Spanish North America

I would like to look into a scenario involving the Spanish colonizing the East Coast of OTL United States, more then the extent of just Florida.

I myself have only come up with a scenario involving my "Colombo: Servant of Portugal" scenario where Columbus works for Portugal and claims the Caribbean and Mainland Central America for Lisbon. As a result the Two Catholic Monarchs manage to snag a certain architect and explorer, Cabot, and finance a northern trip to North America.
 
Spanish colonies in the southeast could work somewhat like those in the Caribbean, establishing large plantations worked by slaves or indentured servants to grow cash crops like indigo or sugarcane. Cotton wouldn't become valuable until much later.

Further north, the Spanish would have a lot of trouble. The only things of value to extract in any quantity in the northeast are fish and furs, which take a lot of patience and willingness to live rough to benefit from.

Assuming they try to follow the colonial model they followed OTL, the Spanish are much more likely to stick to the southeast, rather than create settler colonies in the temperate areas.
 
Actually, here in Virginia, there is a Lost Spanish Mission. The guess is that is was on the Dan, the Appomattox, or the Potomac.

The Governer of Florida, concerned by English and French pirates operating north of his Viceroyalty (the Galleon fleet would take advantage of the currents to travel the Atlantic clockwise), tried to expand north in a manner similar to Padre Serra's efforts in California.

The mission failed, and was abandoned and forgotten.

I'm going to the local library that has the book tomorrow. If my memory isn't shot, I'll check it out and re read it.
 
Could they have established a stable south(?) californian colony, perhaps linked with the colony of Philipines? Would bring interesting racial demography, perhaps more philipinos and asians in the west, mexico...
 
Ajacon or something like that? There was a Missionary attempt with ten men 36 years before Jamestown was founded, but one of them betrayed the rest to the locals and had them killed except for one survivor or something.
 

FDW

Banned
It's definitely doable in the Southeast. The far north is trickier, maybe you can the Spanish take advantage of the Basque fishermen to make a claim on the Grand Banks?
 
Ajacon or something like that? There was a Missionary attempt with ten men 36 years before Jamestown was founded, but one of them betrayed the rest to the locals and had them killed except for one survivor or something.

Sounds right. I only got halfway through the book, and had to return it. I'd forgotten about it until now. (Like I said, shaky memory).
 
Though the Protestant Reformation would add a certain new level of desire to keep the Protestants out of North America. If they manage to settle as far as Chesapeake Bay the. They may find impetus to fortify potential areas such as the Delaware and Hudson river mouths with some settlement.
 
IOTL, the Spanish tried to set up a colony in what is now Georgia, but it failed after most of the colonists died because of disease and the rest were killed during a slave revolt. just have this colony succeed and you could have them control the Deep South
 
Could they have established a stable south(?) californian colony, perhaps linked with the colony of Philipines? Would bring interesting racial demography, perhaps more philipinos and asians in the west, mexico...

The Philippines, and the rest of the Spanish East Indies* were linked to it IOTL, they were administrated from, and part of, the Viceroyalty of New Spain (IE Spanish North America).



*Which encompassed what's now Palau, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and F.S. Micronesia.
 
The Philippines, and the rest of the Spanish East Indies* were linked to it IOTL, they were administrated from, and part of, the Viceroyalty of New Spain (IE Spanish North America).



*Which encompassed what's now Palau, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and F.S. Micronesia.

I always wondered one things - did they use philipinos and other groups as 'forced' workers or free workers-settlers in Spanish Americas?
 
I always wondered one things - did they use philipinos and other groups as 'forced' workers or free workers-settlers in Spanish Americas?

As far as I know they used a mixture of Amerindians and Africans and eventually just did the free workers thing since they realized it was easier.

The Philippines was never really what I supposed you'd call an exporter of human labour like India was for Britain or Indonesia for the Dutch.
 
I think Spanish control of the lower south is completely, entirely feasible. It would just be like an extension of their Florida and Caribbean colonies. It's the north that's hard to predict. Could the Spanish have possibly held on to lion's share of two continents? Plus, the powerful English and Dutch will want to grab colonies somewhere, England in particular seems too powerful to just get cut out of the colonial game in the Americas.

Though the Protestant Reformation would add a certain new level of desire to keep the Protestants out of North America. If they manage to settle as far as Chesapeake Bay the. They may find impetus to fortify potential areas such as the Delaware and Hudson river mouths with some settlement.

But why would Spanish settlers want to settle in the cold middle of nowhere where there's hostile Indians and no minerals when they have an entire empire to the south?
 
But why would Spanish settlers want to settle in the cold middle of nowhere where there's hostile Indians and no minerals when they have an entire empire to the south?

Fish?

Aren't Basque fishermen assumed to have discovered the Americas far earlier? Let them establish permanent fishing outposts in OTL New England, gradually expanded by farmers, fur traders and missionaries. This wouldn't spread as fast as New England IOTL, but you might have them start a century earlier than the English.

To get more settlers into the New World, maybe some monastic or knightly orders take it over to help Catholics persecuted by Protestant to resettle around those fishing villages due to their European climate?
 

mowque

Banned
Starting a colony is hard. You need a constant influx of people, resources and support (royal or private). This is obvious as you read the account of the hundreds of various failed missions, colonies and towns. Even the successful ones (like Jamestown, hundreds of years later) was a close-run thing.

I find it hard to believe a few fishermen or a small monastic order could devote the amount of effort it would take to get a colony going.
 
I think Spanish control of the lower south is completely, entirely feasible. It would just be like an extension of their Florida and Caribbean colonies. It's the north that's hard to predict. Could the Spanish have possibly held on to lion's share of two continents? Plus, the powerful English and Dutch will want to grab colonies somewhere, England in particular seems too powerful to just get cut out of the colonial game in the Americas.



But why would Spanish settlers want to settle in the cold middle of nowhere where there's hostile Indians and no minerals when they have an entire empire to the south?

Just a clarification; it's true that the Delaware/Hudson areas can be rather chilly at times, but the Chesapeake Bay is hardly so outside of the winter season (a trait that South Carolina/Georgia/Deep South also shares at times during the year....the South isn't the Caribbean after all). That part of the continent is firmly within the humid subtropical climate zone, it isn't until one gets up past the Cumberland/upper Maryland/Delaware area that we see a transition to either a mountainous or continental type climate.
 
Assuming they try to follow the colonial model they followed OTL, the Spanish are much more likely to stick to the southeast, rather than create settler colonies in the temperate areas.

I think this has cause and effect the wrong way round. The colonial model followed depended on the territory owned. A British Mexico would follow the "Spanish" model and a Spanish Virginia would follow the "British" one.
 
Starting a colony is hard. You need a constant influx of people, resources and support (royal or private). This is obvious as you read the account of the hundreds of various failed missions, colonies and towns. Even the successful ones (like Jamestown, hundreds of years later) was a close-run thing.

I find it hard to believe a few fishermen or a small monastic order could devote the amount of effort it would take to get a colony going.

But maybe as a core, seed for a 'more serious' and deeper colonial effort, yeah, possible...
 
Starting a colony is hard. You need a constant influx of people, resources and support (royal or private). This is obvious as you read the account of the hundreds of various failed missions, colonies and towns. Even the successful ones (like Jamestown, hundreds of years later) was a close-run thing.

I find it hard to believe a few fishermen or a small monastic order could devote the amount of effort it would take to get a colony going.

Why was the area originally settled? To look for gold. Having not found that they found something still worthwhile and made profit off it: be it tobacco or cotton or fur.

Tobacco in Virginia was worth 400k£ by 1700.
Spain also had its debtors and discontents if a official Spanish colony was not established.

Though as I first pointed out would a Spain without Mexico or Peru look to North America?
 
Last edited:
Top