A Stronger South America by 1900

I'm thinking about a TL with an anti-UK USA, and some interesting stuff with Mexico, and Italy. My question is can Chile rival the USA in the Pacific? Can Brazil and Argentina become modern industrialized Nations, with powerful Armies and Navies en par with that of some European ''powers''? I would refer a POD after 1860s. I was thinking of eliminating Chile's civil wars. Maybe bringing Immigration from Italy to Argentina and Brazil instead of USA? I don't know too much about these nations history before 1900. I do know Chile was powerful in the Pacific. And about the South American Dreadnought race, but not much else until the Chaco Wars, and WWII. Something were the Valparaiso incident is much more serious. (even if USA is slightly stronger).

P.S This TL will have some alternate Republican Presidents, including H.C Lodge.
 
More Italians came to each Argentina and Brazil than to the US.

Now what you could try is making more Italians go down here than to the US, which is difficult, as much of them going to the US where temporary workers rather than families as it happened in the South.

I can help you focus on Argentina. We had really a lot of land, resources and a climate more friendly to your average European. Brazil is hotter, more populated and already had quite some cheap labour. That kind of immigration took off in the times when slavery was ending, before it was mainly to the South to populate the frontier with us.

Back to Argentina. Avoiding Argentine civil wars could led to 50 more years of immigration, especially if you come with an idea to bring the Irish folk here. With their breeding capabilities 500.000 coming here after the blight could get you quite a lot of people by 1900. Might have to get boats to take them, the trip is not as cheap as to the US. One idea is sending ships with food and taking people back when they come back for more.

Germans would also be a nice addition. Most Germans here came actually from Russia, so maybe you can have some from the proper Fatherland come down. But I don't really have much knowledge in their migration history, why they emigrated and what they took in to consideration for destiny.

Poles, Russians, Jews, Scandinavians, those too would be good options. Unfortunately, my knowledge here is poor too.

Maybe someone else can help with their migration history.
 
Avoid Argentina's civil wars. Just... avoid them. It's rather a hard POD but with less egos running around and a competent federal goverment (NOT the one of Rosas) you can avoid most of the messiness. There are several PODs for that, ranging from not rejecting Federal representatives to the Congress of Tucumán, to some sort of compromise between Unitarians and Federals (not exactly impossible, but very hard) to... well, one side wiping the other out (though it might result in an even smaller nation).

The big problem is always the great egos of those running the country. Rosas, Rivadavia, Artigas, Urquiza... regardless of their beliefs and their legacy, they were larger-than-life men, unwilling to compromise. If you could get one of the many congresses to create a working constitution and central authority, the nearly 66 years* of civil wars and instability could be butterflied away. And there's no telling were the nation may reach if that's the case. It depends on who gets the leadership: Latin American history has always been defined by those who get in power (and those under it too, but that's another tale...)

Immigration and industry will come earlier with stability. Argentina has PLENTY of fertile land, and could (and has) support great population. Also, making investments and governance not centered in Buenos Aires (which is the fault of both the Argentine leadership and foreing investors who centered everything on the capital) will create a more even development, and make the country's natural resources and populations more profitable.

Education is a must too. It created in many ways our sense of nationhood and progress.

There are also some ways to keep Uruguay in the United Provinces. Paraguay is more of an stretch, but doable.

While I'm admittely not an expert on other nations, a surviving Gran Colombia and Boliva-Peru would be forces to be reckoned with, if they can survive.

I'm sure some of my countrymen and fellow Latin Americans will provide some other PODs :)

*Depending on who you ask.
 
Hi! This is my first post in the forum!

I'm brazilian and my thoughts about your question are the following:

In Brazil:
1 - Maintain the monarchy, fulfill the projects of Isabel to revoke the law of lands of 1850 or never enact it in the first place and to give pensions or land to the freed slaves. It will butterfly away a lot of unrest, at least one dictatorship and the first republic that created a lot of the political problems that we see even today in Brazil. It will improve the economy and the social situation of the immigrants and freed slaves.
2 - Make the Empire a little more protectionist to its industry in the 1860's and don't let Viscount of Mauá go bankrupt.
3 - Attract more immigrants and make them colonize the empty lands in the south and southeast of Brazil.
4 - The sooner the immigrants come the better, maybe it will even led to an early abolition of slavery.


About the Platine Region:

If Argentina had the full control over Uruguay we would see the Second Cisplatine War because Brazil need to have access to the mouth of La Plata, if Brazil controls it, then Argentina will fear a lot more because its capital will be directly threatened by Brazil, so either way we will probably have a second round of the Cisplatine War. Keeping Uruguay and Paraguay as buffer states will be a lot better to the stability of the region.
 
Hi! This is my first post in the forum!

I'm brazilian and my thoughts about your question are the following:

In Brazil:
1 - Maintain the monarchy, fulfill the projects of Isabel to revoke the law of lands of 1850 or never enact it in the first place and to give pensions or land to the freed slaves. It will butterfly away a lot of unrest, at least one dictatorship and the first republic that created a lot of the political problems that we see even today in Brazil. It will improve the economy and the social situation of the immigrants and freed slaves.
2 - Make the Empire a little more protectionist to its industry in the 1860's and don't let Viscount of Mauá go bankrupt.
3 - Attract more immigrants and make them colonize the empty lands in the south and southeast of Brazil.
4 - The sooner the immigrants come the better, maybe it will even led to an early abolition of slavery.


About the Platine Region:

If Argentina had the full control over Uruguay we would see the Second Cisplatine War because Brazil need to have access to the mouth of La Plata, if Brazil controls it, then Argentina will fear a lot more because its capital will be directly threatened by Brazil, so either way we will probably have a second round of the Cisplatine War. Keeping Uruguay and Paraguay as buffer states will be a lot better to the stability of the region.

Or having Argentina agree to the free navigation of the rivers. The most important one to you was the Parana, and having Uruguay didnt mean much to it anyway.

An agreement could be made. Free navigation in exchange for not touching Paraguay.
 
Chile is a pipe dream. It has neither the resources, the land mass, or the population to become more than a regional power.

Both Brazil and Argentina have the makings. However, both were severely hampered by the way they were set up by Portugal/Spain. Brazil was basically set up to be a larger US south type economy. They have everything they need, except coal, to be a dominant nation, but they didn't exploit anything but agriculture until well into the 1900's. Argentina was set up sort of similar, sans the slavery. They were an agrarian economy, who also didn't exploit anything but agriculture until the 1900's. IF Brazil had shot out of the starting gate (1822) with a mindset on political stability and agricultural/industrial diversification, they were well positioned to be a leader in south America from the Amazon down. Pedro I was pretty much a dunce, though, and while he gets kudos for separating from Portugal relatively smoothly, that's about the sum total of his upside. He and his father both had a shining moment and otherwise were lackluster. If they had been a capable duo, Brazil could have ruled south America and dragged Portugal up with them.

Argentina is a bit different. They had the pampas going for them, and that's about it for most of the 1800's. It's tough to create anything industrial out of nothing but fertile grassland. Most of their mineral riches were in the hostile native territories and weren't in a position to be exploited til late 1800's.

Both had horrible political situations. Pedro II had his country stabilized and heading in the right direction, but he didn't really set it up to survive his generation.
 
platine region: Even after Brazil attained full navigation rights on the parana/Paraguay river system, they didn't do anything with it. So, in reality, they spent a lot of time in the 1700's and early 1800's creating bad will over a region they couldn't control and couldn't make use of even when they could control it.

Hind sight says they should have played nice in the early 1800's and not wasted so much energy and money on the platine region and making all former Spanish possessions feel threatened. After Spain showed that guerrilla warfare could defeat regular armies, Portugal/Brazil should have known not to try to control a population (Uruguay) that was hostile. If they wanted territory, try to create an independent Uruguay and take the sparsely populated Entre Rios, and take martin Garcia (?) island which is the key to the entry to the river system.

Brazil could have also played nice by encouraging Carlos Pedro to accept the crown of an independent Argentina. Both countries would have benefited. Whether Carlos Pedro would have lived beyond OTL in a different environment is another question. And, of course, it's fairly obvious that dumping Carlotta overboard on the way to Brazil in 1807 would have been better for every country involved.
 
1 - Maintain the monarchy, fulfill the projects of Isabel to revoke the law of lands of 1850 or never enact it in the first place and to give pensions or land to the freed slaves. It will butterfly away a lot of unrest, at least one dictatorship and the first republic that created a lot of the political problems that we see even today in Brazil. It will improve the economy and the social situation of the immigrants and freed slaves.

But without the 1850 Law of Lands, the capitalist planter class of Western São Paulo, the one that modernized Brazil (or at least, the Southeast) would never have existed.

2 - Make the Empire a little more protectionist to its industry in the 1860's and don't let Viscount of Mauá go bankrupt.

I think you'd need a British POD in order to do that. Sadly, British imperialism had a lot to do with the Viscount of Mauá's bankruptcy.

3 - Attract more immigrants and make them colonize the empty lands in the south and southeast of Brazil.

I think a better option would have them colonize the arable areas in North and Midwest Brazil. Not sure if that's possible in the 19th century, though.

4 - The sooner the immigrants come the better, maybe it will even led to an early abolition of slavery.

It's the contrary; the sooner slavery is abolished, the sooner immigrants will come.
 

Deleted member 67076

Peru can most certainly be a great power, especially if it keeps Bolivia. Same with a surviving Gran Colombia.
 
Peru can most certainly be a great power, especially if it keeps Bolivia. Same with a surviving Gran Colombia.

Not really. Logistics are a bitch there. With the 6000mts Andes and that.

Even with railroads they will be. You need lots of money, lots of work and such.
I find it really difficult and even then, they cant really start until the late 19th century.
 
Or having Argentina agree to the free navigation of the rivers. The most important one to you was the Parana, and having Uruguay didnt mean much to it anyway.

Well, the Uruguay river was important too, it gives a better access to the west of Rio Grande do Sul.

If the United Provinces had conquered Cisplatina then Brazil could feel that Misiones and the entire Rio Grande do Sul were at risk.

An agreement could be made. Free navigation in exchange for not touching Paraguay.

I think that Brazil would never agree with it. It would create a powerful neighbor that could even control Paraguay as a puppet state and could blockade the acces to the west of the empire, leaving it almost unprotected.

On the other hand, free navigation with a compromise of no intervention of Argentina or Brazil in Uruguay and Paraguay is a deal that Brazil can accept.
 
Both Brazil and Argentina have the makings. However, both were severely hampered by the way they were set up by Portugal/Spain. Brazil was basically set up to be a larger US south type economy. They have everything they need, except coal, to be a dominant nation, but they didn't exploit anything but agriculture until well into the 1900's. Argentina was set up sort of similar, sans the slavery. They were an agrarian economy, who also didn't exploit anything but agriculture until the 1900's. IF Brazil had shot out of the starting gate (1822) with a mindset on political stability and agricultural/industrial diversification, they were well positioned to be a leader in south America from the Amazon down. Pedro I was pretty much a dunce, though, and while he gets kudos for separating from Portugal relatively smoothly, that's about the sum total of his upside. He and his father both had a shining moment and otherwise were lackluster. If they had been a capable duo, Brazil could have ruled south America and dragged Portugal up with them.

I think that what Brazil really lacked in the first years was a bigger and free population. Brazil reached 7.2 million people only in 1850, USA had this number in 1810, by 1870 the US had 38 million and Brazil in 1920 had only 30. I am not saying that it is the only cause, but without a bigger population it is harder to achieve industrialization and populate the inner parts of the country, considering that a good part of this same little population was composed by slaves the situation becomes even worse.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

Not really. Logistics are a bitch there. With the 6000mts Andes and that.

Even with railroads they will be. You need lots of money, lots of work and such.
I find it really difficult and even then, they cant really start until the late 19th century.

Peru was a strong regional power in Latin America during the Guano era, often serving as a mediator to the disputes of other countries. It had good economic growth, rails were being built between major cities, decent amounts of immigrants from China and Europe and a massive buildup in infrastructure. I see no reason why if the stability continues they cannot be a power on the world stage.

As for Gran Colombia, the problems can be overcome far earlier than you suggest if you keep it stable and under decent government. There were plans since the 1820s to overhaul the roads network, build canals, expand the ports, refurnish the textile mills, etc). If you keep Ecuador's industry in tact along with Venezuela's and supplement this with immigration and investment from other powers (Britain had quite a few plans for investing in the mines and ranching industry) they can build the necessary infrastructure. Manpower can be solved with immigration and natural population growth.
 
Well, the Uruguay river was important too, it gives a better access to the west of Rio Grande do Sul.

If the United Provinces had conquered Cisplatina then Brazil could feel that Misiones and the entire Rio Grande do Sul were at risk.

I think that Brazil would never agree with it. It would create a powerful neighbor that could even control Paraguay as a puppet state and could blockade the acces to the west of the empire, leaving it almost unprotected.

On the other hand, free navigation with a compromise of no intervention of Argentina or Brazil in Uruguay and Paraguay is a deal that Brazil can accept.

Treaties can be made. Argentina recognizes the border of Rio Grande and the Misiones plus free navigation and Brazil recognizes that Argentina owns Uruguay.

Besides, its best for Brazil to have an Argentina where a powerful player like Montevideo can stand up to Buenos Aires than one where Buenos Aires makes the call. It would most likely mean free trade.

Peru was a strong regional power in Latin America during the Guano era, often serving as a mediator to the disputes of other countries. It had good economic growth, rails were being built between major cities, decent amounts of immigrants from China and Europe and a massive buildup in infrastructure. I see no reason why if the stability continues they cannot be a power on the world stage.

Sure. Guano is on the coast. Lima is on the coast. That's easy. But minerals are not. Specially those from Bolivia.
If you want industry you need the Bolivian minerals. And those are not easy to get to lima. IIRC you have to make way less tunnels making a rail line from Buenos Aires to La Paz than from La Paz to Lima.

It's no coincidence that Bolivian silver ended up being shipped through Buenos Aires. The trip, while longer, is easier.

As for Gran Colombia, the problems can be overcome far earlier than you suggest if you keep it stable and under decent government. There were plans since the 1820s to overhaul the roads network, build canals, expand the ports, refurnish the textile mills, etc). If you keep Ecuador's industry in tact along with Venezuela's and supplement this with immigration and investment from other powers (Britain had quite a few plans for investing in the mines and ranching industry) they can build the necessary infrastructure. Manpower can be solved with immigration and natural population growth.

This I can see. They have quite the potential and a lot of oil for later. Maybe just to close to the US.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Not to get all geographically determinist, but:

I'm thinking about a TL with an anti-UK USA, and some interesting stuff with Mexico, and Italy. My question is can Chile rival the USA in the Pacific? Can Brazil and Argentina become modern industrialized Nations, with powerful Armies and Navies en par with that of some European ''powers''? I would refer a POD after 1860s. I was thinking of eliminating Chile's civil wars. Maybe bringing Immigration from Italy to Argentina and Brazil instead of USA? I don't know too much about these nations history before 1900. I do know Chile was powerful in the Pacific. And about the South American Dreadnought race, but not much else until the Chaco Wars, and WWII. Something were the Valparaiso incident is much more serious. (even if USA is slightly stronger).

P.S This TL will have some alternate Republican Presidents, including H.C Lodge.

Not to get all geographically determinist, but:

a) it is a lot farther from Europe to South America than North America; transportation costs limit population, investment, and economic growth;

b) most of South America is tropical; most of North America is temperate; tropical diseases had significant impact in the period 1500-1900;

c) The St. Lawrence, Great Lakes, and Ohio-Mississippi-Missouri rivers are tremendous natural highways that had a huge impact on economic growth in North America in the same period; the Rio de la Plata is the only thing that comes close in South America;

The possibility of a "stronger" set of South American nation states is an intriguing one, but setting aside the political issues discussed above, basic geography fragments the settled littoral of South America much more so than North America (even today) and much more so in the 1500-1900 period.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Rio Platino

My eyes bleed from seeing this:mad::D

Anyway, I have to concede a lot of South America is not prime land for settlement. There is Patagonia, the Puna, Atacama, the Amazonas, the whole Andes.

But what with it. Argentina and Brazil have more than enough good land. It's a fact they won't contend the US, specially since the latter has a way bigger population. But both countries can easily become Nº2 and Nº3 in the whole Americas and holding a GDP per capita on par with the US.
 
Sure. Guano is on the coast. Lima is on the coast. That's easy. But minerals are not. Specially those from Bolivia.
If you want industry you need the Bolivian minerals. And those are not easy to get to lima. IIRC you have to make way less tunnels making a rail line from Buenos Aires to La Paz than from La Paz to Lima.

It's no coincidence that Bolivian silver ended up being shipped through Buenos Aires. The trip, while longer, is easier.

The things is, growth during the guano era happened in spite of the blatant mismanagement and corruption rampant during the time. A more capable administration won’t change things overnight, but could most certainly do far more than OTL.

As far as railroads go, you don’t have to go in a straight line from La Paz to Lima; not even the Americans did that with the Rockies. There’s the Altiplano which stretches through a vast are of southern Peru: you can make the most of it, and then use a highland pass to connect it with a coastal railroad.

And most Bolivian silver was exported through Argentina after the loss of its coast in 1879. Before then, they’d use their own ports, or Peruvian-owned Arica. In an ATL with both states unified, that becomes a moot point.

I agree with Soverihn here, a well-managed Peru has vast potential. Even to the point of eclipsing Argentina and Brazil.
 
The things is, growth during the guano era happened in spite of the blatant mismanagement and corruption rampant during the time. A more capable administration won’t change things overnight, but could most certainly do far more than OTL.

As far as railroads go, you don’t have to go in a straight line from La Paz to Lima; not even the Americans did that with the Rockies. There’s the Altiplano which stretches through a vast are of southern Peru: you can make the most of it, and then use a highland pass to connect it with a coastal railroad.

And most Bolivian silver was exported through Argentina after the loss of its coast in 1879. Before then, they’d use their own ports, or Peruvian-owned Arica. In an ATL with both states unified, that becomes a moot point.

I agree with Soverihn here, a well-managed Peru has vast potential. Even to the point of eclipsing Argentina and Brazil.

I agree that the Altiplano is the easy part. The problem is the costal range that borders Lima. Lima is important as the gateway to the country and where both the government and a lot of people are.

I should have been more clear. I referred to the colonial times. In any case, you dont need the connections just for the sake of exporting from source. You need to send the materia to cities for production, and you need those cities connected between themselves.

You also have to think how easily people moves from one region to another. Industry means mass movements and those need either rivers or railroads, let alone a port if you want immigrants.
 
I agree that the Altiplano is the easy part. The problem is the costal range that borders Lima. Lima is important as the gateway to the country and where both the government and a lot of people are.

I should have been more clear. I referred to the colonial times. In any case, you dont need the connections just for the sake of exporting from source. You need to send the materia to cities for production, and you need those cities connected between themselves.

You also have to think how easily people moves from one region to another. Industry means mass movements and those need either rivers or railroads, let alone a port if you want immigrants.

I still beg to differ. A railway that connects the Altiplano with Mollendo or Ilo already has an outlet to the sea, to export raw materials, it’s not too difficult to make said railroad go north from there, all the way to Lima, since the terrain is much, much easier. But let’s look at production.

Centralization of the means of production in Lima is a mid to late 20th century phenomenon. Arguably, to this day Bolivia is more decentralized, as La Paz hasn’t attained comparable levels of centralization. Thus at the dawn of independence you had textile factories in Cusco, wine (and pisco) making plantations in Ica, mines in Arequipa, and a buoyant trade hub in Ayacucho. Further north, you had large sugar and cotton plantations, and whaling stations on the coast. In Bolivia, you had quinine fields, vast agricultural production and, of course, mines.

Forward to OTL mid-19th century. In addition to the enterprises mentioned above, you have the rise of textile factories (relying on wool) throughout southern Peru, and the creation of foundries, and even an armory in central Peru. In Callao, right off of Lima itself there was a fully functional naval shipyard.

Thus, with a nation (Peru-Bolivia) that has its center in the heartland of the country, not Lima, you have a number of opportunities to push for development all over: Paita, Callao, Arica, and Cobija where all declared as open ports during the Peru-Bolivian Confederation. Railroad networks linking all of those ports along the coast isn’t hard (but again, we go back to corruption and mismanagement to deal with.)

Roads can link the main cities in the highlands (as they did since Pre-Colombian times) until viable railroads can be established. And from the headwaters of the rivers watering the rain forest, riverine causeways can be used to explore and colonize the East (as it was done OTL, but much later.)

The key here, is to have the political center in the highlands. Unlikely given Lima’s historical hold over Peru, but not impossible with the right POD.
 
I think a better option would have them colonize the arable areas in North and Midwest Brazil. Not sure if that's possible in the 19th century, though.

I'm affraid it's not possible. The Cerrado couldn't be productive enough before the technology of the Green Revolution had arrived.
 
Top