Mormons settle in California, where, how, and what happens next?

[Zioneer]

So was thinking of starting a timeline where the Mormon pioneers settle in California instead of Utah. In this timeline Henry Clay will become president in 1844 instead of James K Polk, and Clay will do his best to halt any expansionism during his presidency, including to the west (the then territory of Mexico).

The Mormons still go West due to persecutions/dislike and the death of Joseph Smith, but I specifically want them to settle in California rather than Utah. In past threads on this, its been insisted that Utah was the most convenient place for what Brigham Young and the other Mormons wanted, an isolated, easily defensible place that no one else wanted. I acknowledge that, but I'm wondering that if for some reason, the Salt Lake Valley was inaccessible to the Mormon pioneers for a year or so, would they continue on to California for lack of better options? And if so, where in California would be best to fulfill the criteria of isolation, easily defensible, and undesirable to other settlers?

And if they settle in California, what happens next? How could their relations go with the Anglo settlers, the Californios, and other populations? Would any population be open to Mormon missionaries?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Perhaps the Mormons could settle the mountainous inland of Northern California. The eventual epicenter of the California gold fields.

 

[Tripledot]

Perhaps the Mormons could settle the mountainous inland of Northern California. The eventual epicenter of the California gold fields.

If that happens wouldn't they get swamped by non-Mormon prospectors? I feel like that could have a detrimental affect on the preservation of a distinct identity.

 

[Zioneer]

Perhaps the Mormons could settle the mountainous inland of Northern California. The eventual epicenter of the California gold fields.

Funnily enough, there's an OTL story that soldiers in the Mormon Battlion coming home from the Mexican-American War were the first to discover gold at Sutter's Mill.

If that happens wouldn't they get swamped by non-Mormon prospectors? I feel like that could have a detrimental affect on the preservation of a distinct identity.

That's true, though they wouldn't know it to begin with, unless the gold was found before they finishing moving to wherever they settled. And the Mormons had a very distinct identity (and Brigham Young encouraged that, and discouraged mining), so it might be harder to destroy their identity than you'd think.

Plus, part of why I want the Mormons to settle somewhere in California is to plausibly have them focus more on missionary and settlement efforts in areas with a heavy Latin American influence (and earlier missionaries to Asia), rather than having a lot of converts from Northern Europe and Scandinavia.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

If that happens wouldn't they get swamped by non-Mormon prospectors? I feel like that could have a detrimental affect on the preservation of a distinct identity.

There would be many non-Mormon settlers, but if all the people who settled Salt Lake City instead settled northern California, and they own the land, then the Mormons become the most influential faction in the region.

Also if Mexico still owns California or California becomes an independent republic, than it's a different situation than if the region is owned by the US.

Plus, part of why I want the Mormons to settle somewhere in California is to plausibly have them focus more on missionary and settlement efforts in areas with a heavy Latin American influence (and earlier missionaries to Asia), rather than having a lot of converts from Northern Europe and Scandinavia.

Well in that case the Mormons should settle New Mexico, as there was only very sparse Latin American influence in the other northern territories of Mexico.

 

[Octosteel]

I wonder if they would try break away from Mexico like Texas if there is no Mexican-American War.

 

[Zioneer]

There would be many non-Mormon settlers, but if all the people who settled Salt Lake City instead settled northern California, and they own the land, then the Mormons become the most influential faction in the region.

Also if Mexico still owns California or California becomes an independent republic, than it's a different situation than if the region is owned by the US.

In my scenario, a President Henry Clay is president from 1844 to 1848, and he successfully prevents any expansion of the US during his four year presidency, which gives the Mormons some breathing room in wherever they settle. An alternate Mexican-American War may happen after his four years.

I don't know if California would rebel if there was no US military backing them up, but if they rebelled anyway, then the Mormons could be living in an independent California Republic for at least a few years.

Well in that case the Mormons should settle New Mexico, as there was only very sparse Latin American influence in the other northern territories of Mexico.

Hmm, that could also be a possibility, though I do want easy access to a coast. What about OTL Tijuana? Could the Mormons settle there with a more roundabout immigration pattern? Coastal, and somewhat isolated. Or Baja California in general?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

I wonder if they would try break away from Mexico like Texas if there is no Mexican-American War.

It's unlikely that Mexico would be any more tolerant of polygamy than the US was, so the Mormon settlers would have to change their doctrine or rebel. Actually by the Mexican Constitution of 1824, religions other than Catholicism were forbidden, though I don't know if that was really enforced or could have been enforced, considering the Texan settlement and revolution.

Hmm, that could also be a possibility, though I do want easy access to a coast. What about OTL Tijuana? Could the Mormons settle there with a more roundabout immigration pattern? Coastal, and somewhat isolated.

That could work, although Tijuana was just a cattle ranch (Rancho Tía Juana) and not yet a city in the 1840s. The Mormons would have to buy the land and come to an agreement with its owner, Santiago Argüello.

 

[Octosteel]

It's unlikely that Mexico would be any more tolerant of polygamy than the US was, so the Mormon settlers would have to change their doctrine or rebel. Actually by the Mexican Constitution of 1824, religions other than Catholicism were forbidden, though I don't know if that was really enforced or could have been enforced, considering the Texan settlement and revolution.

That's why I think if they did rebel, I'm not sure Mexico would be in a position to actually stop them. They could be in power for a while before a Democrat inevitably gets into power and tries to expand into the area.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

That's why I think if they did rebel, I'm not sure Mexico would be in a position to actually stop them. They could be in power for a while before a Democrat inevitably gets into power and tries to expand into the area.

Although if the Gold Rush occurs in an independent California Republic, then the gold miners would be coming from both Mexico and the US, so not all of them would support annexation.

John Sutter of Sutter's Mill also threatened to place California under the protection of France--this plan was thwarted by the Mexican-American War. If Mormon California can survive until 1852, the coronation of Napoleon III, who knows what can happen.

 

[Zioneer]

It's unlikely that Mexico would be any more tolerant of polygamy than the US was, so the Mormon settlers would have to change their doctrine or rebel. Actually by the Mexican Constitution of 1824, religions other than Catholicism were forbidden, though I don't know if that was really enforced or could have been enforced, considering the Texan settlement and revolution.

Probably wouldn't be enforced way up in California or even Baja California, I think. The Mormons would not take kindly to it if forced, and that could spark a rebellion.

That could work, although Tijuana was just a cattle ranch (Rancho Tía Juana) and not yet a city in the 1840s. The Mormons would have to buy the land and come to an agreement with its owner, Santiago Argüello.

Hmm, that could work. Does 1840s/50s Tijuana have the ability to hold 20-50,000 settlers in the first few decades? The Mormons need room to grow, of course. Maybe Mexicali could be another possibility.

That's why I think if they did rebel, I'm not sure Mexico would be in a position to actually stop them. They could be in power for a while before a Democrat inevitably gets into power and tries to expand into the area.

Exactly, and the the Mormons and Alta California rebels could work together against say, Santa Anna or whoever is in charge.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Hmm, that could work. Does 1840s/50s Tijuana have the ability to hold 20-50,000 settlers in the first few decades? The Mormons need room to grow, of course. Maybe Mexicali could be another possibility.

They might not have enough water for that kind of population growth in the 1850s, but in all honesty I have no idea.

 

[Octosteel]

Although if the Gold Rush occurs in an independent California Republic, then the gold miners would be coming from both Mexico and the US, so not all of them would support annexation.

John Sutter of Sutter's Mill also threatened to place California under the protection of France--this plan was thwarted by the Mexican-American War. If Mormon California can survive until 1852, the coronation of Napoleon III, who knows what can happen.

Oh boy, this is all crazy. Seems like the gold rush would mean that the idea of the Mormon theodemocracy maintaining its control would definitely fail and would require some compromise with the new settlers looking for gold which could be dicey. I also wonder if maybe some American filibuster will try to invade on their own, maybe someone like Fremont who got sick of waiting for a Democrat to come to office. That could unite the settlers quick.

 

[Francisco Fernando]

I'm pretty sure they would settle in San Diego since the Mormon Battalion happened there and most of the Mormon population lives there.

 

[galveston bay]

I'm pretty sure they would settle in San Diego since the Mormon Battalion happened there and most of the Mormon population lives there.

boy that would make Comic Con even wackier than it already is

but I agree, the Los Angeles area (specifically San Pedro and Pasadena) or San Diego are the most likely places for Brigham Young to make for if Utah was deemed unsuitable. Both have adequate water for initial settlement and irrigation, and both are useful small ports a long way from the Yankee Gentiles in northern California. Another interesting possibility is the Owens Valley, which was very well watered before Mulholland stole its water rights for the city of Los Angeles.

In fact I think that last would be a fun timeline.. Mulholland vs the Mormon Elders is one hell of an alternate history set of characters and boy would that have been a battle of giants!

 

[Zioneer]

I'm pretty sure they would settle in San Diego since the Mormon Battalion happened there and most of the Mormon population lives there.

Well, the Mormon Battalion would be delayed if it happened at all in this timeline, since the Mexican-American war is itself delayed.

boy that would make Comic Con even wackier than it already is

but I agree, the Los Angeles area (specifically San Pedro and Pasadena) or San Diego are the most likely places for Brigham Young to make for if Utah was deemed unsuitable. Both have adequate water for initial settlement and irrigation, and both are useful small ports a long way from the Yankee Gentiles in northern California. Another interesting possibility is the Owens Valley, which was very well watered before Mulholland stole its water rights for the city of Los Angeles.

In fact I think that last would be a fun timeline.. Mulholland vs the Mormon Elders is one hell of an alternate history set of characters and boy would that have been a battle of giants!

So San Diego is probably the best non-Utah place for the Mormon settlement? I have to admit that I'd love a Mormon Tijuana, but a Mormon San Diego (named something else, obviously) would probably be the most logical settlement.

I wonder if Mormons shunned by the Yankee Gentiles could make friends with the Californios.

Oh boy, this is all crazy. Seems like the gold rush would mean that the idea of the Mormon theodemocracy maintaining its control would definitely fail and would require some compromise with the new settlers looking for gold which could be dicey. I also wonder if maybe some American filibuster will try to invade on their own, maybe someone like Fremont who got sick of waiting for a Democrat to come to office. That could unite the settlers quick.

Oh, definitely. I do think that the Mormons would compromise if given the chance (heck, many early Mormons changed from being abolitionists to being vaguely pro-slavery due to their fear of being persecuted like they were in Missouri (part of the persecution was based on a belief by the Missourians that the Mormons were abolitionists)).

I guess if the Mormons settle where the gold isn't, they could be fairly safe for a while. I don't know if the filibuster idea would work, though Fremont would probably be the most likely candidate to do it. Along with the Mormons and the Gold Rush types, I vaguely recall that the Californios were also sick of Mexico's rule (as light as it was so far north), so that could be a possibility.

I'm not sure where to take this particular idea, and I don't really know what kind of governance compromise could be struck between the Mormons and the Angle Gentiles.