Spanish California

All right in OTL for the colonial period there was already a Spanish California. But my question is what if for whatever reason the Anglos are unable or unwilling to ever cross the appalachians, say because there is a strong and powerful New France that blocks it.

How would California develop if there was no Anglo influx? If the Spanish empire did fall apart would it stay under Mexican control or would it be eager for independence? If there is never a trans-continental Rail Road, would California stay undeveloped? Would the Ranchos collapse inevitably or would they retain their power? Would the Spanish allow or even encourage Phillipino immigration, if there is a need for workers in California?
 
All right in OTL for the colonial period there was already a Spanish California. But my question is what if for whatever reason the Anglos are unable or unwilling to ever cross the appalachians, say because there is a strong and powerful New France that blocks it.

How would California develop if there was no Anglo influx? If the Spanish empire did fall apart would it stay under Mexican control or would it be eager for independence? If there is never a trans-continental Rail Road, would California stay undeveloped? Would the Ranchos collapse inevitably or would they retain their power? Would the Spanish allow or even encourage Phillipino immigration, if there is a need for workers in California?

It would probably end up rebelling from Mexico or Spain. It was a pretty distant province in the empire.
 
Assuming British defeat in the 7 Years War, and New France remains in place, the American Revolution never occurs in the 1770's and there is little Anglo expansion west of the mountains. Probably California splits off shortly after Mexican independence, forming a weak coastal republic. When gold is discovered in California, New France invades and seizes the country. (probably in the reign of of Louis XX.):D Alternatively, the Brits push southwards from Vancouver, taking it themselves to keep the French away from the Pacific ports
 
Depending on how early/late gold is discovered, it sounds like you could get anything from a Bolivia with different shiny metals (remember Nevada's silver mines!) to an Argentina-lite chock-full of European immigrants attracted by business opportunities.
 
say because there is a strong and powerful New France that blocks it.

You'll need a pretty early POD for that one to happen since the French won't bother to colonize it. In which case, anything could happen to California by then.

How would California develop if there was no Anglo influx? If the Spanish empire did fall apart would it stay under Mexican control or would it be eager for independence? If there is never a trans-continental Rail Road, would California stay undeveloped? Would the Ranchos collapse inevitably or would they retain their power? Would the Spanish allow or even encourage Phillipino immigration, if there is a need for workers in California?

Hard to imagine that there won't be any American/British/whatever emigration but my bet is it would probably remain Mexican, especially if Mexico has a stable government. However it could also go for independence just as easily. As for development, pretty much inevitable once people get there.
 
Last edited:
You'll need a pretty early POD for that one to happen since the French won't bother to colonise it. In which case, anything could happen to California by then.

Well it would also be possible to have a POD that would structurally wreck the 13 colonies, and all English imperialism in North America.


Hard to imagine that there won't be any American/British/whatever emigration but my bet is it would probably remain Mexican, especially if Mexico has a stable government. However it could also go for independence just as easily. As for development, pretty much inevitable once people get there.

I meant no American/British emigration. Whatever emigration is still very important, because I think it is obvious that the Rancho and Mission system of California was not colonizing at full potential. There is still room for immigrants and obviously they will come considering the Gold and good land that is here. the question is from where?

douglas said:
Depending on how early/late gold is discovered, it sounds like you could get anything from a Bolivia with different shiny metals (remember Nevada's silver mines!) to an Argentina-lite chock-full of European immigrants attracted by business opportunities.

So would you say if there is an early discovery of gold, the spanish would likely enslave the natives and in the long run create a Bolivia like state with a few extreme wealthy and mainly lowerclass. That makes sense, except the fact is that with Bolivia, after you clean out the Mines Bolivia has very little else. With California there is a lot of free good land to be had that would mean that California won't likely sink as low as the Bolivians. That being said if there is an intense history of slavery in California, the mine slaves might simply become farm slaves, after the mines run dry.

Argentina fits more I think.

Claudius said:
Assuming British defeat in the 7 Years War, and New France remains in place, the American Revolution never occurs in the 1770's and there is little Anglo expansion west of the mountains. Probably California splits off shortly after Mexican independence, forming a weak coastal republic. When gold is discovered in California, New France invades and seizes the country. (probably in the reign of of Louis XX.) Alternatively, the Brits push southwards from Vancouver, taking it themselves to keep the French away from the Pacific ports.

I think you make a good point, that California would always be too valuable for the great powers and too isolated to be independent. Fremont might lead the invasion of California anyways:cool:.

That being said, it's not as if California is indefensible geographically. It just seems like it was to unpopulated over too much space for it to continue to exist.

That being said a French California after centuries of Spanish rule would be really interesting culturally.
 
Assuming British defeat in the 7 Years War, and New France remains in place, the American Revolution never occurs in the 1770's and there is little Anglo expansion west of the mountains. Probably California splits off shortly after Mexican independence, forming a weak coastal republic. When gold is discovered in California, New France invades and seizes the country. (probably in the reign of of Louis XX.):D Alternatively, the Brits push southwards from Vancouver, taking it themselves to keep the French away from the Pacific ports

If the British lose the French and Indian War then the Americans will stay in the British Empire longer for protection against their enemy number 1, France. When another war starts between Britain and France (and believe me it will happen) then New France will fall. With the French out of the way the Americans will try to leave the British Empire.

Well it would also be possible to have a POD that would structurally wreck the 13 colonies, and all English imperialism in North America.

In that case the colonies might divide Louisiana among themselves. Or it fall under Spanish/Mexican or British authority (more likely). The best Louisiana can do by 1750 is keep an area around the size of the OTL state unless meteors hit North America or something.
 
If the British lose the French and Indian War then the Americans will stay in the British Empire longer for protection against their enemy number 1, France. When another war starts between Britain and France (and believe me it will happen) then New France will fall. With the French out of the way the Americans will try to leave the British Empire.



In that case the colonies might divide Louisiana among themselves. Or it fall under Spanish/Mexican or British authority (more likely). The best Louisiana can do by 1750 is keep an area around the size of the OTL state unless meteors hit North America or something.

I would argue that there is always the Sea Lion a la Francaise. Which would bring the British and their colonial lackeys to the bargaining table. ;)
 
I would argue that there is always the Sea Lion a la Francaise. Which would bring the British and their colonial lackeys to the bargaining table. ;)

Ya and hay Canada is a really a part of Europe don't cha know? :rolleyes:

1. How are you supposed to "bargain" an entire population [1] from going where it wants to go? Last I remember; the British tried to do this with their own "colonial lackeys". Things didn't end well.

2. For every one Frenchman in North America, there were ten British "colonial lackeys". So no matter what, the French colonists are going to get swamped by the "colonial lackeys".

3. How are the French colonists supposed to fight off the "colonial lackeys" when France had no intention of sending any reinforcements? The fact is that France didn't care what happened to its American colonies. The British however had a very strong interest which brings me to my next question.

4. You mentioned something about "wrecking British imperialism in North America" my question is HOW? The only thing more important to the British then their North American colonies was their Indian colonies. The only thing that would "wreck" this is if the Ameri- I mean the "colonial lackeys" rebel like in OTL. And if that happens then you've also gotten rid of the one force that could, at best, delay them from migrating into French territory!

[1] Unless their some sort of hive mind.
 
My point was that:
1 if the POD is a British defeat in the 7 years war.
2 And the continuing stability if not profit of the French Kingdom (no french revolution and likely greater settlement of Lousiana).
3 Then with rematch say around 1776, there are alot of potentials for very different outcomes: The French may have a size-able fleet and be able to defeat the British at sea, the 13 colonies would surrounded on land and cut off at sea, the British Isles themselves would be in danger from this war.

All of this is especially true if the Spanish ally with the French. Even with the 13 colonies being better populated, where will they go? Into Florida? Try to get Quebec? Or deeper into the continent, Where French Forts and Indian allies will be waiting, not to mention the lack of infrastructure for supplies to follow the Anglo armies.

Even if British Sea Power holds, it seems like they would have too much to defend: India, America, any African holdings, and the Home Island itself. Any relaxation in anyone of these areas would threaten British security.

Your point about French ignoring their colonies would also hold true if there were French troops in London. At that point the rights of settlers in America would not be on the forefront of their docket.
 
My point was that:
1 if the POD is a British defeat in the 7 years war.

My point is that the 7 Years War is too late. You’ll need something earlier for this to happen which isn’t that hard in my opinion.

2 And the continuing stability if not profit of the French Kingdom (no french revolution and likely greater settlement of Lousiana).

It will still never match the size of the British Americans colonies, which had one of the highest population growths ever in history at the time, in say as little as 20 years.

3 Then with rematch say around 1776, there are alot of potentials for very different outcomes

Yes, there are so many ways the French colonists could suck and fail. :)

The French may have a size-able fleet and be able to defeat the British at sea, the 13 colonies would surrounded on land and cut off at sea, the British Isles themselves would be in danger from this war.

Why in hell would Britain not build up its own fleet if France is building up hers? And where will France get these warships anyway?

Even with the 13 colonies being better populated, where will they go? Into Florida? Try to get Quebec? Or deeper into the continent,

Yes, yes, and YES!

Where French Forts and Indian allies will be waiting, not to mention the lack of infrastructure for supplies to follow the Anglo armies.

Because they did such fantastic job in OTL :rolleyes:. Now the French didn't fight back when the USA took over but that's largely because all of them were in New Orleans. Seeing as that will still hold true in TTL even with increased settlement (unless we live in you're fantasy world where we can send two armies to Venezuela and capture it as long as you roll a higher number then your opponent) then the only challenge is the Natives. And if there is increased French settlement then they can kiss their Native allies goodbye.

Not to mention the lack of infrastructure for supplies to follow the fictional French armies.

Even if British Sea Power holds, it seems like they would have too much to defend: India, America, any African holdings, and the Home Island itself. Any relaxation in anyone of these areas would threaten British security.

Considering that the British had the largest fleet in the world (and if the French build up their own it will only cause the British to increase that) I don't think that will be much of a problem.

Your point about French ignoring their colonies would also hold true if there were French troops in London. At that point the rights of settlers in America would not be on the forefront of their docket.

In which the French will get thrown out of London when they can't hold it. At which point the Americans will occupy New Orleans. :)
 
My point is that the 7 Years War is too late. You’ll need something earlier for this to happen which isn’t that hard in my opinion.



It will still never match the size of the British Americans colonies, which had one of the highest population growths ever in history at the time, in say as little as 20 years.



Yes, there are so many ways the French colonists could suck and fail. :)



Why in hell would Britain not build up its own fleet if France is building up hers? And where will France get these warships anyway?



Yes, yes, and YES!



Because they did such fantastic job in OTL :rolleyes:. Now the French didn't fight back when the USA took over but that's largely because all of them were in New Orleans. Seeing as that will still hold true in TTL even with increased settlement (unless we live in you're fantasy world where we can send two armies to Venezuela and capture it as long as you roll a higher number then your opponent) then the only challenge is the Natives. And if there is increased French settlement then they can kiss their Native allies goodbye.

Not to mention the lack of infrastructure for supplies to follow the fictional French armies.



Considering that the British had the largest fleet in the world (and if the French build up their own it will only cause the British to increase that) I don't think that will be much of a problem.



In which the French will get thrown out of London when they can't hold it. At which point the Americans will occupy New Orleans. :)

Good points all around, though I don't understand the two armies venzelua thing. But do you really think that once the thirteen colonies were set up they were bound by history to rule all of North America?

Not to mention you seem to be missing the point of my original question, which was how would California develop if it was not part of the US and had little settlement from Anglo peoples.
 
Good points all around, though I don't understand the two armies venzelua thing.

I was referring to the board game called RISK.

But do you really think that once the thirteen colonies were set up they were bound by history to rule all of North America?

Not at all; in fact, if you read the first part of my last post says "My point is that the 7 Years War is too late. You’ll need something earlier for this to happen which isn’t that hard in my opinion." What I've been trying to say this entire time was that a PoD in the 7 Years War is too late for New France to keep most (if any) of it's territory. Now if you have a PoD in the 15-1600's or later which France encourages settlers to go too the American colonies or something then that could work. But there is a point which will make this impossible.

Not to mention you seem to be missing the point of my original question, which was how would California develop if it was not part of the US and had little settlement from Anglo peoples.

That's because I was pointing out that to get New France to be powerful enough would need quite an early PoD in which anything could happen. And I later went on to talk about what would happen to California last time I checked.
 
Now if you have a PoD in the 15-1600's or later which France encourages settlers to go too the American colonies or something then that could work. But there is a point which will make this impossible.



That's because I was pointing out that to get New France to be powerful enough would need quite an early PoD in which anything could happen. And I later went on to talk about what would happen to California last time I checked.

What do you mean "a point which will make this impossible"?

Going back to what you said about California's development: "pretty much inevitable when people get there" that doesn't answer the question of "what people?" if there is no United States or at least no presence west of the mississippi.
 
What do you mean "a point which will make this impossible"?

A point in which the British colonists will drown the French colonists in sheer numbers and when there is nothing the Franch could do about it even if they wanted to, putting the British in the position to colonize the interior.

Going back to what you said about California's development: "pretty much inevitable when people get there" that doesn't answer the question of "what people?" if there is no United States or at least no presence west of the mississippi.

I admit the inevitable was an overstatement on my part. I was talking about was that the cities of San Diego and San Francisco are valuable ports and once gold is discovered, people will move there.

As to what people. The Spanish of course unless you do make a powerful New France. But I would also see large minorities of other people such as the Dutch, British, French, Blacks, and even Russians.
 
Top