Falklands Goes to the Rightful Owners; US!

Dean_the_Young · Sep 3, 2007

In the spirit of Manifest Destiny.

Reading the wikipedia entry on the pathetic history of the original Falklands conflicts is enlightening. France, Britain, Spain, and then Argentina kept laying claim to the islands, and then leaving them because there was basically not much there. After a peace treaty in 1771, Spain and Britain both had colonies on the islands. But Britain abandoned them in 1776 and Spain in 1811 (neither relinquishing claim). When the Argentines declared independence in 1816, they declared that the islands were now theirs since they'd been administered from Buenos Aires while a Spanish colony, but they did nothing but plant a flag until 1826 at which time they established a settlement and penal colony.

The settlement was actually destroyed by the American navy in 1831, after the islands' governor seized US ships over a dispute about seal hunting rights.

Then in 1833 the British basically waltzed in and took over. And that's the history of the grand Argentine historical claim to the Falkland Islands.

So let's say that rather than just destroy the settlement, the US decides that it would like to keep the Falklands as a convenient seal hunting/trading port in South America of its own. Argentina really hasn't the ability to take it back at this time, and whenever the British sail in they find that it's still occupied by the Americans, who never get around to leaving.

What goes on afterwords?

Nekromans · Sep 3, 2007

Dean_the_Young said:
In the spirit of Manifest Destiny.

So let's say that rather than just destroy the settlement, the US decides that it would like to keep the Falklands as a convenient seal hunting/trading port in South America of its own. Argentina really hasn't the ability to take it back at this time, and whenever the British sail in they find that it's still occupied by the Americans, who never get around to leaving.

What goes on afterwords?

As America now has a settlement at the bottom of the world and a considerable base at the top of the world, the Spirit of Ameriwank annexes the intervening countries.

Thande · Sep 3, 2007

Nekromans said:
As America now has a settlement at the bottom of the world and a considerable base at the top of the world, the Spirit of Ameriwank annexes the intervening countries.

You've got my chauvinistic side all confused now

What about Tierra del Fuego and its Stone Age aboriginal peoples? They were instrumental in European debates about human ancestry in the mid-19th century, and if the Yanks have already disturbed the environment...

NapoleonXIV · Sep 3, 2007

Argentina is just being inaugurated as the 52nd State.

MrP · Sep 3, 2007

Falklands were an important coaling station once the RN switched over to steam, IIRC. Hence von Spee heading there in WWI.

Tyr · Sep 3, 2007

I'd imagine it would play much the same role in American history as British: very little.
British ships would still be free to resupply there and no one would really care.

Dean_the_Young · Sep 3, 2007

Oh, not yet. We have to go through the Civil War.

During which Argentina tries to take the island, and the US sends victorious armies to land on the coast.

Thande · Sep 3, 2007

Dean_the_Young said:
Oh, not yet. We have to go through the Civil War.

During which Argentina tries to take the island, and the US sends victorious armies to land on the coast.

Or, cliché #2: it ends up as the last remnant of the CSA...

Of course IIRC the original Americans on the Falklands were New Englanders, but why should logic and reason get in the way...

MrP · Sep 3, 2007

Thande said:
Or, cliché #2: it ends up as the last remnant of the CSA...

Of course IIRC the original Americans on the Falklands were New Englanders, but why should logic and reason get in the way...

Don't forget that a lot of the pre-ACW USN went over to the Rebels. If there's a small navy base there, one could see what happened at Norfolk Yards repeat itself.

Dean_the_Young · Sep 3, 2007

Leej said:
I'd imagine it would play much the same role in American history as British: very little.
British ships would still be free to resupply there and no one would really care.

It might play a much more important roll come the 1900s, with American imperialism going about. Or cause tensions in the Cold War, who knows?

Thande said:
Or, cliché #2: it ends up as the last remnant of the CSA...

Of course IIRC the original Americans on the Falklands were New Englanders, but why should logic and reason get in the way...

Never heard of the Falklands joining the CSA.

MrP said:
Don't forget that a lot of the pre-ACW USN went over to the Rebels. If there's a small navy base there, one could see what happened at Norfolk Yards repeat itself.

Er... what happened at Norfolk?

Thande · Sep 3, 2007

MrP said:
Don't forget that a lot of the pre-ACW USN went over to the Rebels. If there's a small navy base there, one could see what happened at Norfolk Yards repeat itself.

And then after the Yanks take it back in 1866(?), the CS-supporting colonists all go and live in Argentina, like the Confederados in Brazil in OTL, and add to the whole Argentina-demands-the-Falklands thing by including a twist of a lost homeland...

Thande · Sep 3, 2007

Dean_the_Young said:
Er... what happened at Norfolk?

I love it how P knows more about the US Civil War then...uh...Abraham Lincoln

pompejus · Sep 3, 2007

Wouldn't the Americans just sell the islands to Argentina? I believe the islands are hardly more than a couple of rocks.

MrP · Sep 3, 2007

Dean_the_Young said:
Er... what happened at Norfolk?

Wiki

American Civil War
In 1861, Virginia joined the Confederate States of America. Fearing that the Confederacy would take control of the facility, the shipyard commander ordered the burning of the shipyard. The Confederate forces did in fact take over the shipyard, and did so without armed conflict through an elaborate ruse orchestrated by civilian railroad builder William Mahone (then President of the Norfolk and Petersburg Railroad and soon to become a famous Confederate officer). The Union forces withdrew to Fort Monroe across Hampton Roads, which was the only land in the area which remained under Union control.

In early 1862, the Confederate ironclad warship CSS Virginia was rebuilt using the burned-out hulk of USS Merrimack. In the haste to abandon the shipyard, the Merrimack had only been destroyed above the waterline, and an innovative armored superstructure was built upon the remaining portion. The Virginia, which was still called the Merrimack by Union forces and in many historical accounts, engaged the Union ironclad USS Monitor in the famous Battle of Hampton Roads during the Union blockade of Hampton Roads. The Confederates burned the shipyard again when they left in May of 1862.

Following its recapture of Norfolk and Portsmouth (and the shipyard) by the Union forces, the name of the shipyard was changed to Norfolk, after the largest city in the area even though the shipyard was actually located in Portsmouth. This choice of name was also probably to minimize any confusion with the pre-existing Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine near Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Thande said:
I love it how P knows more about the US Civil War then...uh...Abraham Lincoln

First war I was ever interested in. The end of cavalry, that war. I used to think it was the last war anyone should be interested in for that reason. Ah, youthful foolishness!

Thande · Sep 3, 2007

pompejus said:
Wouldn't the Americans just sell the islands to Argentina? I believe the islands are hardly more than a couple of rocks.

Slight exaggeration but they're not exactly the mysterious cities of gold.

All the same, the Americans don't have much of a history of abandoning anywhere once they've claimed it, even if it seemed like a stupid idea at the time (cf. Alaska).

Thande · Sep 3, 2007

MrP said:
First war I was ever interested in. The end of cavalry, that war. I used to think it was the last war anyone should be interested in for that reason. Ah, youthful foolishness!

I once heard Agincourt referred to as the end of cavalry. Was the writer insane?

MrP · Sep 3, 2007

Thande said:
I once heard Agincourt referred to as the end of cavalry. Was the writer insane?

That's hilarious!

Thande · Sep 3, 2007

MrP said:
That's hilarious!

I think he meant it was the end of cavalry-oriented horde empires like the Mongols. Which, in terms of dates, is about right - but what does that have to do with a battle in France?

pompejus · Sep 3, 2007

Thande said:
All the same, the Americans don't have much of a history of abandoning anywhere once they've claimed it, even if it seemed like a stupid idea at the time (cf. Alaska).

Yeah, but Alsaska is still pretty close to the US and they still might have ideas about uniting the whole of North America when they acquired Alaska (and of course they didn't want the brits getting it). The Falklands are a long way from the US. Then again they made Hawaii a state.

MrP · Sep 3, 2007

Thande said:
I think he meant it was the end of cavalry-oriented horde empires like the Mongols. Which, in terms of dates, is about right - but what does that have to do with a battle in France?

Aye, he sounds a bit ah.com.

pompejus said:
Yeah, but Alsaska is still pretty close to the US and they still might have ideas about uniting the whole of North America when they acquired Alaska (and of course they didn't want the brits getting it). The Falklands are a long way from the US. Then again they made Hawaii a state.

I suppose they might hold onto it for whaling purposes . . . why did the British hold onto it? Er, apart from the coaling thing, which doesn't come into play till the 1860s, obviously.