The Spanish found the gold in California

What if, in the 17th century or in the 18th century, some Spanish explorer or missionary found the gold in California? Would the Spanish start to heavily settle California? Could the USA ever get California in this timeline? If not, would it be independent or part of Mexico?
 
It won't be as heavily settled, I would assume: The Spanish already had other gold-mining places in South America and such. You would definitely see earlier developments though, but the USA is bound to get California sometime.
 
It won't be as heavily settled, I would assume: The Spanish already had other gold-mining places in South America and such. You would definitely see earlier developments though, but the USA is bound to get California sometime.

I think, that, it would be at least, a bit more heavily settled than in our timeline. Perhaps as heavily settled as New Mexico was, at the time of the Mexican-American War.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The American forces faced off against local Mexican-California forces and while they won the war a California with 2-5 times the number of settlers be a much stronger opponent. Also the discovery of gold mean the settling of central California and areas north of San Francisco Bay. So the US could beat it but California have a lot less American settlers than iotl and the US would need to send a much larger army which would be difficult since they crossing mountains and deserts.

The best that US could wish for in the 1830s and 1840s would be an independent California from Mexico that could over time be overwhelmed by American settlers and lead to integration to US. But not outright conquest like Iotl in war.

Also a more profitable California mightbof provide México with the funds to move thousands of Mexicans from south north to Texas, New Mexico and California. Thus again frustrating the Americans even more. What would the Americans in Texas do if they were outnumbered by Mexicans?
 
Last edited:
The American forced faced off against local Mexican-California forces and while they won the war a California with 2-5 times the number of settlers be a much stronger opponent. Also the discovery of gold mean the settling of central California and areas north of San Francisco Bay. So the ZuS could beat it but California have a lot less American settlers than iotl and the ZuS would need to send a much larger army which would be difficult since they crowding mountains and deserts.

The best that ZuS could wish for in the 1830s and 1840s would be an independent California from Mexico that could over time be overwhelmed by American settlers and lead to integration to US. But not outright conquest like Iotl in sand war.

Also a more profitable California mightbof provide México with the funds to move thousands of Mexicans from douth north to Texas, New Mexico and California. Thus again frustrating the Americans even more. What would the Americans in Texas do if they are outnumbered by Mexicans?

What is ZuS?
Also, New Mexico was already somewhat heavily settled. There were around 46000-47000 Nuevomexicanos in contrast to 10000-13000 Californios and 3000-4000 Tejanos.
 

Lusitania

Donor
What is ZuS?
Also, New Mexico was already somewhat heavily settled. There were around 46000-47000 Nuevomexicanos in contrast to 10000-13000 Californios and 3000-4000 Tejanos.
The US, sorry fat finger typing errors. The Mexicans did plan to move thousands of southern Mexicans to Texas. So their population could been equivalent to New Mexico.
 
It won't be as heavily settled, I would assume: The Spanish already had other gold-mining places in South America and such. You would definitely see earlier developments though, but the USA is bound to get California sometime.

With a PoD in the 17th century there's no guarantee of the US even existing.
 
In the late 1700's, Spain was attempting to settle the coast in order to effectively maintain ownership. OTL, it was slow going, with the emphasis on missionary work and large haciendas. Put some gold in the mix and now you've got a reason for the masses to migrate there. And the geography is conducive to settlement, unlike much of the mineral rich mountains/deserts of what is now northern Mexico.
The competitors will not be the US, but rather Russia and Britain, who were both eager for the coast. It's stretching a little too far for Russia, but Britain has the means. They effectively denied Spain Nootka and claims on the Oregon/Washington region. New Spain will have to invest in the region to hold on to it if the world knows there's gold in them thar hills. They may invest in Louisiana if that turns out to be the route to access the west. Discovery in California may spur prospecting and lead to discovery in Nevada/Colorado/etc.

the mantra of US inevitably taking over the continent is lazy musing. Don't assume that a significant change in one part will result in all other events remaining the same (that's Turtledove territory)
 
Spanish settlement of California really only began in the 1760s and 1770s as fear of Russian expansion kicked in. The Spanish discovering gold means they need to be able to hold on to this territory, which probably means settlement is encouraged by New Spain, probably of both peninsulares and creoles, but also other people lower in the caste system. Spain will probably also begin building up their own infrastructure from California to the important cities of Santa Fe and Mexico City, which means more encounters with the Indians of the Southwest/Plains area. The Pueblo and Navajo generally tended to be more concerned by the Comanche, though conflict with settlers is likely to happen with more contact. There's a possibility of Hawaiian and Chinese presences in the goldfields as OTL.

Obviously Spain has a Pacific presence, and will build up San Francisco to resist possible Russian or British interference. Most folks will probably go to Nicaragua and cross to the Pacific, similar to OTL, but there will certainly be investigations into Louisiana to see any quicker routes, which means a heavier Spanish presence in the Great Plains. The Comanche are gonna be a big sore spot that Spain may try to deal with much earlier than OTL. The Rio Grande can be made navigable as far north as El Paso, though it would take some engineering.
 
Okay, so assuming Spain follows relatively OTL, the gold will likely not be encountered until the exploratory missions of California in the 1760s and 1770s. Let's say for the sake of simplicity 1778, a soldier posted at one of the missions discovers gold after taking a break near a stream. Unlike OTL's gold rush, there is much less infrastructure in the region to support or communicate the gold rush, and the first to hear about it will be sailors in the Pacific (mostly Spaniards at this point, the maritime fur trade was only beginning) and the folks in New Spain, who will probably leap at the chance for acquiring easy gold. Next to hear are traders in Manila and the Spanish Caribbean, which is where non-Spanish folks begin hopping on the gold rush wagon.

In this scenario the USA exists, but nothing guarantees it will be anything like the state of OTL, given California will probably attract many young men from the Thirteen Colonies looking for some chance to get rich quick who otherwise might've done something to the cause. The Gold Rush if anything might lead to a situation where Spain is more hesitant to provoke Great Britain, given the frailty of it's California colony and treasure ships bringing loot back to Spain. Though, alternatively, Spain had a lot of grievances with Britain that were worthy of going to war over, and with some extra gold in hand, they had a bit more loot to pay for armaments with. Either way, there's no guarantee the US becomes the landgobbler of OTL. It's early enough for the Revolution to fizzle out and die even, though that is less likely should the war go as international as it did OTL.

With regards to Indians, The Spanish were no stranger to cruelty and genocide when natives stood in their way of treasure. Their luck might be slightly better than OTL, as the Missions essentially wanted to function as a place to 'kill the Indian to save the man' and at bare minimum would act as a anti-Indian Extermination bulwark. I can see the Missions essentially becoming functional Indian reserves, with the settlers driving many Native peoples off their land, and the natives out of desperation seeking out missions as sanctuaries from persecution. Not a pleasant fate, but a minor step up from the extermination campaign of OTL.

China is not as deep in the bucket as it was in the 1840s, but certainly there will be immigrants attracted by stories of easy gold. Hawaii is pre-unification, and though it's also not really been woven into the global economy as much as it had been in the 1840s, so there probably aren't any kanakas in the goldfields. Obviously Europe is going to see a number of immigrants flocking to California, though New Spain might try to weed out Protestants from immigrating to California. Obviously people from all across the Spanish Empire will pour in from Manila to Buenos Aires.

As San Francisco booms into a busy port, Spain has much more incentive to port-hop into the Northwest, especially to stave off Russian and British efforts to threaten California. So in addition to Spanish exploration and solidifying control of Louisiana, there will likely be an attempt to make California-style fortified missionary ports further north, probably at OTL Eureka, Astoria, Greys Harbor, and Anacortes. Now assuming the US can get on it's feet, the Maritime fur trade will be much harder to enter, and the China trade, a lucrative part of the early US economy will be a little harder to get into.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Okay, so assuming Spain follows relatively OTL, the gold will likely not be encountered until the exploratory missions of California in the 1760s and 1770s. Let's say for the sake of simplicity 1778, a soldier posted at one of the missions discovers gold after taking a break near a stream. Unlike OTL's gold rush, there is much less infrastructure in the region to support or communicate the gold rush, and the first to hear about it will be sailors in the Pacific (mostly Spaniards at this point, the maritime fur trade was only beginning) and the folks in New Spain, who will probably leap at the chance for acquiring easy gold. Next to hear are traders in Manila and the Spanish Caribbean, which is where non-Spanish folks begin hopping on the gold rush wagon.

In this scenario the USA exists, but nothing guarantees it will be anything like the state of OTL, given California will probably attract many young men from the Thirteen Colonies looking for some chance to get rich quick who otherwise might've done something to the cause. The Gold Rush if anything might lead to a situation where Spain is more hesitant to provoke Great Britain, given the frailty of it's California colony and treasure ships bringing loot back to Spain. Though, alternatively, Spain had a lot of grievances with Britain that were worthy of going to war over, and with some extra gold in hand, they had a bit more loot to pay for armaments with. Either way, there's no guarantee the US becomes the landgobbler of OTL. It's early enough for the Revolution to fizzle out and die even, though that is less likely should the war go as international as it did OTL.

With regards to Indians, The Spanish were no stranger to cruelty and genocide when natives stood in their way of treasure. Their luck might be slightly better than OTL, as the Missions essentially wanted to function as a place to 'kill the Indian to save the man' and at bare minimum would act as a anti-Indian Extermination bulwark. I can see the Missions essentially becoming functional Indian reserves, with the settlers driving many Native peoples off their land, and the natives out of desperation seeking out missions as sanctuaries from persecution. Not a pleasant fate, but a minor step up from the extermination campaign of OTL.

China is not as deep in the bucket as it was in the 1840s, but certainly there will be immigrants attracted by stories of easy gold. Hawaii is pre-unification, and though it's also not really been woven into the global economy as much as it had been in the 1840s, so there probably aren't any kanakas in the goldfields. Obviously Europe is going to see a number of immigrants flocking to California, though New Spain might try to weed out Protestants from immigrating to California. Obviously people from all across the Spanish Empire will pour in from Manila to Buenos Aires.

As San Francisco booms into a busy port, Spain has much more incentive to port-hop into the Northwest, especially to stave off Russian and British efforts to threaten California. So in addition to Spanish exploration and solidifying control of Louisiana, there will likely be an attempt to make California-style fortified missionary ports further north, probably at OTL Eureka, Astoria, Greys Harbor, and Anacortes. Now assuming the US can get on it's feet, the Maritime fur trade will be much harder to enter, and the China trade, a lucrative part of the early US economy will be a little harder to get into.


From all this thought the biggest determining factor in California fate is the politics back in Europe and nothing in California would prevent the rise of Napoleon and do not think that more gold which Spain surely needed would change the political situation in Spain in 1790-1810. When Spain is attacked and occupied by France. So New Spain continues as iOTL politically and do not see it staying part of Spain longer than iTOL since they will of had control of the taxes from gold mining during Spain's absence during Napoleonic wars.

As for Louisiana we will see the trading of it to France as per iOTL since the discovery of the gold will not reach Madrid in time for its transfer to France.

Otherwise very good analysis.
 
the Missions essentially wanted to function as a place to 'kill the Indian to save the man' and at bare minimum would act as a anti-Indian Extermination bulwark. I can see the Missions essentially becoming functional Indian reserves,
The missions were there for a multitude of reasons: to put a Spanish presence on the ground, to convert the Indian to Christianity, and to use the Indian as labor to make the church oodles of money. They ended up killing a lot of natives through that whole lack of immunity to European disease thing, and acted quite efficiently as extermination camps, but extermination was not the goal. Indeed, it was not desired at all, as it interfered with the labor supply needed to work the mission fields. This repeats what happened in the rest of New Spain, where needed labor supply kept dying off
 

Lusitania

Donor
The missions were there for a multitude of reasons: to put a Spanish presence on the ground, to convert the Indian to Christianity, and to use the Indian as labor to make the church oodles of money. They ended up killing a lot of natives through that whole lack of immunity to European disease thing, and acted quite efficiently as extermination camps, but extermination was not the goal. Indeed, it was not desired at all, as it interfered with the labor supply needed to work the mission fields. This repeats what happened in the rest of New Spain, where needed labor supply kept dying off
It all related to the lack of understanding about disease and spreading of diseases. With Spanish and majority of Europe that disease was a punishment from GOD and that nothing could be done and they were not at fault. It took well into the late 18th and well into the 19th century for people to understand the spreading of diseases. Even then the "virgin field" theory was not really known till the 20th century.
 
It all related to the lack of understanding about disease and spreading of diseases. With Spanish and majority of Europe that disease was a punishment from GOD and that nothing could be done and they were not at fault. It took well into the late 18th and well into the 19th century for people to understand the spreading of diseases. Even then the "virgin field" theory was not really known till the 20th century.
I don't disagree. I glibly referred to it as 'that whole lack of immunity thing', but you phrased it far better and accurately.

It sounded to me like SpazzReflex was saying that the Spanish set out to exterminate the native population in a program of designed genocide.
 
As far as Spain proper is concerned, I think we'd be looking at a longer period of anticipation borrowing, blowing that on imports and/or wars, rising inflation, and delaying the rise of domestic manufacturing and finance for that much longer a time.
 

Lusitania

Donor
As far as Spain proper is concerned, I think we'd be looking at a longer period of anticipation borrowing, blowing that on imports and/or wars, rising inflation, and delaying the rise of domestic manufacturing and finance for that much longer a time.
The issue is that by time the gold revenue arrived in the 1790s till Napoleon puts his brother on the throne be a very short window. I do not think New Spain was sending $ to French occupied Spain during that period. After the war there was again a small window in which Spain be getting the tax revenue before new Spain be independent. So the timing is not all too important for Spain but very important for new Spain/Mexico.
 
The issue is that by time the gold revenue arrived in the 1790s till Napoleon puts his brother on the throne be a very short window. I do not think New Spain was sending $ to French occupied Spain during that period. After the war there was again a small window in which Spain be getting the tax revenue before new Spain be independent. So the timing is not all too important for Spain but very important for new Spain/Mexico.
Okay, I see I wasn't working from your parameters; gold not being discovered until deep in the Eighteenth Century.
 
Top