Brazilian Manifest Destiny?

Was there ever a strong desire among Brazilians to have a pacific coast? Is it plausible, or even remotely possible?

What would the repercussions of a Brazil with perhaps all of Bolivia's former holdings be?
 
Geography is in the way. and while the Spanish occupants of the pacific weren't exactly a military powerhouse, neither was brazil. Combo of the two made it unlikely it could happen even if the desire was there. Considering Brazil was slooooooow to move westward within their own boundaries in any great numbers, I'd say the desire wasn't there.

manifest destiny in the US was whiteys on the east coast looking at unoccupied lands (with the exception of the pesky natives and a handfull of Mexicans) with no other power in a position to occupy them and saying 'that land's ours'.

Edit: at the point that Bolivia still had a coast to take, Brazil was at the mercy of two other countries just to get to their own western region.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
one issue is that unlike North America, there were

Was there ever a strong desire among Brazilians to have a pacific coast? Is it plausible, or even remotely possible?

What would the repercussions of a Brazil with perhaps all of Bolivia's former holdings be?

One issue is that unlike in North America, the Pacific Coast of South America was (essentially) settled/integrated into the Spanish imperial sphere, and Lima (for example) was a large (for the time) city, colonial capital, and then capital of independent Peru. Similar pattern in Santiago, etc.

The Pacific Coast of South America, largely because of the wealth (demographic and otherwise) of the indigenous states the Spanish encountered and conquered in the Sixteenth Century, developed and was much more heavily "westernized" much earlier than the corresponding North American coast; essentially, by the time Brazil was independent and potentially interested in expansion, Peru and Chile etc were as well.

There's also the very real issue that the Amazon is not anywhere close to being as conducive to overland travel as in the interior of North America is, and the Andes, in many ways, are even more challenging to traverse east-west than the Rockies are...

It's an intriguing idea, but pre-independence history and the topography and climate are really difficult to circumvent for anything resembling a "Brazil" we'd recognize.

Best,
 
The previous posters nailed the point, but I'd like to mention that Brazilian history as a whole witnessed an improvised "manifest destiny" of sorts, if we consider that the original land claimed by Portugal in respect of the Treaty of Tordesillas was a fraction of the territory that eventually became settled by the Portuguese until the 19th Century.

Check this image, for example - the part in dark green de jure belonged to the Spanish Empire according to the Papal treaty... and it was occupied and settled by Luso-Brazilian colonists, including the Amazon River region, settled by Jesuitic missions to baptize Indians.

01-ESP-POR-tratado_de_madrid_mapa.jpg



Regarding a Pacific Coast, I find it too hard... until the 20th Century the Brazilian interior (Mato Grosso and Amazonas) was sparsely populated, and any army - Brazilian or not - marching through these places would possibly face problems of supply replenishment, so I find it implausible to launch an invasion of Perú, for example. Beside, the mountainous terrain as we get up the Andes could produce catastrophic results for an invading army, as no soldier from Brazil would have physical preparation for it.

Bolívia might be possible, in theory, as it can be assessed in the south through Mato Grosso, but I find it hard that Brazil succeeded in eating the entire country up. The Hispano-American neighbors will go "full Bolívar" on it :rolleyes:

I do believe Paraguay could be annexed, and perhaps the Guyanas and Suriname, depending on which country controls it (the French Guyana was in fact occupied by Luso-Brazilian troops in the 1810s, during the Napoleonic Wars, as Brazil was allied to the UK). Anything else, especially Colombia and Venezuela, I find it too much of a stretch.

After all, for the whole of its "expansionist" History IOTL Brazil was much more interested in the La Plata region than he was in central South America, and had no use for a Pacific enterprise, unlike Argentina, for example.
 
Rdffiguera,
excellent observations. the westward expansion was more a case of adventurous souls exploring and settling 'vacant' lands. there was still a wee bit more to go (foothills of Bolivia/Peru), but they did go well beyond what was originally apportioned to them.
In the south, they absolutely had a sense of manifest destiny in thinking that the north shore of la plata was theirs and it was their destiny to occupy it. they briefly achieved it, but then were kicked out.

one attribute of Manifest Destiny is being top dog and having the means to take and keep what you want. In New Spain (Mexico) the Spanish had a sense of MD (ie claimed sovereignty) over the entire pacific coast of North America, including Alaska, but had no means to achieve it.

Edit: re- French Guiana: I've always thought it was rather rude that Portugal was completely snubbed at the peace table. they were shredded in the Nap wars after being forced into a rather tight spot by 'friend' (Britain) and foe alike, and then weren't even allowed a tiny, inconsequential, morsel while the country (make that countries and include Britain) that was at the heart of the 20 years of strife was treated like a golden child.
 
Last edited:
Some of these lands weren't necessarily 'vacant', most of Brazilian south, as north as Paraná, was populated by Spanish Jesuits and Guarany Indians. It was the action of Brazilian slavers followed by the retraction of the Missions towards Paraguay that "cleaned up" the land for Luso-Brazilian settlers during colonial times.

As for the Brazilian Manifest Destiny towards the Pacific, pretty much impossible as I see it. 1) Brazili simply didn't have the necessary population surplus. 2) The Andes are highly populated and very little atractive economically speaking after the exhaustion of the silver mines. 3) The access to the Pacific Ocean isn't atractive to the Brazilian economy either. Brazil had little to no industry and was a massive producer of tropical goods. So, Brazilian and Asian-Pacific economies weren't complementary, but competitors. 4) Geography simply doesn't help.

Now, if you're talking about Manifest Destiny towards the Plate region, it's completely possible. Brazil pretty much carved up two buffer states in the area (Paraguay and Uruguay) to counter Argentina's development during the 19th century. Traditional Marxist Historiography establishes the UK as the 'bad guy' in the region, but that's just a part of the story: Brazil treated the Platine countries as bad as the US treated Central America. Heck, one single Brazilian controlled the entire Uruguayan banking system during the 19th century!

Thus, if Brazil prefers direct rule over the Plate region (Brazil and the UK divide Argentina?) I can see a somewhat twisted 'Manifest Destiny'-ish kind of ideology.
 
Lampiao,
'vacant' was in apostrophes because it was vacant/available for Europeans. the natives are savages who are in the way. Just as you have to cut down the trees to make a field, the natives have to be cleared out so civilized folk can occupy the land.
 
Lampiao,
'vacant' was in apostrophes because it was vacant/available for Europeans. the natives are savages who are in the way. Just as you have to cut down the trees to make a field, the natives have to be cleared out so civilized folk can occupy the land.

I see your point. But Catholic Indians living under the Jesuit rule aren't savages in a 17th century standard, there's no "Just War" against them. That's why I also didn't mention the other "pagan" Indian populations.
 
I would disagree that catholic indians aren't considered savages. they're merely savages that have achieved eternal salvation. regardless, the overall notion is that the lands are looked at as available for settlement if the natives can be removed/eliminated/pushed aside.
 
Edit: re- French Guiana: I've always thought it was rather rude that Portugal was completely snubbed at the peace table. they were shredded in the Nap wars after being forced into a rather tight spot by 'friend' (Britain) and foe alike, and then weren't even allowed a tiny, inconsequential, morsel while the country (make that countries and include Britain) that was at the heart of the 20 years of strife was treated like a golden child.

I think the Dutch were screwed the most, losing the Cape Colony. Giving up war conquests is one thing, but to lose a pre-war territory is a real kick in the teeth, especially for a country that did not choose to be on France's side.
 
Last edited:
I would disagree that catholic indians aren't considered savages. they're merely savages that have achieved eternal salvation. regardless, the overall notion is that the lands are looked at as available for settlement if the natives can be removed/eliminated/pushed aside.

In the Iberian vision of the XVII century, Indians converted to Catholicism were a part of society and couldn't be rightfully enslaved or displaced. They were inferior to other subjects (except slaves) in the established social order, but they were very different from Pagan Indians such as those in Chaco, against whom war and enslavement was acceptable. This view was different from the one that existed in the US in the XIX century, for example.
 
(...) Edit: re- French Guiana: I've always thought it was rather rude that Portugal was completely snubbed at the peace table. they were shredded in the Nap wars after being forced into a rather tight spot by 'friend' (Britain) and foe alike, and then weren't even allowed a tiny, inconsequential, morsel while the country (make that countries and include Britain) that was at the heart of the 20 years of strife was treated like a golden child.

I think the Dutch were screwed the most, losing the Cape Colony. Giving up war conquests is one thing, but to lose a pre-war territory is a real kick in the teeth, especially for a country that did not choose to be on France's side.

I this thinking about this one of these days, @unprincipled peter. Portugal could very well have kept the Guyanas as compensation for the disastrous loss of their homeland in the Peninsular War. After all, it was Britain's most useful ally in the whole war. In fact, I have no idea why the hell the French Guyana was returned to France after the war... I doubt they even remembered it existed in 1815.

I agree, the Netherlands got the worst part of the deal. Didn't they receive Belgium in the Congress of Vienna as a compensation due to the loss of its colonies to Britain?
 
I this thinking about this one of these days, @unprincipled peter. Portugal could very well have kept the Guyanas as compensation for the disastrous loss of their homeland in the Peninsular War. After all, it was Britain's most useful ally in the whole war. In fact, I have no idea why the hell the French Guyana was returned to France after the war... I doubt they even remembered it existed in 1815.

I agree, the Netherlands got the worst part of the deal. Didn't they receive Belgium in the Congress of Vienna as a compensation due to the loss of its colonies to Britain?

I forgot about Belgium - in theory that would be pretty good compensation for the Cape. But of course the Belgians wanted no part of Dutch rule, so it was pretty much a booby prize.
 
I forgot about Belgium - in theory that would be pretty good compensation for the Cape. But of course the Belgians wanted no part of Dutch rule, so it was pretty much a booby prize.

Indeed. A "prize" that escaped from their hands in barely a generation after the war. I guess the Dutch would have still preferred the Cape Colony back when the Perfidious Albion found gold on it :D
 
Top