A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952

The California of today is a union of complexities. It is a geographic giant composed of startling climatic and topographic variations. It is an economic elasticity satisfying the differing demands of agriculture, industry,and commerce. It is a social syncretism uniting a vast assortment of living p...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: McDow, Roberta Blakley
Format: Others
Published: Scholarly Commons 1952
Subjects:
Online Access:https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/1180
https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2179&context=uop_etds
id ndltd-pacific.edu-oai-scholarlycommons.pacific.edu-uop_etds-2179
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-pacific.edu-oai-scholarlycommons.pacific.edu-uop_etds-21792021-10-05T05:12:19Z A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952 McDow, Roberta Blakley The California of today is a union of complexities. It is a geographic giant composed of startling climatic and topographic variations. It is an economic elasticity satisfying the differing demands of agriculture, industry,and commerce. It is a social syncretism uniting a vast assortment of living patterns. With all of these diversities, California is a single, sovereign state. Within the state, however, there are two obvious sections: Northern and Southern California.1 They are separated, theoretically, by the Tehachapi mountain range, which runs east and west, on a line with the city of Santa Barbara. So pronounced is this sectionalism that Carey McWilliams said of it, "While other states have an east-west or a north-south division, in no state in the Union is the schism as sharp as in California."2 Even more forceful is the comment by John Gunther, "California is . . . two states; the dividing line is the Tehachapi . . . ."3 The distinction between Northern and Southern California, although it is more highly developed, is not the only manifestation of sectionalism within the state. Other geographic areas have also developed varying degrees of sectionalism. The subsequent rivalry of two or more localities has frequently intensified to become a movement to divide California. William Henry Ellison,6 in his monograph "The Movement for State Division in California, 1849-1860," presents a thorough study of this problem during the first decade of California's statehood. It is the purpose of this study to record the proposals for political division form 1860-1952. To understand the division attempts after 1860, it is appropriate to summarize the agitations prior to this period. 1952-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/1180 https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2179&context=uop_etds University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations Scholarly Commons California History Political Science
collection NDLTD
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic California History
Political Science
spellingShingle California History
Political Science
McDow, Roberta Blakley
A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952
description The California of today is a union of complexities. It is a geographic giant composed of startling climatic and topographic variations. It is an economic elasticity satisfying the differing demands of agriculture, industry,and commerce. It is a social syncretism uniting a vast assortment of living patterns. With all of these diversities, California is a single, sovereign state. Within the state, however, there are two obvious sections: Northern and Southern California.1 They are separated, theoretically, by the Tehachapi mountain range, which runs east and west, on a line with the city of Santa Barbara. So pronounced is this sectionalism that Carey McWilliams said of it, "While other states have an east-west or a north-south division, in no state in the Union is the schism as sharp as in California."2 Even more forceful is the comment by John Gunther, "California is . . . two states; the dividing line is the Tehachapi . . . ."3 The distinction between Northern and Southern California, although it is more highly developed, is not the only manifestation of sectionalism within the state. Other geographic areas have also developed varying degrees of sectionalism. The subsequent rivalry of two or more localities has frequently intensified to become a movement to divide California. William Henry Ellison,6 in his monograph "The Movement for State Division in California, 1849-1860," presents a thorough study of this problem during the first decade of California's statehood. It is the purpose of this study to record the proposals for political division form 1860-1952. To understand the division attempts after 1860, it is appropriate to summarize the agitations prior to this period.
author McDow, Roberta Blakley
author_facet McDow, Roberta Blakley
author_sort McDow, Roberta Blakley
title A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952
title_short A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952
title_full A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952
title_fullStr A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952
title_full_unstemmed A study of the proposals to divide the state of California from 1860 to 1952
title_sort study of the proposals to divide the state of california from 1860 to 1952
publisher Scholarly Commons
publishDate 1952
url https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/1180
https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2179&context=uop_etds
work_keys_str_mv AT mcdowrobertablakley astudyoftheproposalstodividethestateofcaliforniafrom1860to1952
AT mcdowrobertablakley studyoftheproposalstodividethestateofcaliforniafrom1860to1952
_version_ 1719487028088799232