Mormons settle in California rather than Utah, what happens?

[Zioneer]

So I'm writing a TL/story in which the Mormons following Brigham Young decide to settle in California itself, rather than Utah.

I've figured out some of the cultural implications there (though less so on the non-Mormon side), but I haven't decided where in California the Mormons will settle. As I understand, OTL Brigham Young wanted a fairly isolated area to settle so that the Mormons would not be "corrupted" by non-Mormons and could live their own lives in peace, and was not fond of mining and mineral extraction overall. So living near the gold is probably not an option.

Is there any place in California that is relatively fertile, yet isolated? Preferably a place that could be an outpost on the way to the Gold Rush, but not part of the Gold Rush itself?

Additionally, how would the non-Mormons, specifically the Californios and the American settlers respond to the Mormons settling in their new state? What might be some of the cultural shifts and implications?

 

[Sevarics]

Depending on where they settle, maybe California is split in two in this scenario

 

[David T]

There was in fact a major Mormon colony in San Bernardino for some years. http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_f...ernardino-was-founded-as-a-mormon-colony.html But California could never become *the* major focus of Mormon settlement--after the Gold Rush there were just too many Gentiles, and they quickly formed a state government. To have so many Mormons dependent on the tolerance of a Gentile state simply could not in the long run be acceptable to Brigham Young--he had to have the political as well as spiritual authority over them.

 

[Zioneer]

There was in fact a major Mormon colony in San Bernardino for some years. http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_f...ernardino-was-founded-as-a-mormon-colony.html But California could never become *the* major focus of Mormon settlement--after the Gold Rush there were just too many Gentiles, and they quickly formed a state government. To have so many Mormons dependent on the tolerance of a Gentile state simply could not in the long run be acceptable to Brigham Young--he had to have the political as well as spiritual authority over them.

What if he thought he could break off a piece of California as an alt-Utah, but by the time he realizes that, it's too late to move back to his initial plan?

Let's say the Gold Rush is delayed for whatever reason. Would that affect anything?

 

[Mikestone8]

It would be Missouri and Illinois all over again. Within a few years we's have found ourselves outnumbered and probably hounded out.

Thee Salt Lake Basin wasn't chosen at random. It was small enough that we could monopolise it, and flanked by desert on both sides so that potential enemies would have to settle some distance away.

 

[Zioneer]

It would be Missouri and Illinois all over again. Within a few years we's have found ourselves outnumbered and probably hounded out.

Thee Salt Lake Basin wasn't chosen at random. It was small enough that we could monopolise it, and flanked by desert on both sides so that potential enemies would have to settle some distance away.

That's a fair point, but is the Salt Lake Basin really the only place that was considered? Was it really the only option for the main settlement of the Latter-Day Saints? I know Texas was briefly considered by Lyman Wight and his crowd, but that eventually runs into the same problems as a California settlement.

It just seems unlikely that the Salt Lake Basin was the only avenue for the main LDS settlement.

 

[ralphz]

Maybe the San Joaquin Valley?

Good agriculture, surrounded by mountains, far away enough from areas that would become major population centers.

I could see California being sliced in 3 this way. OTL Northern California would become part of Oregon or its own state, capital in San Francisco, and the South below OTL Bakersfield would become "California" - and maybe that ends up incorporating Baja also.

 

[Umbric Man]

Wasn't SoCal to be part of Deseret? Perhaps the Mormon mass D) could move there and split it off in an analogue of all the would-be SoCal splits from California schemes.

 

[Zioneer]

Maybe the San Joaquin Valley?

Good agriculture, surrounded by mountains, far away enough from areas that would become major population centers.

I could see California being sliced in 3 this way. OTL Northern California would become part of Oregon or its own state, capital in San Francisco, and the South below OTL Bakersfield would become "California" - and maybe that ends up incorporating Baja also.

I definitely like this idea. It would fulfill my ideas of having a California-based LDS Church, while still staying relatively plausible in light of Brigham Young wanting an isolated settlement. Though considering that even Utah had substantial non-Mormons settlement by the 1860s, I doubt that anywhere would have been isolated enough. I also thought of the Saints taking a different route and ending up in Baja California itself, possibly near Tijuana. And of course, the OTL polygamous colonies ended up in Sonora, so it's not a completely implausible idea.

What I want to do with the Californian Mormons is to turn their focus to the East/Far West, as I imagine that with an even more difficult trek to California rather than Salt Lake, less pioneers would come on the land route from the East Coast or the land-seat route from Europe. If the Mormons have a heavier focus on Hawaii, the Pacific Islander nations, and the East Asian nations, that could affect attitudes early Mormons had towards all sorts of people. I mean, Jonatana Napela could have a larger role in Mormon history, for example.

But going back to the San Joaquin Valley for a moment, I'm guessing that one of the OTL major cities could be replaced by an alt-Salt Lake City, or the closest equivalent. A Mormon capital, complete with a temple and so forth. Though I'm not sure what city I could replace...

An extra thought: If the Mormons settle California, I would imagine that the statehood of California might be delayed by a few years. What effect would that have on American politics? Also, as I mentioned before, what view would the Gold Rush types and the native Californios have of the Mormons? I don't know what they thought of the small Mormon settlements in OTL California.

 

[Knoxville Jim]

It would have failed. Too much money in CA to strategic to US interests to allow a "hostile alien population" to live there. Which is how the US gov saw them. The saints got Utah because it was a worthless dessert. They would be thrown out a la IL.

 

[TFSmith121]

The San Joaquin Valley (the southern half of the Central Valley)

So I'm writing a TL/story in which the Mormons following Brigham Young decide to settle in California itself, rather than Utah.

I've figured out some of the cultural implications there (though less so on the non-Mormon side), but I haven't decided where in California the Mormons will settle. As I understand, OTL Brigham Young wanted a fairly isolated area to settle so that the Mormons would not be "corrupted" by non-Mormons and could live their own lives in peace, and was not fond of mining and mineral extraction overall. So living near the gold is probably not an option.

Is there any place in California that is relatively fertile, yet isolated? Preferably a place that could be an outpost on the way to the Gold Rush, but not part of the Gold Rush itself?

Additionally, how would the non-Mormons, specifically the Californios and the American settlers respond to the Mormons settling in their new state? What might be some of the cultural shifts and implications?

The San Joaquin Valley (the southern half of the Central Valley) is very fertile and well-watered (thanks to the San Joaquin River and its tributaries) in the 1840s, plus it is (essentially) open via the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers to the Bay Area, so really, it's out once the Gold Rush and US-Mexican war take place.

There are two options, both of which look good on paper, but rapidly would face the same issues: the Owens Valley in east-central California and the Honey Lake Valley in northeastern California, both of which are a) on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada; b) well-watered; and c) Basin and Range, rather than Pacific coast, country...

The problem, of course, is like everywhere adjacent to the Sierras, once the Mother Lode and Comstock have come in, they will be surveyed and - not surprisingly - found to be equally wealthy in minerals.

Plus, if the point is to find somewhere isolated but relatively fertile in the Basin and Range, then Utah is really the place - and its closer to Missouri and Illinois. Idaho is too far north (and ends up getting its own share of mineral strikes) and New Mexico is too far south, and has enough population its really not wide open, anyway, even in the 1840s.

Best,

 

[Zioneer]

But minerals were found in Utah as well, and an army regiment was even stationed there, and Mormons still managed to stay there. Yes, it was worth less than Californian resources, but it still was worth something. Yet they were not kicked out of Utah. So given an equal time to settle and consolidate, would it not be as difficult to oust the Mormons from California as it was to oust them from Utah?

This is frustrating. I want to construct a story in which the LDS Church is headquartered in a different place than Utah, and which the LDS Church has a different viewpoint on many, many things due to that shift in settlement and focus, but it looks like it's impossible to have the Mormons plausibly settle anywhere but freaking Utah! I'm genuinely upset at this unwillingness to even consider the option.

For goodness sake, other settlements in other cultural PoDs are not set in stone, so why is this one? Is there not any other place but Utah that could have been plausibly chosen? Or maybe have Brigham and the Saints under him settle somewhere that only later has the problem of Gentiles moving in crop up?

Heck, at this point I'd take a butterflying away or delaying of the Mexican-American war and have the Mormons settle into what is then Mexican territory.

 

[e of pi]

For goodness sake, other settlements in other cultural PoDs are not set in stone, so why is this one? Is there not any other place but Utah that could have been plausibly chosen? Or maybe have Brigham and the Saints under him settle somewhere that only later has the problem of Gentiles moving in crop up?

Heck, at this point I'd take a butterflying away or delaying of the Mexican-American war and have the Mormons settle into what is then Mexican territory.

Idle thought: what about going north, someplace like Manitoba or Alberta? It's pretty underpopulated even today, and it's reasonably good country. Trade your desert for some prairie?

 

[Zioneer]

Idle thought: what about going north, someplace like Manitoba or Alberta? It's pretty underpopulated even today, and it's reasonably good country. Trade your desert for some prairie?

That could work, and it could even be more plausible than the California route. Some of the earliest Mormon missionaries outside the United States were to Canada, actually.

But if they settled anywhere near the populated parts of Canada, that might be a problem. I also don't know the first thing of how the British colonial authorities would react to the main body of Mormons settling in any part of Canada.

And I really have my heart set on having a story involving a California Mormonism, or at least a Mormonism that involves more looking to the Pacific and the Pacific islands (including Hawaii) and the East Asian nations.

 

[TFSmith121]

Except look at it from the LDS perspective; they're looking

But minerals were found in Utah as well, and an army regiment was even stationed there, and Mormons still managed to stay there. Yes, it was worth less than Californian resources, but it still was worth something. Yet they were not kicked out of Utah. So given an equal time to settle and consolidate, would it not be as difficult to oust the Mormons from California as it was to oust them from Utah?

This is frustrating. I want to construct a story in which the LDS Church is headquartered in a different place than Utah, and which the LDS Church has a different viewpoint on many, many things due to that shift in settlement and focus, but it looks like it's impossible to have the Mormons plausibly settle anywhere but freaking Utah! I'm genuinely upset at this unwillingness to even consider the option.

For goodness sake, other settlements in other cultural PoDs are not set in stone, so why is this one? Is there not any other place but Utah that could have been plausibly chosen? Or maybe have Brigham and the Saints under him settle somewhere that only later has the problem of Gentiles moving in crop up?

Heck, at this point I'd take a butterflying away or delaying of the Mexican-American war and have the Mormons settle into what is then Mexican territory.

Except look at it from the LDS perspective; they're looking for, essentially, a farming colony centered around family farms (most of them are farmers from western NY, the Great Lakes/Old Northwest, or Missouri et al, or, even worse, Europeans)...

They don't want to be miners or ranchers. Draw a line due west from Missouri in 1841-50 and what do you find that is a) reasonable farming country and b) capable of being reached in single season's travel, with some cushion (don't want to end up like the Donners, obviously); and c) isn't already occupied?

Other than Utah, maybe the western slope of the Rockies, in the Gunnison Valley, maybe - Grand Junction and vicinity?

That's about it.

If they go north from Missouri-Illinois, there are boatloads of Americans heading for Wisconson, Iowa, and Minnesota already. Much north of that and its too cold, as witness the basic failure of the Selkirk Colony/Manitoba at this point.

Kansas-Nebraska, maybe, but its right on the emigrant trail and starting to fill anyway. New Mexico has plenty of "settled" people already who are handy with a gun...

The obvious option, honestly, could be the Indian Territory; fertile, well-watered, and inhabited by people with even less political pull than the LDS. If - say - the LDS leadership had made the offer that they would be good citizens if left alone to even further "civilize" the civilized tribes in the IT (at the point of a gun, of course) and that anyone who objected could be pushed even farther west (Texas Panhandle), one could almost see it.

Interstingly enough, if the LDS did "go southwest" into the IT, the ripples through to the Civil War and after would be interesting.

The thing to keep in mind, however, is that Utah (historically) had all of 40,000 people in 1860; they weren't exactly a juggernaut.

They kind of had to go where they were allowed to go, essentially.

Best,

 

[Zioneer]

Except look at it from the LDS perspective; they're looking for, essentially, a farming colony centered around family farms (most of them are farmers from western NY, the Great Lakes/Old Northwest, or Missouri et al, or, even worse, Europeans)...

They don't want to be miners or ranchers. Draw a line due west from Missouri in 1841-50 and what do you find that is a) reasonable farming country and b) capable of being reached in single season's travel, with some cushion (don't want to end up like the Donners, obviously); and c) isn't already occupied?

Other than Utah, maybe the western slope of the Rockies, in the Gunnison Valley, maybe - Grand Junction and vicinity?

That's about it.

If they go north from Missouri-Illinois, there are boatloads of Americans heading for Wisconson, Iowa, and Minnesota already. Much north of that and its too cold, as witness the basic failure of the Selkirk Colony/Manitoba at this point.

Kansas-Nebraska, maybe, but its right on the emigrant trail and starting to fill anyway. New Mexico has plenty of "settled" people already who are handy with a gun...

The obvious option, honestly, could be the Indian Territory; fertile, well-watered, and inhabited by people with even less political pull than the LDS. If - say - the LDS leadership had made the offer that they would be good citizens if left alone to even further "civilize" the civilized tribes in the IT (at the point of a gun, of course) and that anyone who objected could be pushed even farther west (Texas Panhandle), one could almost see it.

Interstingly enough, if the LDS did "go southwest" into the IT, the ripples through to the Civil War and after would be interesting.

The thing to keep in mind, however, is that Utah (historically) had all of 40,000 people in 1860; they weren't exactly a juggernaut.

They kind of had to go where they were allowed to go, essentially.

Best,

So you're telling me that there was really no chance for the LDS to settle anywhere but the Salt Lake Valley (and various assorted places in Utah) and maybe Grand Junction in Colorado? There's no place that combines both fertile enough farmland and comfortable isolation (which again, didn't exactly last long even in Utah)? There's no other land that Brigham Young could have kept an eye on for colonization purposes? How frustrating.

I don't really want to deal with the Indian Territory idea, as Mormons had a pretty weird relationship with Native Americans that gets into convoluted issues that I don't want to deal with. Their disputes with the Utes in Utah were bad enough, I don't want to have a more complicated relationship for Mormons and Native Americans.

I get that the LDS couldn't go just anywhere they wanted, but surely there's different options than Salt Lake or the Gunnison Valley, Grand Junction, or the Indian Territory?

EDIT: At the very least, brainstorm with me. Assume the Saints go somewhere else other than Utah. Doesn't have to be California. What happens next? That's the main point I'm trying to get feedback on. I do want plausibility, but I also want a fun story/history.

 

[TFSmith121]

The thing is, if you want Zion to be a farming community

So you're telling me that there was really no chance for the LDS to settle anywhere but the Salt Lake Valley (and various assorted places in Utah) and maybe Grand Junction in Colorado? There's no place that combines both fertile enough farmland and comfortable isolation (which again, didn't exactly last long even in Utah)? There's no other land that Brigham Young could have kept an eye on for colonization purposes? How frustrating.

I don't really want to deal with the Indian Territory idea, as Mormons had a pretty weird relationship with Native Americans that gets into convoluted issues that I don't want to deal with. Their disputes with the Utes in Utah were bad enough, I don't want to have a more complicated relationship for Mormons and Native Americans.

I get that the LDS couldn't go just anywhere they wanted, but surely there's different options than Salt Lake or the Gunnison Valley, Grand Junction, or the Indian Territory?

EDIT: At the very least, brainstorm with me. Assume the Saints go somewhere else other than Utah. Doesn't have to be California. What happens next? That's the main point I'm trying to get feedback on. I do want plausibility, but I also want a fun story/history.

The thing is, if you and the rest of the Council want Zion to be a farming colony that is relatively isolated from all those non-Saints types, Utah is actually pretty close to perfect in the early 1840s...

Especially as, don't forget, you're asking men with women and children to go there via handcart... Crossing the Divide is bad enough; crossing the Rockies and the Sierras is asking for an early Donner Party or several.

The one other possibility that seems remotely in the ballpark is the Oregon Country/Territory and/or Washington Territory, which is emptier than anywhere else on the Pacific Coast under US sovereignty at this point...

However, there are plenty of Americans going there, it gets colder the farther north you go, and it's farther away than Utah and western Colorado.

If you can push the departure date farther back then the 1840s, of course, that opens up some slightly different possibilities, but if you're trying to keep a point of departure in the 1840s, Utah/Western Colorado actually fits the bill pretty well.

Nevada and what is today Arizona are possibilities, but again, you'd be ordering your followers to go farther than what is necessary for your purposes.

Want to get really wacky? Have William Walker become a Saint and go for somewhere in Central America... It's been done before, after all.

Best,

 

[Knoxville Jim]

I sort of like the canada idea. But you're dealing with laws I don't ger.

How about Czarist Alaska. Leading to a very different Alaska. Imagine the church having oil weath. Sort of like Saudi Arabia. No one wanted Alaska.

If you can get over the Mexican's get over them not being Catholic, but that Mexico is getting really hardworking, smart (as in literate) folks who don't want to be a part of the U
S. (You could change their feelings later.) There are lots of decent areas of Mexico, well as good as Utah that were empty.

But have them go to Alaska, buy it from the Czar. Discover gold and oil and not allow gentile immigration.

 

[TFSmith121]

I'm not thinking your going to get a lot of willing

I sort of like the canada idea. But you're dealing with laws I don't ger.

How about Czarist Alaska. Leading to a very different Alaska. Imagine the church having oil weath. Sort of like Saudi Arabia. No one wanted Alaska.

If you can get over the Mexican's get over them not being Catholic, but that Mexico is getting really hardworking, smart (as in literate) folks who don't want to be a part of the U
S. (You could change their feelings later.) There are lots of decent areas of Mexico, well as good as Utah that were empty.

But have them go to Alaska, buy it from the Czar. Discover gold and oil and not allow gentile immigration.

I'm not thinking you're going to get many willing emigrants to Alaska in the 1840s, Jim ...

The Russians certainly couldn't.

Likewise, I'm having a hard time seeing the LDS scraping up $7 million in specie, the Russians being willing to sell before the 1853-55 war, or the Americans not being willing to outbid the LDS...

Again, the LDS sent people west with all their worldly goods loaded in wheelbarrows, planning to cross the Rocky Mountains that way ... and it was not because they were rich.

Best,

 

[fox~ringo]

I think California is a no-go, despite how cool a story it would be. Not only is it unlikely due to the huge population boom and Gold Rush, but the native Californios were pretty conservative Catholics. They wouldn't take kindly to a big group of polygamous heretics moving in illegally (essentially all American migrants to California pre-Mexican-American War were illegal immigrants; the Californio government would issue them passports anyways because they were constantly afraid of a Texas-style revolt).