Mormons settle in California rather than Utah, what happens?

Zioneer

Banned
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,

Hmm... Could there be some sort of disease or natural disaster that causes the Mormons to keep going once they get to the Salt Lake Valley? A severe earthquake, maybe? I suppose the easier way to get the Mormons away from Utah is to make the main area of settlement temporarily unusable.

As for the difficulty of getting to California by handcart; that's actually part of my idea for Mormon California; once they're there, knowing how difficult it is getting to there by the traditional route, perhaps the Mormon immigration is geared more towards converts coming from the other direction by ship, rather than the East Coast and Europe?

Oregon and British Columbia would be an interesting options; perhaps even Montana if that isn't too cold. And I would argue that the Saints were used to cold, considering they were mainly from New England, northern England, and so forth. I mean, James Strang led his (smaller than Brigham's) body of followers to Wisconsin and then Michigan, after all.

As for William Walker, I think he was too involved in Southern nationalism to be a Mormon; most of them were Yankees and even accused of abolitionism at some point. Other adventurers might work (Allan Pinkerton could've been a Mormon, for example), but I think Walker was too big on conquering Latin America for slavery.

Though that brings me to another point; for the purposes of the story I'm writing, I want early Mormonism (at least, post-Joseph Mormonism) to have significantly different racial attitudes. Earlier non-white leaders, for example. No priesthood ban. Friendlier attitude towards various groups, etc. Part of my specific story idea is having Jonathan Napela be an apostle, for example.

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).

That's a good point, though before the Mormons got comfortable in Utah, they weren't openly advertising polygamy yet. It was only when they felt they wouldn't have to move again (1852 or thereabouts), that they felt comfortable openly declaring their polygamy. So anything the Californios heard would be treated more like rumor for at least a little while.
 
I did not realize that, Zioneer, thanks. In any case, the Californios would learn something of Mormon theology, and they wouldn't like it. They demanded American Protestants become Catholics as a prerequisite for naturalization, but by 1840 they stopped trying persuade immigrants to convert. Can't imagine their reaction to an evangelical (by this I mean actively proselytizing) off-shoot sporting a new gospel of Christ.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Simplest thing to make Utah unattractive is probably a)

Hmm... Could there be some sort of disease or natural disaster that causes the Mormons to keep going once they get to the Salt Lake Valley? A severe earthquake, maybe? I suppose the easier way to get the Mormons away from Utah is to make the main area of settlement temporarily unusable.

As for the difficulty of getting to California by handcart; that's actually part of my idea for Mormon California; once they're there, knowing how difficult it is getting to there by the traditional route, perhaps the Mormon immigration is geared more towards converts coming from the other direction by ship, rather than the East Coast and Europe?

Oregon and British Columbia would be an interesting options; perhaps even Montana if that isn't too cold. And I would argue that the Saints were used to cold, considering they were mainly from New England, northern England, and so forth. I mean, James Strang led his (smaller than Brigham's) body of followers to Wisconsin and then Michigan, after all.

As for William Walker, I think he was too involved in Southern nationalism to be a Mormon; most of them were Yankees and even accused of abolitionism at some point. Other adventurers might work (Allan Pinkerton could've been a Mormon, for example), but I think Walker was too big on conquering Latin America for slavery.

Though that brings me to another point; for the purposes of the story I'm writing, I want early Mormonism (at least, post-Joseph Mormonism) to have significantly different racial attitudes. Earlier non-white leaders, for example. No priesthood ban. Friendlier attitude towards various groups, etc. Part of my specific story idea is having Jonathan Napela be an apostle, for example.

Simplest thing to make Utah unattractive is probably a) really severe drought, or b) really severe winter(s) so they can't even cross the Rockies and have to go north on the Oregon Trail or south on the Old Spanish Trail; or c) make the Utes more akin to the Apache or Comanche in terms of being a deterrent to settlement.

I'd suggest if you really want the LDS on the Pacific coast, then the Oregon Trail to the Columbia and then north to Washington Territory is probably the best approach; there were only about 12,000 people in the Territory in 1860, after all, so 40K LDS have a huge impact. Basically, Washington gets statehood at the same time as Oregon...

From the 1860 census (historically), there were 11,138 whites, 426 classified as "taxed" Indian, and 30 "free coloreds." This count put Washington Territory 40th out of 42 states and territories, trailed only by Nevada and Dakota territories.

There are some real ripples from that, of course.

Best,
 
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.


Not the only, but probably about the best. Most others involve a longer journey to a less satisfactory destination.

I wondered about Colorado, which is a similar layout of fertile land hemmed in by desert, but President Young might have thought it a bit too close to the main body of the US.
 
Last edited:
Curiously, though Brigham Young did not wish to settle in California, he seems to have been willing for Deseret to become, at least temporarily, a part of that state. See the following from Michael F Holt The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party (pp438-9).

“[President Zachary] Taylor appointed the Missourian John Wilson as Indian agent to [Deseret] and instructed him to persuade the Mormons to join the Union as part of the new state of California. If that state proved too large to manage, as it undoubtedly would have, Taylor suggested it could later be divided. - - - If Wilson obtained the Mormons’ consent to this stunning proposal, he was to proceed west with Mormon representatives to rendezvous with [Thomas Butler] King in San Francisco, so that the Mormons could attend the California constitutional convention King had arranged, and sprawling Utah could be included within the boundaries of - - California. King, meanwhile, was to delay proceedings in California until he heard from Wilson, and then persuade Californians to include Deseret in their new state. - - -

During the Summer and Fall, however - - Taylor’s plan unravelled. Incredibly, Wilson persuaded the Mormons to become part of California, and several of these, expecting to serve as delegates to the - - convention, accompanied him on the arduous trek across the Sierra Nevada for his planned rendezvous with King. By the time Wilson and the Mormons reached San Francisco, however, it was too late. King reached that city on June 4, only to find that on the previous day, at Monterey, Brevet Major-General Bennet Riley, the military governor of California, had issued a proclamation calling a constitutional convention to meet there on September 1. Ignoring his instructions to await word from Wilson about the Mormons’ intentions, King plunged into the business of touring California with Riley and General P F Smith to sell its residents on applying immediately for statehood - - In September the convention wrote and forwarded to Washington a constitution that prohibited slavery in the new state and claimed its modern day boundaries. King later unblushingly denied that his mission and Wilson’s were related. The furious Wilson, in turn, charged that King had violated his instructions because of his eagerness to secure one of California’s senate seats. Whoever was at fault, an extraordinary opportunity had been lost. “

President Young’s biographer, Leonard J Arrington, also mentions the matter, saying that Young believed that if included in CA, Deseret would be able to separate from it in 1851. That seems rather optimistic, but confirms that Young was agreeable to the plan.

Any thoughts on how this might impact Kansas-Nebraska? It means there is no precedent set for Popular Sovereignty in a Territory, which might cost the Bill a few crucial votes. Also, it does set a precedent for considerably bigger states out west than in the East, so maybe Kansas and Nebraska (plus half of Colorado?) remain one Territory rather than two. With those boundaries there's obviously no ghost of a chance of the Proslavery side winning, so the whole issue may be a storm in a teacup. .
 
Last edited:
As soon as gold was discovered, California became far too important (and popular) to leave to the Mormons.

They may have been enclaves in less desirable areas (for example, central valley and southern California sites with less reliable irrigation and far less productive irrigation).

Coastal California: no. The same goes for regions supported by major rivers or where gold had been mined.
 
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,

And I fully admit this is a bad idea ....

Suppose the Mormons do move to these areas then discover their mineral wealth?

We could end up with the State of Deseret being the American version of a Boer Republic.
 
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?
While they were empty (and pretty hard to get to) back then, the Prairies are not underpopulated today. (At least not when compared to south of the border.)

If they did try to go north I would guess they'd have some angry Metis to deal with.
 
Central Coast

The Central Coast area of California was somewhat isolated during that time. From the upper Salinas Valley around Soledad south through SLO to south of Santa Barbara would be a good area for a Mormon colony. Both the Salinas Valley and the Santa Maria Valley are prime farming and ranching country. They would have access to ports at Morro Bay, Port San Luis and Santa Barbara. There is also easy access east to the San Joaquin Valley east of Paso Robles, north to Monterey and the Bay Area and south to the LA basin.

There is also some small oil fields in the area for development when oil becomes important. Of course the potential for development of vineyards and wineries would be a waste for the Mormons.

What do you think?

Thank you,
MrBill
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, yeah, but we all know what happened to them...

And I fully admit this is a bad idea .... Suppose the Mormons do move to these areas then discover their mineral wealth? We could end up with the State of Deseret being the American version of a Boer Republic.

Well, yeah, but we all know what happened to them...

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Okay, but its worth noting the "Utah War" resulted in zero

It doesn't need long term survivability to be a viable AH scenario. And remember the Utah War, the LDS did not have a rosy history with the Federal Government IRL.

Okay, but its worth noting the "Utah War" resulted in zero fatalities between the US forces and the LDS; the 1880-81 and 1899-1902 South African wars were somewhat more costly...;)

Best,
 
Okay, but its worth noting the "Utah War" resulted in zero fatalities between the US forces and the LDS; the 1880-81 and 1899-1902 South African wars were somewhat more costly...;)

Best,

There were more civilian casualties in The Utah War than the Afrikaaner military casualties in the 1st Boer War.
(And the US Army did lose 38 men)
The Nauvoo Legion was not far short from the deployed strength of the Republic of Transvaal (1880-81).

A richer Territory of Deseret/ Utah, twenty years on, having issues with the Federal Govt, especially with the Polygamy and non-Mormon inhabitants.

And this is Alternate History we should be able to come up with something?

(And what's with the spellcheck here, it queries Afrikaaner but is okay with Nauvoo and Deseret???)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Huh?

There were more civilian casualties in The Utah War than the Afrikaaner military casualties in the 1st Boer War.
(And the US Army did lose 38 men)

Huh? Not a shot was fired in anger by US troops or the LDSers during the crisis in Utah.

Best,
 
Huh? Not a shot was fired in anger by US troops or the LDSers during the crisis in Utah.

Best,

Actually shots were exchanged, although nobody hit anything http://johnstonsarmy.blogspot.co.uk/
(makes it clear that the standard of marksmanship was perhaps somewhat lacking)

The US Army's casualties appear to have been all non-combat, disease, exposure and accidents. (One man apparently died of a shock induced heart attack on sentry duty)
The greatest loss of life was what would today probably be considered a war crime the Mountain Meadows massacre.
 
I realize it was already a state by then but how about Michigan's Upper Peninsula? It was and is very lightly populated and admittedly has a short growing season (there are areas where it's as short as 88 days). But if the majority of the emigrants were from the Great Lakes or western NY, it might not seem all that farfetched.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I'd suggest this source:

The greatest loss of life was what would today probably be considered a war crime the Mountain Meadows massacre.

I'd suggest this source:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-13-1/index.html

Seems quite clear both sides were intentionally avoiding any sort of incident.

Mountain Meadows was committed by LDS members against "gentile" civilians, and no one was willing to make the claim that it was the responsibility of the LDS "government."

Best,
 
Top