California gold rush starts 75 years earlier

[acgoldis]

Hi!

How do you think the North American continent would have developed if gold were discovered in California 75 years earlier than it had in OTL (say, 1775). I'd have expected that Spanish colonists would have tried to flock there from Central America. Could enough colonists have wound up in California to ensure that California remains a Spanish territory to the present day? If so, how would that affect things?

This gold would likely be easier to get at than the gold in Central America (which may have already been shipped to Spain and/or which would have been less protected by the Native American civilizations)

I had a scary thought of Californian missionaires going after the fledgling Mormon communities in Utah..

ACG

 

[Cylon_Number_14]

It would have been much more difficult for gold-rushers outside of Spanish America to make the journey in 1775 compared to three generations later. The overland route for Americans is out of the questions (no roads, no good maps, hostile natives, the Revolution about to start, etc etc). Travel from Europe all the way to the west coast would also be a bit more difficult than 75 years later.

So, this could really be a Spanish-only gold rush for all intents and purposes. If California all up the Central Valley achieved a European population of 100,000 by 1800, they might end up their own country around 1810/1815 when Spain's empire fell apart. Mexico would want to hold on to them, but that would probably be about as successful as they were at holding on to the Central American countries.

Barring all the butterflies, would the USA want to annex all of California some time in the mid 19th Century if there were 150,000 Californios already living there? Quite possibly, they would not, or but they might take the Bay Area and north, and kick out any of the 70,000+ Californios up there that made trouble.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

It would have been much more difficult for gold-rushers outside of Spanish America to make the journey in 1775 compared to three generations later. The overland route for Americans is out of the questions (no roads, no good maps, hostile natives, the Revolution about to start, etc etc). Travel from Europe all the way to the west coast would also be a bit more difficult than 75 years later.

So, this could really be a Spanish-only gold rush for all intents and purposes. If California all up the Central Valley achieved a European population of 100,000 by 1800, they might end up their own country around 1810/1815 when Spain's empire fell apart. Mexico would want to hold on to them, but that would probably be about as successful as they were at holding on to the Central American countries.

Barring all the butterflies, would the USA want to annex all of California some time in the mid 19th Century if there were 150,000 Californios already living there? Quite possibly, they would not, or but they might take the Bay Area and north, and kick out any of the 70,000+ Californios up there that made trouble.

Well the rational that allowed the annexation OTL was the Mexican American War....

if California were independent from Mexico to the same degree as the Central American states its hard to see a reason for them to annex. Texas is still closer, where California is over the Rockies. War with Mexico is still more likely than annexation of California. Unless of course California was a protectorate of the US against Mexican attempts to re-assert themselves... But might they also prefer distant and hands off Spain or Britain as protector rather than the nearby USA. Less populated California might end up a royalist bastion within New Spain especially as if we are assuming an earlier discovery of Gold then the region is likely to have a higher profile in Spain than just some place to send the missionaries to convert the natives. Its also likely to change the complexion of spain's position in Oregon a least a little.