No one here prior to 1600 had ANY significant effect on the development of America, other than to note the place existed.
They claimed California too, but they didn’t POPULATE it. Like modern Spaniards, they were all talk and no action.
The fact you haven't studied the question of Spanish occupation of North America prior to 1600 doesn't mean that nothing was happening.
In fact, your failure to note the Iroquois development of a nation state suggests you just haven't read all that much.
Noteworthy is the fact Spain didn't even bother trying to develop California until the late 1700s. That's 200 years later. The argument had been that the climate was terrible and it was too expensive to support a colonial activity overland from the core of Mexico. Turned out the California settlements were supplied mostly from the Philippines.
Regarding folks who "populated" California, there were, of course, the Indians, but more importantly were American traders and trappers ~ who were there BEFORE the Spanish set up the first Mission.
At one point, outside of the Indians, the most numerous category of people in California were Aleutian Islanders (all men, with good jobs, they married local Indians and when their colony was shut down took them with them to Russia).
It turned out California was incredibly difficult to settle and the assignment of land grants didn't help that problem much.
What you need to do is go through the California, Texas, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida records regarding land grants and find a couple owned by your own ancestors. You might be pleasantly surprised that there are a good number of Americans who received landgrants from Spain.
Property transfers were handled a tad differently in the Louisiana Territory (owned by Spain long before they were conquered by Napoleon. He made promises to them regarding taxes, land titles, laws and immigration then broke them all by selling Louisiana to Thomas Jefferson).
I think you need to study upon this stuff.