle (K.G.C.), a secret society that between 1860 and 1861 had

more than 15,000 anti-Union members in California who operated in various parts of the state. 57

Rather than directly claim that California secession was a means to help the Confederacy, the

55
“Proceedings of the Democratic State Central Committee,” Los Angeles Star, April 20, 1861.
56
“Civil War Probably Commenced,” San Francisco Daily Alta California, May 5, 1861.
57
Keehn, Knights of the Golden Circle, 129.

19
K.G.C. planned to obtain independence for the state and create a new government that would be

known as the Republic of the Pacific. If successful, the Republic of the Pacific could become a

critical part of a much larger slave empire that the K.G.C. hoped to create.

The closest the K.G.C. came in forging a Republic of the Pacific was in late-1860 when

the secret society plotted to overthrow the California government in San Francisco. Asbury

Harpending, a Kentucky-born Californian and K.G.C. member, was involved in the plan and

said:

…take my word, it was an opportunity absolutely within our grasp. …in 1860 the ties
that bound the Pacific to the government at Washington were nowhere very strong. …
Besides, thousands were tired of being ruled from a distance of thousands of miles. The
‘Republic of the Pacific” that we intended to organize as a preliminary, would have been
well received by many who later were most clamorous in the support of the federal
government.58

Supporters for the Republic of the Pacific assumed they had the backing of General Albert

Sidney Johnson, commander of the U.S. military department of the Pacific. Born in Kentucky

and raised in Texas, Johnson, however, soon made it clear to his fellow Southern-migrants that

he would defend United States property with every inch of his power and every drop of his

blood.59 As word of Johnson’s pro-Union stance spread, the overthrow and secession plot of the

K.G.C. in San Francisco “vanished into the vast, silent limbo of the past.”60

While the existence of the K.G.C. remained secret, the plan for California secession and

the creation of the Republic of the Pacific were made public in 1861 by the state’s Southern-born

legislators. On January 3, 1861, the San Francisco Herald published a letter from California

Representative John Burch that said “the people of California…should be of one mind on this

58
James H. Wilkins, ed. The Great Diamond Hoax and Other Stirring Incidents in the Life of Asbury Harpending
(San Francisco: The James H. Barry Co., 1913; reprint., Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958), 20-21.
59
Wilkins, ed. The Great Diamond Hoax, 24.
60
Ibid, 26-27.

20
subject, and be prepared for the emergency; …let us, with a disposition to welcome all who

come to us from our ‘old homes’ seeking an asylum, raise aloft the flag of the ‘bear,’…and call

upon the enlightened nations of the earth to acknowledge our independence, and to protect us,

the only ‘waif’ from the wreck of our once noble union, the youthful but vigorous…republic of

the Pacific.”61 On January 18, the newspaper published a letter from California Representative

Charles Scott that “urged the formation of a Pacific republic for self-preservation, in case of

disunion and civil war.”62

Southern and Northern California newspapers expressed opposing opinions about the

state’s secession and creating a Republic of the Pacific. Southern California newspapers

embraced the notion of independence shortly after the idea was made public. On December 8,

1860, the Los Angeles Star stated:

…a growing impression seems to obtain that we would be far better off out of the Union,
anyhow; for what has our venerable Uncle ever done for us at all commensurate with our
merits? Should such an event happen, …A trans-continental railroad would be built
between New Orleans and San Diego in less than two years, …and the whole eastern
portion of the western continent would look to us for the staple that we would receive
from Japan and China, affording an immense revenue to us. This may sound like a wild
dream, but stranger things have happened, and nothing is too wild for reality. 63

This article shows that supporters of the Republic of the Pacific viewed California’s

independence as a major financial opportunity for the state. On December 21, 1860, the Los

Angeles Semi-Weekly Southern News also supported a Pacific republic and said that California

“would make one of the finest nations upon which the sun ever shone…”64

61
Winfield J. Davis, History of Political Conventions in California, 1849-1892 (Sacramento: Publications of the
California State Library): 129-130.
62
Ibid, 130.
63
“Letter from San Francisco,” Los Angeles Star, December 8, 1860.
64
Los Angeles Semi-Weekly Southern News, December 21, 1860.

21
 Northern California newspapers opposed the notion of California’s independence after

California legislatures first made the idea public. On February 8, 1861, the Sacramento Daily

Union rejected the idea of a Republic of the Pacific and spoke against its advocates. The article

expressed:

…like skillful partisans they devise a plan which embraces opposition to coercion, under
the name of war, and the assertion of the right of secession, the duty of California to
remain neutral—to take no part of the Union, and to place herself in a position where she
can take the advantage of circumstances and declare for a Pacific Republic. … They are
not men, as a general rule, who engage in any useful or industrial enterprises of the day.
… So completely hopeless are their prospects politically that they may well conclude that
they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by a new issue that will bring about a
revolution calculated to leave them again in the ascendency. … The working men of the
state…are not engaged in this plot to place California in antagonism to the Union and in
favor of a Pacific Republic.65

Despite never acknowledging existence of the K.G.C. and its secessionist operations in the state,

Northern California were suspicious that the push for the Republic of the Pacific was a scheme

planned by Confederate supporters.

After the start of the Civil War, Southern and Northern California newspapers tried to

influence the public on the issue of California independence with opposite strategies. Southern

California newspapers tried to convince the public that secession and independence should be

considered to maintain peace in the state and keep the war from reaching the Pacific. On May 4,

1861, the Los Angeles Star stated that “only by quietly cutting adrift from the broken and

distracted wreck is the great desideratum [for peace] to be attained. … There is no just reason

why we should espouse the cause and quarrel of either section, and create a civil war in our

midst. … If peace is desirable, let us separate from all combinations that shall tend to irritations

and discord…”66 In contrast, Northern California newspapers tried to convince the population to

65
“Secession and Pacific Republic,” Sacramento Daily Union, February 8, 1861.
66
“What Are We To Do?” Los Angeles Star, May 4, 1861.

22
reject the formation of a Republic of the Pacific. On May 12, the San Francisco Daily Alta

California called for Union loyalty in California and questioned the value of a Republic of the

Pacific when it asked: “Why should not California be faithful to the Union? Why should she

indulge in the treacherous chimera of a Pacific Republic? It was for this state that the war with

Mexico was waged. We must all shoulder arms in defense of the country.”67

The desire for California secession and the creation of the Republic of the Pacific

regressed by mid-1861 because of major pro-Union backlash in the state. Loyal California

Unionists debated Republic of the Pacific advocates within the state legislature for months and

by 1862 various resolutions were adopted that ensured California would never leave the Union.68

Religious figures like Reverend Thomas Starr King helped prevent California secession by

preaching for the need of Union loyalty to much of the population. From the start of 1861, King

“went up and down the state, into cities, towns, lumber and mining camps, agricultural

settlements, tiny villages and hamlets, anywhere, everywhere he could secure an audience, and

cried aloud his message of patriotism and loyalty.”69 Much of the general California population

also expressed overwhelming Union support by quickly organizing into numerous Union clubs

that passed resolutions that declared the people’s loyalty to the United States.70 On April 26,

1861, the Sacramento Daily Union expressed that forming Union clubs was the best way to

dissolve the chances of a Pacific republic advocates: “…the Union men of this state should

organize completely, through the agency of clubs. Let such clubs be formed in every city, town,

67
“The Great Union Demonstration,” San Francisco Daily Alta California, May 12, 1861.
68
Davis, History of Political Conventions, 131-181.
69
George Wharton James, Heroes of California: The Story of the Founders of the Golden State as Narrated by
Themselves or Gleaned from Other Sources (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1910), 175.
70
Davis, History of Political Conventions, 131.

23
and county in California. It is the only practicable plan by which the Secessionists can be foiled

with their own weapon, and it ought to be acted upon without hesitation.”71

Southern California Newspapers on the Defense

By mid-1861, it seemed clear that Southern California newspapers supported the interests

of Confederate supporters over those of the federal government. However, they wanted to avoid

being labeled treasonous publications and used their right to freedom of speech and press to

defend their anti-government expressions.72 Southern California newspapers also tried to avoid

being called treasonous by backpedaling and speaking highly of the Lincoln Administration. On

July 22, 1861, the Los Angeles Star stated, “the great efforts made by the administration of Mr.

Lincoln, for the promotion and protection of the interests of California, should awake in the heart

of every citizen of our State feelings of deep gratitude.”73 This contrasted the anti-government

attitude of several other Star issues and was an obvious attempt to appear loyal to Northern

California newspapers and the Lincoln Administration.

Southern California newspapers’ attempts to avoid being viewed as treasonous

publications were weak and ineffective when compared to their continuous denouncement of the

federal government. At the same time that widespread Union-support ended the chances of the

Republic of the Pacific, Southern California newspapers increasingly spoke against the Lincoln

Administration for being the cause of the Civil War. On July 27, 1861, the Los Angles Star

expressed that “the history of the world does not fail to condemn the folly, weakness and

71
“Startling Events,” Sacramento Daily Union, April 25, 1861.
72
Woolsey, “The Politics of a Lost Cause,” 372.
73
“We Should be Grateful—Very,” Los Angeles Star, July 22, 1861.

24
wickedness of that Government which drew its sword upon its own people when the demanded

guarantees for their rights.”74 The next month, on August 31, the newspaper stated that “it will

reach us, if not by bloodshed and carnage, by contributions on our substance, by exhaustion of

our means, by the destruction of our agriculture, manufacturers, and commerce. …And for what

is all this taxation? To enable the [Lincoln] Administration to carry on a wholesale butchery of

the people of the Southern States, who have had the temerity to ask to be let alone, and allowed

to govern themselves.”75 This article expressed the idea that helping the Union win the war by

contributing the state’s wealth and resources would lead to devastation in California.

Northern California newspapers responded to the Confederate sympathy in Southern

California by denouncing their rebellious speech and expressing that the southern region was

home to many scheming secessionists. On August 30, 1861, the Sacramento Daily Union stated

that “in [California’s] southern counties, we hear of unusual activity among the Secessionists; of

guns being purchased, and secret meetings being held, and evident preparation of some kind in

or out of the State.” 76 On September 23, the San Francisco Daily Alta California called the Los

Angeles Star “an avowed secession sheet,” and claimed that “it has been established without

question that the Secessionists in the lower part of the State were plotting for the overthrow of

the Government previous to the late election… It is no less our duty to suppress every

manifestation of treason here but, to so order our own course that no discredit be cast on the

Government.”77

74
“War on the South, Los Angeles Star, July 27, 1861.
75
“Paying for the War,” Los Angeles Star, August 31, 1861.
76
“News of the Morning,” Sacramento Daily Union, August 30, 1861.
77
“Reaping the Whirlwind, San Francisco Daily Alta California, September 23, 1861.

25
 In another attempt to avoid being viewed as treasonous, Southern California newspapers

denied accusations of any secessionist activity in the region and expressed that such claims were

false. On September 28, 1861, the Los Angeles Star responded to claims made by the San

Francisco Daily Alta California with anger and stated that “it makes no difference how absurd

the rumors started, the Alta believes them… We asked for information from the Alta—as that

paper assumes to be so well informed of the condition of these counties—as to the facts of this

case—we repeat it now—where are the Secessionists? …What is the object of all this

malevolence and misrepresentation? ‘Secession,’ ‘rebellion,’ or ‘treason’ have no existence

here.”78 Another article from the same issue expressed that “it is with great reluctance we allude

to these infamous lies on the very face of them. But they obtain circulation – some pretend to

believe them, and finally they are transmitted to the Northern part of the state, where they are

taken for facts…”79

The next month, in October, the Los Angeles Star continued to defend Southern

California against claims of secession activity. On October 12, the Los Angeles Star blamed the

staff of the San Francisco Daily Alta California for generating lies about Southern California.

The article expressed that “the ‘rumors’ are so foolish in themselves, that no one would be silly

enough to repeat them, except indeed the Alta, for whose edification they were manufactured by

the writer.”80 The writers of the Daily Alta California never responded to the statements made by

the Star, but the latter’s passionate defense of Southern California against claims about secession

activity in the region seemed out of place. For almost a year, late 1860 to late 1861, Southern

California newspapers expressed opinions that clearly opposed the federal government,

78
Los Angeles Star, September 28, 1861.
79
“Sensation Rumors,” Los Angeles Star, September 28, 1861.
80
“More Exaggeration,” Los Angeles Star, October 12, 1861.

26
supported the right of secession, supported the formation of the Confederacy, and supported the

secession of California and creation of a Pacific republic. Yet, the same newspapers claimed that

actual secession activity in Southern California was an outrageous rumor. The defense of

Southern California in the region’s newspapers did little to change their appearance as pro-

Confederate publications. Their political opinions contrasted the Union support in Northern

California newspapers since the election of President Lincoln in November 1860, and the

accumulation of their disagreements over time made the state’s allegiance ambiguous to the

Eastern U.S. and the federal government.

Response from the Eastern States and from the Federal Government

After months of Southern and Northern California newspapers expressing opposing

political opinions about secession, the Civil War, and the Republic of the Pacific, the eastern half

of the United States started looking at California with uncertainty about the state’s loyalty. From

mid-to-late 1861, newspapers in the East acknowledged the political divide in California’s

population and the complexities that came with that division. On June 3, 1861, the New York

Times stated, “to attempt to describe the effect of the news from the East upon California is not

an easy matter, and there are so many conflicting parties, interests, and opinions.”81 On

September 20, 1861, the Philadelphia Press stated that the “loyalty of California, is somewhat

surprising, when we recollect that, for years past, …the Southern men, who came into the state

shortly after she was admitted into the Union—have controlled the Democratic organization by

means of the patronage bestowed upon them by Presidents Pierce and Buchanan.”82

81
“California Gossip,” New York Times, June 3, 1861.
82
“Letter from ‘Occasional.’” Philadelphia Press, September 20, 1861.

27
 In early 1862, the federal government responded to the Confederate-sympathy and

rebellious speech in Southern California newspapers by restricting their national circulation. On

February 14, 1862, the U.S. Post Office Department informed Los Angeles postmaster W.G. Still

that certain Southern California newspapers were being used to spread anti-Union propaganda

and Confederate sympathy and turn citizens away from supporting the federal government.83

Orders were “issued for the suppression of the…Los Angeles Star, …from the mail, on the

ground” because it was “used for the purpose of overthrowing the Government, giving aid and

comfort to the enemy now at war with the United States Government.”84

The orders from the Post Office Department ended the circulation of the Los Angeles Star

by the federal postal service, but did not end the publication entirely. On March 1, 1862, the Los

Angeles Star expressed that the newspaper would still circulate in the Southern California

counties and that “the parcels will be carried to the different localities by private conveyance.”

The newspaper then spoke against the orders and the federal government when it stated: “From

the forgoing order, it will be perceived how full a measure of freedom is vouchsafed in this much

boasted free and enlightened nation. …under these circumstances, the liberty of speech and of

the press, are mere shams. We look upon this use of authority as a very weak effort of a ‘strong

government.’ However, it interferes very little with the general circulation of the Star.”85

As the war intensified towards the end of 1862, newspapers that continued to oppose the

federal government were considered treasonous publications by federal officials and their editors

were met with criminal charges. On August 8, 1862, U.S. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton

ordered that “all U.S. marshals and superintendents or chiefs of police…are hereby, authorized

83
Robinson, A California Copperhead, 219.
84
“The Freedom of the Press,” Los Angeles Star, March 1, 1862.
85
Ibid.

28
and directed to arrest and imprison any person…who may be engaged, by act, speech, or writing,

in discouraging volunteer enlistments, or in any way giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or in

any other disloyal practice against the United States.”86 In October, U.S. Marshal Henry Barrows

spoke out against Los Angeles Star editor Henry Hamilton and claimed that the editor “has

persistently and publicly…sought to array the sympathies of the good people of this Community

against the Government.”87 Shortly after this claim, on October 17, Hamilton was arrested and

sent to Alcatraz Island in San Francisco, and his newspaper continued without his anti-

government messages.88 Several other pro-Confederate figures were arrested in September and

October, and various California publications were banned from the mail service including the

Stockton Argus, the San Jose Tribune, the Visalia Equal Rights Expositor, the Tulare Post, and

the Placerville Democrat.89

The federal government failed to suppress pro-Confederate publications in Southern

California completely. On October 27, 1862, Hamilton took an oath of allegiance to the federal

government, posted a bail of $5,000, and was then released and allowed to return to Los

Angeles.90 By late-November, the Los Angeles Star was again speaking against Lincoln and

blaming his administration for the war. However, the popularity of the Star decreased in 1863

because new strategies from the state and federal government to ensure Union loyalty diminished

Confederate support in Southern California. Throughout 1861 and 1862, an estimated two

hundred open Confederate supporters left Southern California to join the Confederacy.91 An

86
U.S. War Department, “Order Authorizing Arrests of Persons Discouraging Enlistments,” August 8, 1862, in The
War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series III, Vol.
II, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1899) 321-322.
87
Robinson, A California Copperhead, 221
88
Ibid.
89
Robert J. Chandler, “An Uncertain Influence: The Role of the Federal Government in California, 1846-1880,”
California History 81, no. ¾ (2003): 248-249.
90
Robinson, A California Copperhead, 221.
91
Woolsey, Politics of a Lost Cause, 376.

29
increase of federal troops stationed across Southern California in 1863 to suppress anti-Union

activity and prevent a possible Confederate invasion in the region.92 In April the California

legislature passed several bills that prohibited treasonous activity and required loyalty oaths from

citizens trying to obtain various types of jobs or purchase land.93 This resulted in the gradual

silence of the pro-Confederate voice in Southern California.

California’s shrinking Confederate sympathy led to the decline of its presence in the

newspapers of Southern California. As its popularity decreased, the Los Angeles Star was

periodically abandoned by Hamilton through 1863 as he pursued non-journalistic interests and he

sold the newspaper the following September. Financial failure ended the Star’s run and on

October 1 its last issue was printed.94 While it had the longest run of expressing anti-Union

opinions in a California newspaper during the Civil War, Hamilton’s departure from the Los

Angeles Star represented the end of Confederate sympathy in state’s press. Disagreements and

debates between Southern and Northern California newspapers over the issues surrounding the

Civil War ended, and by 1864 any ambiguity over the state’s loyalty to the Union faded entirely.

Conclusion

Although California stayed in the Union during the Civil War, its loyalty to the federal

government was at times ambiguous. There was a loyal Unionist population in Northern

California and an openly pro-Southern population in Southern California, a division that resulted

from the state’s early political history. After being controlled by Spain and Mexico, the land of

92
Benjamin Franklin Gilbert, “The Confederate Minority in California,” California Historical Society Quarterly 20,
no. 2 (June 1941): 157.
93
Robert J. Chandler, “California’s 1863 Loyalty Oaths: Another Look,” Arizona and the West 21, no. 3 (Autumn
1979), 219.
94
Robinson, A California Copperhead, 224-228.

30
California was mostly populated by Hispanic rancheros who lived near the southern coasts.

Control of the land shifted to the United States in 1848 at the end of the Mexican-American War,

and its status in the country was briefly uncertain. In the same year, the discovery of gold in

Northern California led to a mass migration to the land from European counties and the Eastern

United States. The population exploded and a new gold-mining, predominantly Anglo culture

was formed that overpowered the Hispanic rancheros. Debates between the two populations over

whether the land should be a territory or state government ended in favor of the Anglos, and in

1850 California became a state. However, debates about state’s political structure continued

throughout the 1850s and by the end of the decade the division of Northern and Southern

California was almost a reality.

Though the movement was nearly successful in early 1860, efforts to divide California

were not recognized by the federal government since its attention was almost entirely on the

impending secession crisis and civil war. Nevertheless, harmony between Southern and Northern

California was still out of reach. In 1860, Northern Californians were mostly Unionists who

supported the federal government. In contrast, Southern California was home to discontented

Hispanics and a growing population of slave-state migrants who together made the region a

center of open government opposition. The state’s newspapers expressed the disparity between

Southern and Northern California and acted as the stage for discussion and debate between the

two regions during the secession crisis and Civil War.

In 1860 and 1861 Southern and Northern California newspapers repeatedly disagreed

over President Lincoln’s election and administration, the secession of the Southern states, the

creation of the Confederacy, the Civil War, and the secession of California and creation of an

independent government called the Republic of the Pacific. Though it was widely known that

31
Confederate migrants lived in California, mostly in its southern region, the frequent

disagreements and debates between the newspapers made the state’s Union loyalty ambiguous to

the Eastern United States. From 1861 to 1863, Newspapers from the Eastern states questioned

the influence of the secessionists in California, and Confederate newspapers tried to sway the

political views of the citizens to favor the South. The federal government responded to the

ambiguity of California’s loyalty by arresting pro-Confederate figures, limiting the circulation of

pro-Confederate newspapers, and increasing the number of federal troops stationed in the state’s

southern region. This resulted in the decline of Confederate support in both Southern and

Northern California, and the end of disagreements between the state’s newspapers by the mid-to-

late years of the Civil War.

California’s newspapers in the mid-nineteenth century displayed the clear differences

between the political attitudes of Southern and Northern Californians that almost divided the

state in the 1850s and made its allegiance to the Union unclear during the Civil War. Tensions

between the two regions lasted for decades after the Civil War ended, and several more attempts

to divide and remove the state’s southern half from the Union were made and debated in the

California legislature and the media.95 However, the discussion about the merits of secession and

independence was loudest in the state’s newspapers during the Civil War years. Though

California may not have had a large military or political impact on the outcome of the Civil War,

the disagreements and debates between its southern and northern newspapers show how the

national crisis deepened the existing social tensions and caused media disputes in the far western

state.

95
Steve Harvey, “Attempts to Divide California have Multiplied Over the Years.” Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2011.

32
Primary Source Bibliography

Davis, Winfield J. History of Political Conventions in California, 1849-1892. Sacramento:

Publications of the California State Library, 1893.

James, George Wharton. Heroes of California: The Story of the Founders of the Golden State as
Narrated by Themselves or Gleaned from Other Sources. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1910.

Los Angeles Semi-Weekly Southern News, December 21, 1860-March 1, 1861. Microfilm.

Los Angeles Star, March 16, 1861-March 1, 1862. Microfilm.

New York Times, June 3, 1861.

Philadelphia Press, September 20, 1861.

Sacramento Daily Union, February 8, 1861-August 30, 1861.

San Francisco Daily Alta California, August 9, 1851-September 23, 1861.

San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, December 21, 1860-March 12, 1861.

Wilkins, James H. ed. The Great Diamond Hoax and Other Stirring Incidents in the Life of
Asbury Harpending. 1913. Reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958.

Secondary Source Bibliography

Anderson, W. A. “Sacramento Played Brave Part in Saving California to Union in Dark Days of
Civil War.” Sacramento Daily Union, October 28, 1917.

Armistead, Gene C. “California’s Confederate Militia: The Los Angeles Mounted Rifles.”
California Military Department: California State Military Museums. Last Modified
February 2016. Accessed October 12, 2017. http://www.militarymuseum.org/.

Barbeau, Daniel D. “Pacific Rebels: California’s Civil War Monetary Secession.” Master’s
thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 2007. Accessed October 11, 2017. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. “History of the Fort.” Accessed January 13,
2018. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21507.

33
Casey, Ann. “Thomas Starr King and the Secession Movement.” The Historical Society of
Southern California Quarterly 43, no. 3 (September 1961): 245-275.

Chandler, Robert J. “An Uncertain Influence: The Role of the Federal Government in California,
1846-1880.” California History 81, no. ¾ (2003): 248-249.

Chandler, Robert J. “California’s 1863 Loyalty Oaths: Another Look.” Arizona and the West 21,
no. 3 (Autumn 1979): 219.

Digital History. “The Secession Crisis.” Accessed January 14, 2018.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=327.

Ellison, William Henry. A Self-governing Dominion: California, 1849-1860. Los Angeles:

University of California Press, 1950.

Gilbert, Benjamin Franklin. “The Confederate Military in California.” California Historical

Society Quarterly 20, no. 2 (June 1941): 154-170.

Gray, Tom. “The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” National Archives. Last modified October 9,
2016. Accessed January 12, 2018.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/guadalupe-hidalgo.

Guinn, J. M. “How California Escaped State Division.” Annual Publication of the Historical
Society of Southern California 6, no. 3 (1905): 223-232.

Harvey, Steve. “Attempts to Divide California have Multiplied Over the Years.” Los Angeles
Times, July 26, 2011.

Keehn, David C. Knights of the Golden Circle: Secret Empire, Southern Secession, Civil War.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2013.

Library of Congress. “Early California History: An Overview.” Accessed January 12, 2018.
https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-and-
essays/early-california-history/spanish-california/.

Matthews, Glenna. The Golden State in the Civil War: Thomas Starr King, the Republican Party
and the Birth of Modern California. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

National Park Service. “Civil War Timeline.” Gettysburg: National Military Park, Pennsylvania.
Last Modified March 25, 2015. Accessed January 21, 2018.
https://www.nps.gov/gett/learn/historyculture/civil-war-timeline.htm.

National Park Service. “Lincoln on Secession.” Lincoln Home: National Historic Site, Illinois.
Last Modified April 15, 2015. Accessed January 14, 2018.
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm.

34
National Park Service. “Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War.” Division of Interpretation
and Education. Accessed January 14, 2018.
https://www.nps.gov/shil/learn/historyculture/upload/SLAVERY-BROCHURE.pdf.

Robinson, John W. “A California Copperhead: Henry Hamilton and the Los Angeles Star.”
Arizona and the West 23, no. 3 (Autumn, 1981): 213-230.

Spaulding, Imogene. “The Attitude of California to the Civil War.” Annual Publication of the
Historical Society of Southern California 9, no. ½ (1912-1913): 104-131.

U.S. War Department. “Order Authorizing Arrests of Persons Discouraging Enlistments.” In The
War of the Rebellion: Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate
Armies Series III, Vol. II (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1899): 321-
322.

Widney, J. P. et al. “A Historical Sketch of the Movement for a Political Separation of the Two
Californias, Northern and Southern, under both the Spanish and American Regimes.”
Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California 1, no. 4 (1888-9): 21-
24.

Woolsey, Ronald C. “The Politics of a Lost Cause: ‘Seceshers’ and Democrats in Southern
California during the Civil War.” California Historical Society 69, no. 4 (Winter
1990/1991): 372-383.

35