Basically as the tin says, what are the results of a serendipitous discovery of California gold after the Boubron inheritance of Spain? Say either a missionary or ranchero comes across the gold and this leads to a gold rush. I don’t know that many from Spain itself would rush to California but there are plenty of people in New Spain and the Philippines that might try their luck.
WI: Bourbon Spain discovers California Gold?
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
Well, for once it'd have to made evaluate meaningful the worth of California for both the Virrey in Mexico city and especially for the Spanish Crown. So, aside by the more than probable increase of its population easily to the hundred of thousands of people in the span of a few years it'd shift the Colonial California demographic to one, at least initially, closer to Mexico.
Also, If I'd have to guess, aside to give a great impulse to the founding and growth of either old and new urbanization; it would be probable that if the discovery would be made in the wilderness then it would be considered as that the gold find was in 'public lands' thus belonging exclusively to the Crown.
Of course that it wouldn't be an obstacle to any possible mining exploration and explotación permission/concession to particulars. Finally, given its new and increased strategic and economical importance of the Crown, it would have made necessary that would be sent from Spain new and stronger military units and the redeployment of nearly all the New Spain Viceroyalty military and militia units to California.
Also, I think that 'd be probable that similar measure surely would have to be made, by the Crown, in the Naval side, thus I'd guess that the S. Diego and S. Francisco bay would have to be fortified and/or made naval bases.
Also, If I'd have to guess, aside to give a great impulse to the founding and growth of either old and new urbanization; it would be probable that if the discovery would be made in the wilderness then it would be considered as that the gold find was in 'public lands' thus belonging exclusively to the Crown.
Of course that it wouldn't be an obstacle to any possible mining exploration and explotación permission/concession to particulars. Finally, given its new and increased strategic and economical importance of the Crown, it would have made necessary that would be sent from Spain new and stronger military units and the redeployment of nearly all the New Spain Viceroyalty military and militia units to California.
Also, I think that 'd be probable that similar measure surely would have to be made, by the Crown, in the Naval side, thus I'd guess that the S. Diego and S. Francisco bay would have to be fortified and/or made naval bases.
Surely you know, aside that it it's a pretty old useless stereotype, that one line seemingly half joking sentences without any attempt to fundament it, aren't useful, not?
Also, let me ask you what know you about Bourbonic/Eighteenth century Spain and particularly about the Spanish North America?
I think it'd be massive in the short-term for Spain, but is probably going to do very little for Spain's longterm structural problems. But there's a non-zero chance that this cash is used to bolster the Spanish navy as well as fuel more aggression on the West Coast of NA due to speculation that more gold might be found. OTL's treaties between Britain and Spain prior to the Napoleonic Wars on Oregon Country are likely to get butterflied(and likely resolve in Spain's favor due to their much greater demographic presence in the region thanks to the gold rush).
So short-term we get a more militarily capable Spain and a second phase of colonial expansion instead of OTL's lull and exclusive focus on reforming the administration of existing colonies. While the British and French are fighting over the Eastern Seaboard, Canada and India, Spain'll be dumping their attention primarily on the West Coast and Nutca(everything north of the Snake River to Alaska), with securing the lands that feed or protect the flow of gold to Madrid as a secondary concern. IMO this route is gonna flow from the coast of California down to Acapulco, overland to Veracruz, and from there to Madrid with Cuba's importance inflating even more than OTL since not only does it serve as Spain's naval bulwark for the sake of everything on the Gulf, but also for Spain's flow of gold to Madrid from California. In a sense, back to ye olden days where bullion was carted from Peru and Bolivia to Cartagena in Colombia. It might revitalize piracy in the Caribbean too, as that bullion OTL started to flow downriver to Buenos Aires with the Bourbons but now a new route with bullion will return to the Gulf of Mexico. It might lead to a revision of plans for Buenos Aires and a nixing of the Viceroyalty of La Plata altogether if Spain decides to hell with it, we'd rather defend one trade route through the Caribbean than split the flow through two different routes. Buenos Aires wouldn't grow as fast and Argentina might be settled much more slowly.
On the West Coast, I'd expect to see an interesting mix of people to set up shop. The right to emigrate to the colonies might actually become a flashpoint among Spain's crowns now and we might see the first significant Aragonese settlement in the New World, and later Italian once the Spanish retake the south of Italy from the Hapsburgs to supplement the expected large number of Castilians heading to California. Transporting people to Europe from the area, however, will prove tricky. The easiest route will be to follow the same route as the gold is flowing, but that's likely to be pricy. The cheapest option would probably be to trek to California via land, but that has the potential to go very wrong with the Apache already present in OTL's Northern Mexico and Southwest US, and the rise of Comancheria in Texas during the 18th century. So well-off people would take the double boat journey, poor people would be taking the overland route, from Veracruz or maybe even from Texas if the Spanish set up a strong presence in the region as a result of their campaigns against the native peoples of the area so they can follow the rivers west and minimize their times in the deserts. This'd also be the favorite approach of unauthorized French and Anglo prospectors looking to reach California despite any Spanish attempts to block them, adding extra incentive to secure the southern route to California.
Aside from the movement of people from Europe, you'd also see a non-insignificant amount of people looking for gold from Spain's New World colonies. You'd certainly see a good number of Mexicans make the journey as well as others from Central and South America. I'd expect a non-insignificant number of people from Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia to make the journey due to being some of the most mining-intensive colonies Spain's got aside from Mexico. These would most likely be making the journey by boat except for the Mexican immigrants, for whom the overland route would be viable and would see a mix. Finally, you've got laborers from Asia. It's not guaranteed by any means but there's a possibility that Spain uses its positioning in the Phillippines to bring Filipino Catholics and other East Asian Christians to California to help secure their colonial interests, especially in Nutca where far fewer people will be moving to willingly. It's something to bring back in the Manilla Galleons to the Americas aside from limited amounts of Chinese wares.
So taking all this into account, I think this'd lead to Spain looking to pacify the Apache and eventually the Comanche permanently instead of ignoring the raiding only for it to get worse throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries but boyyyy will it take a long time and be a money sink. This event has a non-zero chance to trigger greater interest from France in the North American interior alongside greater Spanish interests in solidifying their control over their border with Louisiana. I'm imagining that the end result will be a clearly defined French-Spanish border in Texas plus Spanish encroachment into the North American interior from Texas to Alaska. This'll be considered the second period of Spanish colonialism retroactively, the first period being the Age of Conquistadors, while this will look more comparable to Anglo/French colonialism of the period.
So short-term we get a more militarily capable Spain and a second phase of colonial expansion instead of OTL's lull and exclusive focus on reforming the administration of existing colonies. While the British and French are fighting over the Eastern Seaboard, Canada and India, Spain'll be dumping their attention primarily on the West Coast and Nutca(everything north of the Snake River to Alaska), with securing the lands that feed or protect the flow of gold to Madrid as a secondary concern. IMO this route is gonna flow from the coast of California down to Acapulco, overland to Veracruz, and from there to Madrid with Cuba's importance inflating even more than OTL since not only does it serve as Spain's naval bulwark for the sake of everything on the Gulf, but also for Spain's flow of gold to Madrid from California. In a sense, back to ye olden days where bullion was carted from Peru and Bolivia to Cartagena in Colombia. It might revitalize piracy in the Caribbean too, as that bullion OTL started to flow downriver to Buenos Aires with the Bourbons but now a new route with bullion will return to the Gulf of Mexico. It might lead to a revision of plans for Buenos Aires and a nixing of the Viceroyalty of La Plata altogether if Spain decides to hell with it, we'd rather defend one trade route through the Caribbean than split the flow through two different routes. Buenos Aires wouldn't grow as fast and Argentina might be settled much more slowly.
On the West Coast, I'd expect to see an interesting mix of people to set up shop. The right to emigrate to the colonies might actually become a flashpoint among Spain's crowns now and we might see the first significant Aragonese settlement in the New World, and later Italian once the Spanish retake the south of Italy from the Hapsburgs to supplement the expected large number of Castilians heading to California. Transporting people to Europe from the area, however, will prove tricky. The easiest route will be to follow the same route as the gold is flowing, but that's likely to be pricy. The cheapest option would probably be to trek to California via land, but that has the potential to go very wrong with the Apache already present in OTL's Northern Mexico and Southwest US, and the rise of Comancheria in Texas during the 18th century. So well-off people would take the double boat journey, poor people would be taking the overland route, from Veracruz or maybe even from Texas if the Spanish set up a strong presence in the region as a result of their campaigns against the native peoples of the area so they can follow the rivers west and minimize their times in the deserts. This'd also be the favorite approach of unauthorized French and Anglo prospectors looking to reach California despite any Spanish attempts to block them, adding extra incentive to secure the southern route to California.
Aside from the movement of people from Europe, you'd also see a non-insignificant amount of people looking for gold from Spain's New World colonies. You'd certainly see a good number of Mexicans make the journey as well as others from Central and South America. I'd expect a non-insignificant number of people from Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia to make the journey due to being some of the most mining-intensive colonies Spain's got aside from Mexico. These would most likely be making the journey by boat except for the Mexican immigrants, for whom the overland route would be viable and would see a mix. Finally, you've got laborers from Asia. It's not guaranteed by any means but there's a possibility that Spain uses its positioning in the Phillippines to bring Filipino Catholics and other East Asian Christians to California to help secure their colonial interests, especially in Nutca where far fewer people will be moving to willingly. It's something to bring back in the Manilla Galleons to the Americas aside from limited amounts of Chinese wares.
So taking all this into account, I think this'd lead to Spain looking to pacify the Apache and eventually the Comanche permanently instead of ignoring the raiding only for it to get worse throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries but boyyyy will it take a long time and be a money sink. This event has a non-zero chance to trigger greater interest from France in the North American interior alongside greater Spanish interests in solidifying their control over their border with Louisiana. I'm imagining that the end result will be a clearly defined French-Spanish border in Texas plus Spanish encroachment into the North American interior from Texas to Alaska. This'll be considered the second period of Spanish colonialism retroactively, the first period being the Age of Conquistadors, while this will look more comparable to Anglo/French colonialism of the period.
unprincipled peter
Donor
First exploration of the San Francisco region was in the 1760's-70's. Unless you ATL earlier exploration (there was some suggested interest several decades earlier, but nothing came of it until Jose de Galvez basically took charge of New Spain in the 60's), this is the earliest the gold is going to get discovered.
A basic problem is that everything west of the Mississippi River (the line can be pushed even further to everything west of the Appalacian Mountains) is almost entirely unexplored. Routes to the California gold fields are mostly non existent. Trade winds were unfavorable for sailing northward and/or were relatively uncharted. OTL sail expeditions from Mexico endured a lot of sickness/scurvy.
suddenly setting up large scale shop in California isn't a trivial matter.
Spain has claimed the entire west coast but has no presence. Other nations are going to try planting a flag. With gold and other precious metals at stake, Britain will have even greater interest , and will push it's own claims as far southward as possible. If the gold discovery is early enough, Britain may seize the region in 7 yrs War. Indeed, they may grab everything west of the Mississippi. OTL they didn't want it, and let Spain have it. If gold points to a valuable precious metals region on the western side of Louisiana, Britain's interest may perk up. A point in Spain's favor in a later gold strike is that Britain is embroiled in the American Revolution, so doesn't have time/resources to grab the fields. Later though, in any Nootka like crisis, Britain will be more aggressive.
With the region being so remote, and Spain not really equipped to take advantage, it may not be in Spain's interest to discover it until they've laid the framework for having a presence on the coast. I'd put that in the 1780's-90's time frame. After Spain joined France in 1795ish in opposing Britain, Spain had difficulty in getting the gold/silver from the new world to Spain, so additional available gold may not help. Britain is too involved in the Nap wars, so the region is safe. If Mexico still breaks free, incorporating the region, the additional resources may help a struggling new nation.
The Louisiana Territory takes on a new flavor. The gold strike region isn't in the LT, but possession of the Rocky Mountains is not set, yet, and they border the western part of the LT. Knowing thar's gold in them thar hills makes people look at the region a little differently. Spain probably doesn't have much choice in whether to turn the LT over to France, but may not be so cavalier as in OTL in doing so. Perhaps Spain manages to keep the LT. This butterflies a Louisiana Purchase, and turns it into a war if the fledgling USA really has the cahones to put action behind their bravado talk.
A basic problem is that everything west of the Mississippi River (the line can be pushed even further to everything west of the Appalacian Mountains) is almost entirely unexplored. Routes to the California gold fields are mostly non existent. Trade winds were unfavorable for sailing northward and/or were relatively uncharted. OTL sail expeditions from Mexico endured a lot of sickness/scurvy.
suddenly setting up large scale shop in California isn't a trivial matter.
Spain has claimed the entire west coast but has no presence. Other nations are going to try planting a flag. With gold and other precious metals at stake, Britain will have even greater interest , and will push it's own claims as far southward as possible. If the gold discovery is early enough, Britain may seize the region in 7 yrs War. Indeed, they may grab everything west of the Mississippi. OTL they didn't want it, and let Spain have it. If gold points to a valuable precious metals region on the western side of Louisiana, Britain's interest may perk up. A point in Spain's favor in a later gold strike is that Britain is embroiled in the American Revolution, so doesn't have time/resources to grab the fields. Later though, in any Nootka like crisis, Britain will be more aggressive.
With the region being so remote, and Spain not really equipped to take advantage, it may not be in Spain's interest to discover it until they've laid the framework for having a presence on the coast. I'd put that in the 1780's-90's time frame. After Spain joined France in 1795ish in opposing Britain, Spain had difficulty in getting the gold/silver from the new world to Spain, so additional available gold may not help. Britain is too involved in the Nap wars, so the region is safe. If Mexico still breaks free, incorporating the region, the additional resources may help a struggling new nation.
The Louisiana Territory takes on a new flavor. The gold strike region isn't in the LT, but possession of the Rocky Mountains is not set, yet, and they border the western part of the LT. Knowing thar's gold in them thar hills makes people look at the region a little differently. Spain probably doesn't have much choice in whether to turn the LT over to France, but may not be so cavalier as in OTL in doing so. Perhaps Spain manages to keep the LT. This butterflies a Louisiana Purchase, and turns it into a war if the fledgling USA really has the cahones to put action behind their bravado talk.
So if the gold is discovered during or immediately prior to the American Revolution based on Galvez’s involvement, couldn’t that potentially butterfly away Napoleon’s rise to power anyway. Since Spain already had the western half of the Louisiana territory, maybe we end up with renewed interest in at least charting out the interior lands that Spain holds on to.
I think if Spain had that gold prior to the American Revolution, giving up Louisiana west of the Mississippi willingly to any degree would be off the table, and would do their best to properly settle the area if they can spare the settlers for it.
unprincipled peter
Donor
What is your thinking on butterflying Nap rise to power? Sure, butterflies could flap their wings, but I don't see a direct path of blowing Nap off course. Doubtful the gold discovery stops the ARW, or alters the course that much. So France is still on course to its own revolution. The reign of Carlos IV, which starts in 1787, is the pinnacle of Spain bumbling, so I don't expect additional gold is going to change much.
The Spain of Carlos III and IV had minimal interest in Louisiana, so it likely is not going to see much influx of development, which really has to start on the Mississippi Valley, and that is a long way from the action. Development is going to happen in California and the sea ports and Spain will have its hands full there. If additional mineral strikes have occurred, and it looks like the Rockies are valuable real estate, it is possible Carlos IV has an inkling to keep Louisiana. However, the guy's elevator didn't rise to any where near the top floor, and Godoy is an amateur in charge of the country. Carlos wanted a place for his son-in-law, who had been dumped out of Parma, and then Etruria, so he was eager to make a deal. France could typically bully the much weaker Spain, so it is likely Spain didn't have much choice. France never made good on its end of the bargain, and doubly gave the middle finger to Spain by selling Louisiana to USA in violation of the treaty. I'm guessing the return to France goes as OTL. I also don't think there's been enough time for the eastern half of the Rockies to be accessible, or explored, so likely the Purchase goes as OTL. But butterflies could flap their wings.
There is also the earlier option of having the discovery occur during Felipe’s reign since he wanted to develop California due to Russian incursions.
The Spanish claimed the entire Western Hemisphere, as defined in the successive revisions of the Treaty of Tordesillas, as theirs. But they didn't expand northwestward out of Mexico at any rapid rate, leaving their theoretical claim on OTL California and points north for future generations.
It was the provocation of the Russian fur trading venture expanding out of Siberian coasts into Alaska that stirred the authorities of New Spain into taking belated action to concretely secure their claim northward. I'd have to look up just when and why they agreed to limit this to the OTL latitude of the current border between California and Oregon, but even foregoing claims on all points northward, the Russians looked to be in danger of coming uncomfortably far south, pretty soon, around the end of the 18th century.
One reason the Russians could move fast versus Spanish practices of expansion was that the Russians followed a practice similar to the French strategy of power projection; secure relations with local Native people and integrate them into a fur-gathering system via trade, rather than seek primarily to secure land for settlement on the English/British model. The Spanish strategy was mainly to locate highly developed and relatively rich Native civilizations and conquer them wholesale, then exploit them. It could be seen as being between the British and French/Russian models on the less rich peripheries, where the strategy was to bring in missionaries under army protection and by a combination of persuasion and coercion secure the religious conversion of the natives and thus their political subordination too.
However the mission effort sought to expand fairly rapidly after centuries of neglect, and worked out in practice to pretty nearly exterminate the Native Californian population via the Missions, where they died in droves. This however would serve their political purposes quite as well as gaining their loyalty, and far better than leaving the Natives alone to be recruited by the Russians.
This is why the timing of major efforts to explore California waited until the late 18th century, which sets the limit on how early Spanish authorities could possibly find out about the gold to be found on the west slopes of California's Sierra Nevada mountains.
Now, if the initial discovery were by Spanish expeditions sent to explore San Francisco Bay and secure its entrance in say the 1770s, perhaps the Spanish crown could keep control of gold mining. But even this is a long shot; ship crews and soldiers are not very well paid and not all deeply invested in the interests of their noble paymasters, and would be liable to gossip. This would draw attention among political rivals throughout Europe to consider whether they might seize this prize for themselves.
It would be quite difficult of course. I actually would guess that in the 1770s and "80s, aside from the Spanish the best situated to try to bid for control of San Francisco Bay would be the Dutch, specifically the Dutch East India Company, though the English Company was pulling up to parity at this time--DEIC aka "Jan Company" was based closer in Batavia, but the English could leapfrog them by seizing Manila, which they had done earlier in the 18th century. Neither is exactly close; perhaps a side effect is the conquest of Hawaii early on (Cook was just "discovering" the "Sandwich Islands" and news might not have worked its way from his return through Europe and back to Batavia or the English holdings in India, but the rival powers attempting to find a quick route across the Pacific might conceivably stumble on the archipelago before learning Cook had already been there).
Meanwhile the Spanish have bases as close as San Diego and larger, older ports farther south on the Mexican and Central American Pacific coast, plus those on the South American coast. If suitably alarmed, Spain has the advantage in having manpower and sea power that can preemptively be deployed to secure the Bay. I suppose the usual problems New Spain would have in recruiting New Spanish peasantry to settle a new Pueblo in the far north might be much alleviated by the rumor of gold lying around for the taking; once those rumors get out the real trick is to prevent wildcat immigration. I would think that the Spanish system had enough control of ships entering and leaving Pacific coast ports to impede such invasions by foreign powers or unauthorized colonization by Spanish subjects. An enlightened policy of permitting Spanish subjects to keep a major part of whatever gold they gather for themselves if they will hand over a portion of it to the authorities would enable the Viceroys to regulate the flow of immigration toward desirable levels--I am callously writing off the chances of Native Americans to come out of this in any good shape, though it is hard to beat how terrible their fate was OTL.
The upshot--as others note, the flow of gold into Spanish coffers would not be nearly as beneficial to Spanish finances as the lords would assume. The sheer mass of gold in private hands in the Spanish-occupied San Francisco Bay Area would not buy the commoner class settlers anywhere near what the same gold in hand in Europe would--but to these humble settlers, the fortune, reduced though it is, is clearly a huge gain, and would tend to buy a lot of stuff that the Spanish government might not think of as developmental necessities, but would nonetheless spur the growth of the Bay Area settlements.
Spain then does not gain tremendously more strength, but perhaps, recognizing the Bay Area as a valuable asset, might develop some major naval presence there and substantial fortifications; it would then be difficult for any rival power--Britain, DEI, Russian--to land counter-settlers or even rabid gold rushers. So Spain keeps control and the province grows rapidly, as the more tightly the Spanish seek to limit settlement from Mexico or any other part of the Spanish system, the more the regional resources will appeal to those allowed to settle and the more rapid the natural increase of these settlers would be.
If we assume Spanish gold does not butterfly things much, the basic causes of the ARW and the logic of its political protagonists lining up on one side or the other would be similar, so I see no reason for its outcomes to be much different, nor the French Revolution or rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. Therefore Spain's control of its colonies would be interrupted; there is little reason to think California's settlers would be more loyal to the Spanish crown (or less, in the right classes) than those in the Spanish Main or Mexico, so either the Bay Area settlement spins itself off as an independent republic (or principality or duchy or outright kingdom perhaps) or it remains under Mexican administration as in integral part of Mexico.
Unlike OTL, however, it would take a lot more effort to seize it from Mexico, and the USA would be hard pressed in 1847 to project that kind of power that far west. Give it a few more decades and sure, Uncle Sam ought to be able to take it eventually, but then be plagued by problems of a native Catholic-Mexican population. It might be possible as OTL to mobilize a segment of that population as pro-Yankee takeover, but it would be orders of magnitude larger than the OTL Mexican population and breaking promises to them would have stronger political consequences. Meanwhile OTL the task of securing California to the US system was overall greatly aided by the OTL 1849 Gold Rush, whereas here the easy gold will have been gathered long ago. Some gold mining will be going on and expand greatly under American rule, but keeping control of central Alta California will be much more a matter of negotiation in the ATL.
It was the provocation of the Russian fur trading venture expanding out of Siberian coasts into Alaska that stirred the authorities of New Spain into taking belated action to concretely secure their claim northward. I'd have to look up just when and why they agreed to limit this to the OTL latitude of the current border between California and Oregon, but even foregoing claims on all points northward, the Russians looked to be in danger of coming uncomfortably far south, pretty soon, around the end of the 18th century.
One reason the Russians could move fast versus Spanish practices of expansion was that the Russians followed a practice similar to the French strategy of power projection; secure relations with local Native people and integrate them into a fur-gathering system via trade, rather than seek primarily to secure land for settlement on the English/British model. The Spanish strategy was mainly to locate highly developed and relatively rich Native civilizations and conquer them wholesale, then exploit them. It could be seen as being between the British and French/Russian models on the less rich peripheries, where the strategy was to bring in missionaries under army protection and by a combination of persuasion and coercion secure the religious conversion of the natives and thus their political subordination too.
However the mission effort sought to expand fairly rapidly after centuries of neglect, and worked out in practice to pretty nearly exterminate the Native Californian population via the Missions, where they died in droves. This however would serve their political purposes quite as well as gaining their loyalty, and far better than leaving the Natives alone to be recruited by the Russians.
This is why the timing of major efforts to explore California waited until the late 18th century, which sets the limit on how early Spanish authorities could possibly find out about the gold to be found on the west slopes of California's Sierra Nevada mountains.
Now, if the initial discovery were by Spanish expeditions sent to explore San Francisco Bay and secure its entrance in say the 1770s, perhaps the Spanish crown could keep control of gold mining. But even this is a long shot; ship crews and soldiers are not very well paid and not all deeply invested in the interests of their noble paymasters, and would be liable to gossip. This would draw attention among political rivals throughout Europe to consider whether they might seize this prize for themselves.
It would be quite difficult of course. I actually would guess that in the 1770s and "80s, aside from the Spanish the best situated to try to bid for control of San Francisco Bay would be the Dutch, specifically the Dutch East India Company, though the English Company was pulling up to parity at this time--DEIC aka "Jan Company" was based closer in Batavia, but the English could leapfrog them by seizing Manila, which they had done earlier in the 18th century. Neither is exactly close; perhaps a side effect is the conquest of Hawaii early on (Cook was just "discovering" the "Sandwich Islands" and news might not have worked its way from his return through Europe and back to Batavia or the English holdings in India, but the rival powers attempting to find a quick route across the Pacific might conceivably stumble on the archipelago before learning Cook had already been there).
Meanwhile the Spanish have bases as close as San Diego and larger, older ports farther south on the Mexican and Central American Pacific coast, plus those on the South American coast. If suitably alarmed, Spain has the advantage in having manpower and sea power that can preemptively be deployed to secure the Bay. I suppose the usual problems New Spain would have in recruiting New Spanish peasantry to settle a new Pueblo in the far north might be much alleviated by the rumor of gold lying around for the taking; once those rumors get out the real trick is to prevent wildcat immigration. I would think that the Spanish system had enough control of ships entering and leaving Pacific coast ports to impede such invasions by foreign powers or unauthorized colonization by Spanish subjects. An enlightened policy of permitting Spanish subjects to keep a major part of whatever gold they gather for themselves if they will hand over a portion of it to the authorities would enable the Viceroys to regulate the flow of immigration toward desirable levels--I am callously writing off the chances of Native Americans to come out of this in any good shape, though it is hard to beat how terrible their fate was OTL.
The upshot--as others note, the flow of gold into Spanish coffers would not be nearly as beneficial to Spanish finances as the lords would assume. The sheer mass of gold in private hands in the Spanish-occupied San Francisco Bay Area would not buy the commoner class settlers anywhere near what the same gold in hand in Europe would--but to these humble settlers, the fortune, reduced though it is, is clearly a huge gain, and would tend to buy a lot of stuff that the Spanish government might not think of as developmental necessities, but would nonetheless spur the growth of the Bay Area settlements.
Spain then does not gain tremendously more strength, but perhaps, recognizing the Bay Area as a valuable asset, might develop some major naval presence there and substantial fortifications; it would then be difficult for any rival power--Britain, DEI, Russian--to land counter-settlers or even rabid gold rushers. So Spain keeps control and the province grows rapidly, as the more tightly the Spanish seek to limit settlement from Mexico or any other part of the Spanish system, the more the regional resources will appeal to those allowed to settle and the more rapid the natural increase of these settlers would be.
If we assume Spanish gold does not butterfly things much, the basic causes of the ARW and the logic of its political protagonists lining up on one side or the other would be similar, so I see no reason for its outcomes to be much different, nor the French Revolution or rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. Therefore Spain's control of its colonies would be interrupted; there is little reason to think California's settlers would be more loyal to the Spanish crown (or less, in the right classes) than those in the Spanish Main or Mexico, so either the Bay Area settlement spins itself off as an independent republic (or principality or duchy or outright kingdom perhaps) or it remains under Mexican administration as in integral part of Mexico.
Unlike OTL, however, it would take a lot more effort to seize it from Mexico, and the USA would be hard pressed in 1847 to project that kind of power that far west. Give it a few more decades and sure, Uncle Sam ought to be able to take it eventually, but then be plagued by problems of a native Catholic-Mexican population. It might be possible as OTL to mobilize a segment of that population as pro-Yankee takeover, but it would be orders of magnitude larger than the OTL Mexican population and breaking promises to them would have stronger political consequences. Meanwhile OTL the task of securing California to the US system was overall greatly aided by the OTL 1849 Gold Rush, whereas here the easy gold will have been gathered long ago. Some gold mining will be going on and expand greatly under American rule, but keeping control of central Alta California will be much more a matter of negotiation in the ATL.
This was my thought. OTL California Trail is the most direct route for non-'Mexican' prospectors ('69ers?), could be either down the Missouri River or on a route through the Rio Grande to Pueblo than back over. Internal road development was never a priority for the colonies so travel will still be hard. As mentioned by others, the Spanish Empire is not ran by the sharpest tools in the shed at this time, but "gold!" is an easy way to motivate people. Louisiana and New Philippines are worth at least a second thought now.
I didn't know this, but there was a smaller gold discovery near Los Angeles earlier than the San Francisco Gold Rush and sparked a smaller, mostly Mexican rush. Maybe this happens earlier to spur settlement first into Alta California, then New Spain goes north to the Bay Area faster to secure the northern territory, finding gold deposits near Sacramento.
Rancho San Francisco - Wikipedia
Last edited:
unprincipled peter
Donor
a POD such as this will alter the dynamic of the Mexican state. It is not automatic that Mexico is doomed to abject failure. OTL Am-Mex war was a case of a greedy USA taking advantage of a weak Mexico. If these changed circumstances leave Mexico not so weak, USA will not be so cavalier in starting a war. This POD could leave Mexico in better shape to hold on to, and develop, Texas, which means USA doesn't view Mexico as easy pickings.
This was my thought. OTL California Trail is the most direct route for non-'Mexican' prospectors ('69ers?), could be either down the Missouri River or on a route through the Rio Grande to Pueblo than back over. Internal road development was never a priority for the colonies so travel will still be hard. As mentioned by others, the Spanish Empire is not ran by the sharpest tools in the shed at this time, but "gold!" is an easy way to motivate people. Louisiana and New Philippines are worth at least a second thought now.
I didn't know this, but there was a smaller gold discovery near Los Angeles earlier than the San Francisco Gold Rush and sparked a smaller, mostly Mexican rush. Maybe this happens earlier to spur settlement first into Alta California, then New Spain goes north to the Bay Area faster to secure the northern territory, finding gold deposits near Sacramento.
Rancho San Francisco - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I think they would need an earlier grant of that land or earlier Mission there in order to find that gold though. I guess that ties into Missions being established in the 1740s per Felipe’s wishes to ward off Russian intrusions instead of waiting til the 1760s / 1770s
unprincipled peter
Donor
Philip shared a trait with his grandfather: most of his time reigning was spent at war, or recovering from war. One can excuse the War of Spanish Succession, as it was necessary to put him on the throne. The War of Jenkin's Ear was largely British doing, but all the rest was his doing (or should we say Farnese?). 40's were spent at war, so unrealistic to expect concurrent expansion in the new world.
Perhaps if his first wife lives, butterflying Farnese, more time/resources would be spent on the Spanish Empire rather than securing thrones for Farnese's sons (granted, they were Philip's, too).
What about Luis I surviving instead since during his short reign he intended to focus on the American colonies instead of warring over Italian lands ?
unprincipled peter
Donor
That works. Louis I died so young that we have little idea of his character/capability. Thus you can write his narrative any way you want. this could cause butterflies to flap their wings, so 1800 could have a much different look. If Louis has offspring, this means Carlos III doesn't come to Spain. Perhaps the Louis line doesn't aid the Patriots in the ARW. Perhaps Spain acts differently in War of Polish Succession, or Austrian Succession. Perhaps the 7YW plays out differently. There's a lot of ground to cover between 1724 and 1849, and the timeline of the 18th and early 19th century can take a much different course.
I asked about a Mexican Hawaii a few months ago and was told it's unlikely. Although, to be fair, the Spanish knew about Hawaii long before Cook got there.
La Vezina (the neighbour) for "Big Island", Isla de Desgraciada (Unhappy Island) for "Maui", and Los Monges (the monks) for Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Molokai.