Could Spain/Mexico have gained the Oregon Territory?

Did you mean Alta California? Just before the 1848 there was 300,000 Indigenous peoples. If you mean much of the Southwest, the Publeo societies were efficient and offered impressive populations that lasted against initial conflicts against the Spanish in a dry region. I would not refer area to either as underpopulated.

I don`t know exactly the numbers of natives in America, for me Alta California is underpopulated compared to other zone in the world, anyway I repeat that i didn´t want to be offensive against native americans. Are you sure about your numbers? I think you are talking about pre-disease native population that I admit can´t be defined low.
 
I don`t know exactly the numbers of natives in America, for me Alta California is underpopulated compared to other zone in the world, anyway I repeat that i didn´t want to be offensive against native americans. Are you sure about your numbers? I think you are talking about pre-disease native population that I admit can´t be defined low.

The California Indians: A Source Book. 2 edition. 1971. p. 66. puts the Indigenous population prior to the multi-decade campaigns of genocide by Americans at 250,000 while Indians of California: The Changing Image. 1984. p. 6. puts the figure at 300,000. Your claim that such an expanse is "underpopulated compared to other zone in the world" is incredibly vague, given that I doubt Mongolia, pre-colonised New Zealand or Bornu had such population densities.
 
The California Indians: A Source Book. 2 edition. 1971. p. 66. puts the Indigenous population prior to the multi-decade campaigns of genocide by Americans at 250,000 while Indians of California: The Changing Image. 1984. p. 6. puts the figure at 300,000. Your claim that such an expanse is "underpopulated compared to other zone in the world" is incredibly vague, given that I doubt Mongolia, pre-colonised New Zealand or Bornu had such population densities.

But if they were 250.000/300.000 after disease, how many they were before?
What is your definition of "underpopulated"?
 
Those figures are from a time when outside diseases are only just beginning to be introduced to only Mission Natives. Such peoples faced rapid population decline in consequence. This derailing the discussion, but underpopulated is a loaded term for this discussion as it perhaps (as I took it) implies the area could be better populated by a group of people outside its current inhabitants. Saying regions could host larger populations especially with outside agricultural technology and cultivators is perhaps more polite way of phrasing it.

Back to OP: As in my crappy Russian-American TL, the Willamette Valley is the key for the Spanish to colonise the Oregon Country. Impressive fields of prairie existed from decades if not centuries of controlled fires practiced by the Kalapuya peoples to allow for camas root growth. These fields are essentially just begging for a proactive European/America group to sweep in and take them. This is the most compelling reason for Imperialists to be interested in the PNW, unless something like the gold deposits in the Fraser Valley are found far sooner.
 

SpamBotSam

Banned
That’s certainly a strong possibility. Mexico’s government, without radical change, didn’t serve its fringes well. See: Texas, Yucatan, Rio Grande Republic. With the wealth of gold and silver in the Sierra Nevada, it’s quite likely the California Republic would have broken free eventually.

How would that even have been possible? Around the time Mexico controlled the land, there werent that many American settlers or people out there to form a government-mostly Indian tribes just lived in that region.
 
How would that even have been possible? Around the time Mexico controlled the land, there werent that many American settlers or people out there to form a government-mostly Indian tribes just lived in that region.

Tallest Skil has particular beliefs about Mexico, Americans and the frontier between them. Not having the Apache Wars flares would keep a reasonable Mexican presence in the northern interior. While Californios were an insular group with some regionalist tendencies, namely the eternal desire for the Mission lands and its native labor sources, I feel it is overstated to think they'd form a break away state solely based off of its silver and gold resources.

As to OP once more; Without South America, the Spanish have a lot more ability to try other colonisation projects. Granted that is a huge, vague POD that removes much mineral wealth... Anyway a Spain that is keen on the Pacific Coast may vis-à-vis be interested in Polynesia.
 
Around the time Mexico controlled the land, there werent that many American settlers or people out there to form a government-mostly Indian tribes just lived in that region.

So? Either Americans settle it, Mexican settle it, or a combination of both. If the region is treated exploitatively after the discovery of those resources...

Tallest Skil has particular beliefs about Mexico, Americans and the frontier between them.

Ooh, tell me what my beliefs are! I’ve never expressed them here; I’d like to know.
 

SpamBotSam

Banned
So? Either Americans settle it, Mexican settle it, or a combination of both. If the region is treated exploitatively after the discovery of those resources...



Ooh, tell me what my beliefs are! I’ve never expressed them here; I’d like to know.

That doesnt mean that Mexico would want to control it. Mexico mainly controlled the states from the Mexican Cession in "name only"-most of that land was not under Mexican control.
 

SpamBotSam

Banned
Well Viceroyalty of Mexico might do the trick

Do you seriously think Spain had the chance control this much of America?

1280px-New_Spain.svg.png
 
Yes they controlled more than that before. A different king in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars could make Mexico a Dominion of Spain. The USA has no chance against Spain and Mexico together.
 

SpamBotSam

Banned
Yes they controlled more than that before. A different king in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars could make Mexico a Dominion of Spain. The USA has no chance against Spain and Mexico together.

That map shows over half of the US being a part of mexico. dont think thats realsitic.
 
That map is just half of what the Spanish once controlled. It seems quite conservative as far as surviving Spanish Empires go.

The vast majority of the north lacked any noticeable Spanish colonial presence. I'd call it controlled in the sense that America/Europeans considered it Spanish, yet the local scene was still very much dictated by Natives.
 
The vast majority of the north lacked any noticeable Spanish colonial presence. I'd call it controlled in the sense that America/Europeans considered it Spanish, yet the local scene was still very much dictated by Natives.

I can show in this forum the names (and photos) of Spanish forts, presidium, missions, documents about taking possession, exploration, discovery etc in US... from today is Washington State... to Missouri, North Carolina, California, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Florida, Virginia, Michigan, etc etc.... Clearly, with only 8 million people and a universal empire ... had no human means to populate the territory that belonged to the Spanish Empire, just as Britain did not populated 4/5 portion Canada or the 5 / 6 parts of Australia ... and in 1850, both countries belonged to the British Empire ...
Double standars are not good...Were Spaniards in Tennessee, Washington and Alaska .. yes or no?
 
I love how this went from "Could the Spanish have gained the PNW" to the minor affairs of Spanish forts. When I said "the north" I do admit it was highly vague of me. I didn't mean the northern territories of what became Mexico, I meant the north as in the northern half of the Louisiana territory; you know, the modern US states of Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska.... But please, tell me of whatever Spaniard that may have traveled through these regions that planted a flag or made a pronouncement. Because that is very much critical to our understanding as to why besides a few place names and expanding European cartographic knowledge, the main contribution of the Spanish to the PNW were two varieties of potatoes. :)

So lets actually take this back to the OP shall we? Why did the Spanish forts fail in British Columbia? Why didn't they just fight tooth and nail against the British to gain the ability to later colonise the region? Surely it wasn't in part from these outposts being at the end of a long supply chain of an Empire bloated across both American continents. If Madrid got its jiimmies rustled at the British, surely they could have blustered a few men to keep the outposts together. But what is the economic basis to these tiny colonies? This isn't a Paradox Interactive game, colonies are highly expensive and cannot function solely for teh lulz. The main European interest in the region for decades was the fur trade, which may draw in monopolies like the Russian-American Company or the Hudson's Bay Company, but not settlers. There needs to be an activity that actually could draw the interest of a mass number of Spanish/Mexicans. This is why I suggested agriculture, which wouldn't necessarily work out by itself. Something akin to what the HBC did historically (and I shameless ripped off and imposed on the RAC) which was gradually create fur trading posts (intial exploitation) and supporting agricultural farms outside said posts to make them independent of very distant supplies centers for food.

Say the Spanish charter a monopoly to act in the PNW after maintaining their outposts made in late 1700s. A labor source is needed to fill these new stations, with competent fur traders. For laborers the HBC used mostly French-Canadians, Metis, Iroqouis and Cree; the RAC used Russians, Finnish, Aleutians and Koniag. The HBC had the York Express (pioneered by their competitors the Northwest Company) and created a biannual pack system to collect furs, along with needed provisions and employees sent west. The RAC well, it fucking sucked at supplies, but it was able to throw the Aleutians into de facto slavery and used their amazing hunting skills to collect most of their furs. The Spanish fort I am aware of in the PNW was on Neah Bay at the mouth of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Now for some reason this station didn't last even a year, perhaps tied to the Nootka Conventions, who knows. I wont press you to explain why this happened, but if you, martin76, knew that'd be grand. Lets ignore this question mark and pretend the Spanish are in for the long haul. They have a pretty good starting point, but who is going to staff their forts? Who is going to trade and trap for furs? Neah Bay is amongst the Makah, who have familial relations across on Vancouver Island. Yet they themselves are a fairly small people, and typical of the PNW Indigenous, was politically divided at a village level, with noblemen of each settlement in charge. So while the Makah may be handy for some trade on Vancouver, they aren't going to fill Spanish trading stations. I honestly don't know where the Spanish could find a fitting number of natives in the region that would be receptive to work as fur trappers for them. They'd likely have to import Hawaiian Kanakas, but historically it was exceedingly rare for posts to be solely Kanaka affairs. So unless there was a lot of men competent in the fur trade just idling away in Mexico, these Spanish stations would be pretty small and likely unable to effectively compete against the Americans and British.

None of the above has even gotten into how Neah Bay is in fact a fitting analogue for the Columbia River fur trade. The first post was Astoria built at the river's mouth, like Neah Bay would be for the Puget Sound. In the same way, both places aren't exactly amazing for large scale food production. So the Spanish, unless they want to have to purchase food from rival merchants ala the Russians, have to find a more promising location for farm production. The nearest and most promising I'd say would be Whidbey Island, which had some extensive prairies. But being the Puget Sound on a shoe string military budget would be smart for only so long. Despite their aforementioned political decentralisation, the natives of the Sound have been known to have mass meetings in the thousands, across many tribal lines. It would only take an incident or two to provoke such a potent military force. This isn't even mentioning the far greater military threat of Haida, Tlignit and Tshimashan slave raiders, who often struck the Puget Sound. These men would likely target the small trading posts ran by the Spanish...

So how would the Spanish grapple with these issues do you think martin76? Personally I feel avoiding this whole situation is preferable for the Willamette Valley and the Columbia River, with more receptive commercially minded Chinookan peoples and far more open farm lands. Not only that, but Alta California itself is a recent acquisition through the Missions, which only gave some control over the middle/southern coast. Having this impressive territory proactively colonised a century or two earlier would alleviate some issues with the PNW. Tied in to a Spanish Empire sans South America and I'd imagine a Spanish PNW wouldn't be impossible.
 
Bartholome de Fonte
I love how this went from "Could the Spanish have gained the PNW" to the minor affairs of Spanish forts.

Forts were very important to claim a territory... a Spanish fort in Oregon had the same value as a British fort in Canada or a French in the desert...the issue of the settlers was not so important in XVI, XVII, XVIII Centuries...
You have a lot of knowledge but you are thingk as a 2014 american economist not as a 1700 european conqueror. The Spaniards built several forts in Washington, Vancouver Island (named Isla de Quadras) etc you are rigth Spain renounced theirs rights over British Columbia and Vancouver January 11, 1794. The border was stablished in 48º parallel.

Why didn't they just fight tooth and nail against the British to gain the ability to later colonise the region?

I think Spain didn´t want to colonise the region... Why? they had no population to settle in everywhere...just wanted to show their presence in a territory that had discovered, explored and taken possession, according with the Standars of the time, that territory belonged them. There weren´t more Spaniards into the Amazon or in the Darien or the Chaco and however they were Spanish territories. The colonization is another process (very late): XIX century.
The Spanish fort I am aware of in the PNW was on Neah Bay at the mouth of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Now for some reason this station didn't last even a year, perhaps tied to the Nootka Conventions, who knows

Not by Nootka convention or San Lorenzo (The Spanish name) Juan Perez, commanded the Frigate Santiago took possesion Nootka August 11, 1774 in name of the Catholick King, Charles III. In 1789, Spaniards built a gun battery in San Lorenzo (Nootka), a fort (Fuerte San Miguel) and garrison under the command of Don Esteban José Martínez. Two British ships arrived later and were prized by Esteban. Spaniards acted as a ruler of the island.
By the way, the fort in Neah Bay was named Fuerte Nunez Gaona, the oldest european fort in Juan de Fuca strait.
The convention didn´t yielde the territory to British Empire. Nootka convention agreed Spain and Britain shared the Northern Pacific. The January 11, 1794 convention, both Empires agreed to give up their exclusives sovereign rights.. in fact the Isla de Quadras (Vancouver island) was declared belonged to the same time to the Spanish and British Empires. You can read the original text of third Nootka convention, January 11, 1794 http://books.google.es/books?id=ea597fVyHkgC&pg=PA653#v=onepage&q&f=false

Each year the Spanish and British flags were hoisted in Nootka... then came the Peninsular War, a total war ... the American rebellion and Spain forgot that distant domain ...for ever.

Everything you have written is right, logical and rational but you are thinking as a American intellectual in 2014 .. not with the mind of a 1790 European officer. Don´t doubt... for the Catholick King and His British Majesty Nootka belonged to their Empires. No matter if they were settlers or not ... as no matter that in 1900 only a few Belgians were in Congo and in 1890 there were only a bunch of Dutchman in Celebes. For europeans, for the World.. those lands belonged to that Empires.


The natives of the Sound have been known to have mass meetings in the thousands, across many tribal lines. It would only take an incident or two to provoke such a potent military force. This isn't even mentioning the far greater military threat of Haida, Tlignit and Tshimashan slave raiders, who often struck the Puget Sound. These men would likely target the small trading posts ran by the Spanish...

No doubt what you say but if something shows military history is that Spanish (like the British) are used to fighting 1 against 100. For example, Battle of Cagayan (40 Spaniards vs 1.000 japanese and chineses), Battle of Otumba (539 spaniards and 1.000 natives vs 100.000/ 200.000 natives), Battle of Quilacura (60 Spaniards vs 8.000 natives), Battle of Plassey (750 British, 2.300 natives vs 65.000 natives) etc etc.
I do not think the Indians could win a war the Spanish or British Empires if they were decided to take the island.
this whole situation is preferable for the Willamette Valley and the Columbia River, with more receptive commercially minded Chinookan peoples and far more open farm lands.

+1 you are right again... but I don´t think spaniards wanted to colonize the territory, but only to show to the others european Empires (mainly British) that those land were Catholic King´s sovereignty and, of course, trading with furs. But yes, the Willamette valley would have been the best choice if they wanted to colonize the land. An eight millions country could not settle everything. In Oregon, Spaniards only wanted the furs, I think.
 
They could gain it easy enough while other powers were distracted.

How long they could keep it is something else again.
 
They could gain it easy enough while other powers were distracted.

Save Britain, any other powers could avoid it. No Austria, Prussia, Russia or France or Netherland..and I also have my doubts about Britain after the disasters in Puerto Rico (Abercrombie, 1797), Tenerife (Nelson, 1797), Brion (Warren, 1800) and Buenos Aires - Montevideo (Popham, Beresford, Whitelocke, 1806 and 1807). But only Britain could prevent (or at least try).
How long they could keep it is something else again.

I think as you.. The outbreak of the Peninsular War, the american rebellion and the civil war between liberals and royalist, I think Spain couldn´t keep so much time... about 1821-1823 maybe sooner. Spain had left Falklands in 1811 during the Peninsular War and the American Rebellion. So, Spain would have left Oregon maximum in 1821 - 1823.
 

SpamBotSam

Banned
That’s certainly a strong possibility. Mexico’s government, without radical change, didn’t serve its fringes well. See: Texas, Yucatan, Rio Grande Republic. With the wealth of gold and silver in the Sierra Nevada, it’s quite likely the California Republic would have broken free eventually.

And the US stopped California from seceding. What makes you think Mexico couldnt have done that too? They also had an army.
 
Top