British Argentina

During the Napoleonic Wars (in a part of them when Spain and Britain were at war), a British commander attempted -- more or less on impulse -- to take over the Spanish territories at the mouth of the Rio de la Plata (modern Argentina and Uruguay).

The attempt failed. Assume that it had succeeded, as it well might have, and that the British had kept the territories at the Congress of Vienna. The Spanish certainly couldn't have stopped them, and were due to lose that area anyway.

Most of Argentina and Uruguay were, at the time, very thinly populated by
nomadic Indians, with a little ranching on the periphery. Later in OTL's 19th century, once the Indians had been pacified and stable government attained (1860-70, roughly) they became major targets of European immigration, mostly Italian, Spanish and other southern Europeans.

If the British had kept them, presumably they'd have received some of the great outpouring of British and other NW European settlement that followed the Napoleonic Wars.

The area had many advantages; flat terrain, ready access to seaports and navigable rivers, a healthy temperate climate, and vast areas of extremely rich soil suitable for European-style farming of wheat, other grains, and pasture for livestock.

Much easier to settle than, say, most of Australia; closer to Europe, and the soils and weather are better. Rather like the American Midwest, in fact, except that it was easier to get to Argentina and the winters aren't cold.

It's possible for the British to take Buenos Aires and Montevideo and the peripheral shore towns, but I doubt that they would/could expend the time and effort to take the inland regions. Remember, the Pampas beyond the trade hubs on the Rio de la Plata will be populated by Charrua tribes and fiercely independent and feudalistic ranches. Succesfully taking the Platan cities will basically give Paraguay slightly earlier independence, because they're not effectively cut off completely.

I suppose the Banda Oriental could become British-ized, it has a low enough population density, the glaring problem is desolation. Argentina is just too vast and already settled in a lot of places to fill with new immigrants.

The British Argentina would be an south american version of the Cape Colony. (River Plate Colony?) The locals would ran way into the backcountry and make a government there. In fact, I think that by the beginning of the 19th century, Argentina had two governments, one in Buenos Aires and other in Córdoba, I think.

Ah, by the way, the River Plate Colony would piss off almost all the south american neighbours of the British Empire. The hispanic countries would hate to see a brother dominated and Brazil needed to control the Plate Basin to have acess to some provinces of the empire... In this scenario the brits would have much more trouble in latin america.

virgulino said:

The British Argentina would be an south american version of the Cape Colony. (River Plate Colony?) The locals would ran way into the backcountry and make a government there. In fact, I think that by the beginning of the 19th century, Argentina had two governments, one in Buenos Aires and other in Córdoba, I think.

Click to expand...

Actually, IOTL, most of the provinces of Argentina acted on their own accord, and for a while the country was a confederation of states rather than one nation. So yeah, there would probably be rancher states littering the Pampas, I suppose analogous to the Boers.

Ah, by the way, the River Plate Colony would piss off almost all the south american neighbours of the British Empire. The hispanic countries would hate to see a brother dominated and Brazil needed to control the Plate Basin to have acess to some provinces of the empire... In this scenario the brits would have much more trouble in latin america.

Click to expand...

It does rather get in the way of the whole "united revolution" idea. We might see a little more cooperation between the revolutionary armies. But it's not like they'll all be holding hands because the Platans are in trouble.

And Brazil doesn't need to hold the Plata in any situation, but it would help them greatly, which is why they had Uruguay for a while. I think a war between Brazil and Britain over Banda Oriental is possible, but not really likely.

Roberto said:

And Brazil doesn't need to hold the Plata in any situation, but it would help them greatly, which is why they had Uruguay for a while. I think a war between Brazil and Britain over Banda Oriental is possible, but not really likely.

Click to expand...

Given that during this period Brazil is still part of the same empire as Portugal, in fact has become the heart of the empire, coupled with mutual rivalry with the Spanish speaking areas I could actually see fairly good relations between the two. Brazil might be a rival of Argentina but in the 19thC its not going to seriously think of challenging Britain and Britain would want a secure border and good trade. Hence probably the same sort of deal as with the early US, generous borders and mutually beneficial trade deals.

Steve

I don't know where do people get that the British army can just march of the viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata and conquer it like its a walk in the park when a combination of poor weather and dumbass decisions were more than enough to keep Beresford and his replacement out in reality...

It is certainly possible that the British can take Buenos Aires, Montevideo and several Chilean ports, but that's it...

They don't have the logistical resources or even the intention of taking the rest of the continent...

The long term plan was to take Buenos Aires and Valparaiso like they did with Hong Kong later and expand their influence from there, mainly through commercial and political means, not military ones...

Think of it as the potato empanadas scenario:

The bottom line is that for the British to have anything like a fighting chance to make their rule of the area permanent, they have to move in colonists. And the question becomes, since there were already such large immigration flows into North America, Africa and Australia through this period, where do they find them?

I think the answer (and something that would make this scenario interesting) would be for the British in the 1840's to look at what was happening in Ireland (the blight and ensuing famine) and offer free land in Argentina to those willing to relocate. A smaller, less localized version of this Irish immigration to Latin America happened in our timeline, and the presence of names like Ambrosio and Bernardo O'Higgins in the history of Latin America is testament to it.

Now, on one level this is a masterstroke for the British, because there's going to be minimal social disruption (Catholic rather than Protestant immigrants to a Catholic country). But at the same time, no one in this colony is going to be all that loyal to the colonial power. And the stew of shared, but distinct resentments towards the United Kingdom leads to the formation not of a stratified colonizer/colonized society but a single social milieu that's both Spanish- and Irish-influenced.

Then, maybe in 1898 in sympathy for the Boers, or maybe two decades later in response to British repression in Ireland, all hell breaks loose, and a war that manages to combine the bloodiest aspects of the American Revolution, the Latin American Wars of Independence, and the Troubles gets fought, with the inevitable result that the British are expelled and there's a very angry new world power at tip of South America.

So don't get me started on what the Falklands War looks like in this world.

Roberto said:

And Brazil doesn't need to hold the Plata in any situation, but it would help them greatly, which is why they had Uruguay for a while. I think a war between Brazil and Britain over Banda Oriental is possible, but not really likely.

Click to expand...

In the 19th Century, the best way to reach the brazilian province of Mato Grosso was by the rivers of the basin of the Rio de la Plata. In OTL, Brazil was the first country to recognize Paraguay's independence. Brazilian strategy in the region was not of an direct control, there was enought trouble in their own territory.

I think that the brits would make the navegation in the area worst for the brazilians. The relations between the empires in the 19th century would not be good at all, there was already the slavery question...

What would be the effects on immigration pattern in the United States and Brazil if British colonize Argentina?

Would the Italians, Spaniards and Germans go to United States and Brazil in large numbers instead in Argentina since Argentina is a British colony?

Joseph Solis in Australia said:

What would be the effects on immigration pattern in the United States and Brazil if British colonize Argentina?

Would the Italians, Spaniards and Germans go to United States and Brazil in large numbers instead in Argentina since Argentina is a British colony?

Click to expand...

Why? A lot of such communities went to Canada for instance. Many more went to the US or moved south from Canada but that was because the wealth of America made it a more attractive region to live. If passage was available it was the economic lifestyle that was far more important than anything else in the view of settlers/economic migrants.

Steve

If British colonize Argentina, Argentina would be Canada-like settlement in Northern part with English and Spanish as primary language while in Pampas and Patagonia area would be Australia-like settlement with English as dominant language due to the lack of Spanish settlement especially in Patagonia.

In Uruguay, English would be the dominant language.

The English accent in Argentina and Uruguay would be based in Cockney as in Australia and New Zealand since most of the English immigrants are came from London area.

The immigration patterns would be mostly British from 1810 to 1910 with 10 million British in 1910 and 25 million in 1945. After 1910, Spanish, Italian, German, Polish, and Russian would be the numerous with 10 million in 1945. After 1945, Latin American and Asian immigrants would be the numerous with 5 million in 2000.

Economically, Argentina and Uruguay would be in First World status with US$45,000 GDP per capita in Argentina and US$37,000 in Uruguay. GDP in Argentina would be US$3.15 trillion in 2007 while in Uruguay would be US$555 billion in 2007. The currency in Argentina and Uruguay would be dollar (US$1 = ARD$1.05 in 2007 and US$1 = UYD$1.25 in 2007). The Gini coefficient would be 35% in Argentina and 33% in Uruguay. The economy of Argentina and Uruguay would be service-based economy.

The form of government would be parliamentary constitutional monarchy with the Monarch of UK through the Governor-general of Argentina and Uruguay as head of state while the Prime Minister would be the head of government. The government in Argentina would resemble to Australia due to huge size while in Uruguay would be resemble to New Zealand due to the small size.

Your are forgetting the best reason for a British Argentina is that there is no Falkland War and Thatcher is voted out earlier.

There would be no Falklands War BUT Thatcher still won the election because Michael Foot was unpopular to the conservatives.

A British "White Dominion" Argentina/lower South America would surely change the nature of the Empire quite substantially - instead of British migrants going into the Pacific colonies they'd head to S.America and probably in larger numbers than ever headed out across the Indian Ocean.

Then you'd end up with a heavily Atlantic focused British Empire - with Britain, British North America, British Lower South America and British Southern Africa. Which would make for a more coherent long term political unit. Maybe all that talk of Imperial Federation might actually work in this TL in way it never could when spread out into the Pacific.

Sure, there would still be the same draw to India and the Far East, but not as destinations for colonists I think. Would there be the same British settler pressure on Australian Aborigines or NZ Maori in this TL? Hard to see why the Empire would bother. So that could result in perhaps a partially French/American/etc Australasia at least.

So, all of the regions problems can be solved if we replace the pesky inhabitants with Aryans!? yipey!

maverick said:

So, all of the regions problems can be solved if we replace the pesky inhabitants with Aryans!? yipey!

Click to expand...

Sure. Witness the prosperity of south Africa, for instance, under British rule.

maverick said:

So, all of the regions problems can be solved if we replace the pesky inhabitants with Aryans!? yipey!

Click to expand...

Didn't that already happen in OTL? Argentina never had a terribly large native population, the population taht did exist never really intermingled with society at large apart from a few gauchos, the native tribes that remained got slaughtered thanks to the development of the machine gun and barbed wire, finally demographically they were swamped by the arrival of millions of European immigrants.

Incidently nearly all of Latin America embraced the socalled concept of whitening during the late 19th century, which held that european immigration and intermingling would with the mixed ancestry natives would "genetically" uplift their nations while providing them with skilled farmers and craftsman.

Anyway I would imagine Britain having a better go of ruling Argentina for a couple of reasons. By tying Argentina innto the empire, particularly with its tradition of parlimentary rule you would eliminate caudilloism from it. This would do much to remove the political instability that caused needless bloodshed and hampered growth. By being part of the empire, I would imagine more of Argetina's export dollars would have stayed within the country. Ine thing that hampered longterm growth in Argentina is that it had very little domestic investment. Argentina was over-reliant of British capital for investments, long after the country developed a sizable class of bussinessmen. Consequently, Argentina never really created a self sustaining domestic economy. I would imagine that a different "culture" would change this somewhat.

That being said, I agree with Julias that it would change the makeup of the empire quite dramtically. Outside of gold, Argentina would be a much more attractive place to settle than either Africa or Oceania. Likewise, I see a altering of immigration patterns occuring, with a siazable portion of the Spanish and Italian immigrants to Argentina going elsewhere and possible an increase in german immigration.

This of course presumes that the British prenteded to go all the way to the northern provinces when the plan was actually to turn Buenos Aires and Valparaiso into what Hong-Kong would later be...

There could be some migration, but the British never saw this part of the world as a prospective second Canada...there is already a population, which was quite willing to collaborate and negotiate with the British, and there'd be no need to replace them, which is what is being suggested in this thread...

But, just for curiosity, why do you think that Canada and Australia did better than, say, India, Kenya or South Africa? lack of whiteness and racial uniformity? bad luck?

maverick said:

This of course presumes that the British prenteded to go all the way to the northern provinces when the plan was actually to turn Buenos Aires and Valparaiso into what Hong-Kong would later be...

Click to expand...

That is a good point. Things might change. I don't know if the British planned large scale settlement of the Cape but it might occur if there is enough potential there. Probably a lot would depend on circumstances. If either it is proposerous, attracting merchants and later setters, and/or possibly rebellions which make the authorities mistrust the Spanish settlers. In that case could see attempts to either import loyal settlers from Britain or elsewhere or win over the southern natives, or both.

There could be some migration, but the British never saw this part of the world as a prospective second Canada...there is already a population, which was quite willing to collaborate and negotiate with the British, and there'd be no need to replace them, which is what is being suggested in this thread...

Click to expand...

In that case I would expect that the bulk of the population would probably stay mainly Hispanic in blood and possibly language.

But, just for curiosity, why do you think that Canada and Australia did better than, say, India, Kenya or South Africa? lack of whiteness and racial uniformity? bad luck?

Click to expand...

Presumably you mean in terms of white settlement from the rest of your post? In that case it would be fairly simple. In both Canada and Australia the resident population was decimated by disease and poltically and socially backwards so could relatively easily be replaced. In India there was a huge and long establish population with a different culture that many of the early Europeans had much respect for. Kenya was little known and had relatively little land suitable for European settlement, in terms of both climate and hence protection from tropical diseases. In the Cape the local inhabitances were largely displaced but both incoming Bantu and the already present Boers, along with less interest in settling the region once the key ports were obtained.

Steve

Another thing is Argentina doesn't exactly have the largest population at this time, and a significant portion of it lived in Buenos Aires. If Britain seccured control of it, it would effectively end Argentina's existence as a viable independent state as it has just lost its only major city, control of the Plata Rive and its only major Port. Britain would contorl the only real means for the country side to actually make money from its crops. Considering this, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil would all be interested in taking a shrea of the now broken nation.