California And The Civil War

If you can stand one more Juneteenth post, then please allow me to tell you the ironic story of early California and its role in the Civil War.
Way back in the late 1700's and early 1800's, the federal government maintained a political balance between free and slave states. States were required to join the Union two at a time - one free and one slave - to keep the balance. Wisconsin, a free state, had been the most recent to join before California. That meant California would have to be admitted as a slave state. California vehemently refused to become a slave state, but was admitted into the Union anyway in 1850, throwing off the policical balance in favor of free states. The Southern states were so upset over this perceived "unfairness" that it is thought to be one of their reasons for wanting to secede from the Union, and the beginning of the Civil War eleven years later.

Here's the ironic part...
There is evidence showing that some of the founders of California did not intend to be kind, and were not against slavery in theory, but rather were so very prejudiced that they did not want any person of color in the state at all, not even as a slave. That's right, California's prejudice actually played a part in freeing the slaves!

The following is an excerpt from some old California newspapers.

The Californian of March 15, 1848, says:
“We entertain several reasons why slavery should not be introduced here. First, it is wrong for it to exist anywhere. Second, not a single instance of precedence exists at present in the shape of physical bondage of our fellow men. Third, there is no excuse whatever for its introduction into this country (by virtue of climate or physical conditions). Fourth, Negroes have equal rights to life, liberty, health and happiness with the whites. Fifth, it is every individual’s duty, to self and to society, to be occupied in useful employment sufficient to gain self-support. Sixth, it would be the greatest calamity that the power of the United States could inflict upon California. Seventh, we desire only a white population in California. Eighth, we left the slave states because we did not like to bring up a family in a miserable, can’t-help-one’s-self condition. Ninth, in conclusion we dearly love the ‘Union,’ but declare our positive preference for an independent condition of California to the establishment of any degree of slavery, or even the importation of free blacks.”

Ten days later the other local journal, The California Star, said editorially:
“While we sincerely entertain these views, and value the union with the United States as highly as we should, the simple recognition of slavery here would be looked upon as a greater misfortune to the territory than though California had remained in its former state, or were at the present crisis, abandoned to its fate. * * We believe, though slavery could not be generally introduced, that its recognition would blast the prospects of the country. It would make it disreputable for the white man to labor for his bread, and it would thus drive off to other homes the only class of emigrants California wishes to see, the sober and industrious middle-class of society. We would, therefore, on the part of 90 per cent of the population of this country, most solemnly protest against the introducing of this blight upon the prosperity of the home of our adoption. We should look upon it as an unnecessary moral, intellectual and social curse to ourselves and posterity.”

As soon as the effect of the discovery of gold began to be felt, when citizens of all ranks became diggers for the yellow metal, the introduction of slaves would have been even more vigorously opposed, and in truth, would have been plainly intolerable. The editor of the Alta California, February 22, 1849, thus states the case:

“The majority—four-fifths, we believe—of the inhabitants of California are opposed to slavery. They believe it to be an evil and a wrong * * and while they would rigidly and faithfully protect the vested rights of the South, they deem it a high moral duty to prevent its extension and aid its extinction by every honorable means.”

Walter Colton had a clear perception of the exact situation when, in the Constitutional Convention at Monterey, he affirmed:
“The causes which exclude slavery from California lie within a nutshell. All there are diggers, and free white diggers won’t dig with slaves. They know they must dig themselves; they have come out here for that purpose, and they won’t degrade their calling by associating it with slave labor. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. They have nothing to do with slavery in the abstract or as it exists in other communities * * they must themselves swing the pick, and they won’t swing it by the side of negro slaves. That is the upshot of the whole business.”

SOURCE: The Virtual Museum Of The City Of San Francisco

Wikipedia Article On Free States