British Argentina/Southern Cone - more gradual takeover than thought

For the past month or two, I've been sort of re-evaluating the recent iteration of my British Southern Cone theory. In other words, I'm still very much thinking about Uruguay and at least pockets of Patagonia and the far south that get colonized by the British before other parts of the Southern Cone, and about Buenos Aires that becomes an independent British client state within a pretty short time after a British victory there in 1807.

What is changing as we speak, though, based mainly on feedback I've heard from some others to my recent questions on the subject, is that I'm allowing for the possibility that the British ultimately do take over most if not all of the eastern and southern Southern Cone. In other words, I'm now entertaining the possibility that in the long term, the British directly take over not just Uruguay (continuously from 1807) and Patagonia and the far south (first in pockets from 1807-08 and eventually throughout the entire area some decades later), but also - on a gradual basis over the ensuing decades - other areas of the Pampas and somewhat beyond. This would be made possible especially if the British let the various republics/provinces of Argentina proper (e.g. Buenos Aires,* Entre Rios, Santa Fe, Cordoba, Mendoza/Cuyo, Santiago del Estero, Salta) each be independent (and relatively weak) ca. the 1810s and that their caudillos are co-opted by the British, as the result of British efforts to prevent civil war in Argentina proper the way there was in real life. (An alternative outcome of British efforts to prevent civil war in Argentina proper is for the caudillos to be gotten rid of as leaders; if that's so, then I think it's probably more likely that Argentina proper becomes just one republic ruled from Buenos Aires. I don't see that as being as likely as the caudillos being co-opted.)

*Except the southwestern sector that includes Bahia Blanca and whose eastern limit is probably the Quequen River; that part becomes part of British Patagonia.

Gradually, one by one, at least many of those republics of Argentina proper get taken over by the British - Entre Rios ca. the 1820s; Buenos Aires and Santa Fe by the 1840s-1850s; Corrientes, Cordoba, and the others later on yet. All this (and especially the Buenos Aires piece) is consistent with British ideals to want to take over Buenos Aires given that it's between Uruguay and Patagonia and that it's a major centre. It seems to me that Lord Carnarvon (the colonial secretary), assuming he's successful in 1874 in a way that he wasn't in South Africa with attempted federation of the British colonies and Boer republics there, federates the then-existing British colonies (Uruguay, Patagonia etc., Entre Rios, Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, and maybe 1-2 more) into a Dominion of Argentina. Perhaps it's then that Britain takes over, for the first time, republics like Cordoba and integrates those into the federation. The republics that remain republics (mainly in the northwest, including Salta and Tucuman, and perhaps Mendoza and other Cuyo republics) are sort of like the Princely States in India (which remain distinct in many ways from official British India) in that it might take longer for them, if at all, to join Argentina. I think such an approach lends itself to a Canada-like situation (bilingual and white, with land borders with one or more rather important neighbours, and gradual buildup of the federation/union) which might prevail with the British in the Southern Cone.

Please tell me what any of you think of this new possibility. Moreover, do you think that Lord Carnarvon would have enjoyed success in South America more than in South Africa?
 
Why don't you make it easier and go with an earlier POD which has England grabbing the Southern Cone before Spain does?
 
There could be at least two countries in the Argentina area in the scenario I've just outlined - Argentina and Patagonia. Argentina would basically consist of Argentina proper and Uruguay, and it would be overwhelmingly Hispanic. In Uruguay and a few other areas like Entre Rios (or however it would be called), the population would be split roughly 50-50 between Hispanics and anglophones. In the provinces right to the west (e.g. Buenos Aires excluding Bahia Blanca etc., Santa Fe, Cordoba), probably 75-80% would be Hispanic and the rest anglophone. And in the far western provinces (e.g. Mendoza, Tucuman), which could be a whole separate country perhaps, 90-95% or more would be Hispanic. (Note that when I say anglophones, I mean not just descendants of Anglo-Celtic settlers but also descendants of non-British immigrants who assimilate to the Anglo sector. When I say Hispanic, I mean Spanish-speaking, no matter what the original ethnicity.) As for Patagonia, which includes not just Patagonia itself but also Tierra del Fuego, the Falklands, and Bahia Blanca etc. in southern and southwestern Buenos Aires prov., that would be 90-95% or more anglophone.
 
But an earlier POD makes thing a lot simpler, as you avoid wars between Britain and established Western settlers and replace them with different wars between Britain vs nomadic stone age tribes and wars between Spain and the more advanced cultures in what's currently Northwestern Argentina.

Get England to settle the River Plate by the early 16th century. The Spaniards, in the meantime, are conquering the Inca and slowly fighting their way through the Diaguitas in current NW Argentina, the Mapuche in current Southern Chile and maybe allying with the Guarani in current Paraguay/NE Argentina like OTL.

You still get a British enclave in the River Plate and the current Argentine and Uruguayan Atlantic coast while Spain holds the lands west of the Andes and around modern Paraguay. That situation it's still not stable, as Spain will want to access the River Plate, but you have that initial territorial hold.
 
The 16th century is way too soon for the British to establish themselves on the other side of the world. They only started colonizing Saint Helena during the 1650's. Also, the Spanish are strong enough to avoid all English efforts.

As the 19th century colonization, I don't mean to sound rude, but: what for?

1 - There's nothing interesting in Argentina before the evolution of technology for the transportation of meat.

2 - The UK already controls the Falklands and the Cape, so there's no strategic interest in holding Buenos Aires for their maritime empire.

2 - By early 1800's, a considerable part of the Argentinean population (both Indians and Gauchos) lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle. So, it would a very difficult place to effectively rule.

3 - It would antagonize all South America. The Spanish-speaking countries would look at it as a menace to their independence and Brazil wants free access to the Plate basin. It would undermine British indirect rule all over an entire continent (the UK cannot invade/gunboat it all) for a underpopulated and uninteresting area.

Indirect rule is far more interesting and effective considering the commercial goals of the Empire.
 
Last edited:
2 - The UK already controls the Falklands and the Cape, so there's no strategic interest in holding Buenos Aires for their maritime empire.

The UK attempted to take over the River Plate roughly at the same time as it took over the Cape, and it took over the Falklands later than that. Montevideo, if not Buenos Aires, would have been strategically at least halfway important for their maritime empire.

Indirect rule is far more interesting and effective considering the commercial goals of the Empire.

Britain didn't only have commercial goals; it had military and especially naval goals too, something very much also to take into consideration.
 
The 16th century is way too soon for the British to establish themselves on the other side of the world. They only started colonizing Saint Helena during the 1650's. Also, the Spanish are strong enough to avoid all English efforts.
Yeah, well, that's the part of alternate history :p
 
There's a reason why they didn't insist in occupying Argentina as they did in South Africa. Cape Town is much better located than Bs As/Montevideo in the South Atlantic. Also, if they really wanted to control the Magellanic Straits, they'd simply take Punta Arenas from Chile (They never bothered OTL).

As for Montevideo, it is surely a better natural port than Buenos Aires, but then it would antagonize Luso-Brazilian interests over the Cisplatine Province.

I think the best chance that the British have is a joint invasion with the Luso-Brazilians, if Joao VI was a stronger king. Of course, military importance of Brazil would be minimal; but it would confuse and disunite the Argentinean resistence. The country would be divided between those who want independence, those who accept the Brits and those who support the Portuguese Catholic king, who was related to the rightful king of Spain after all (see Carlotism). In that scenario Brazil would keep Uruguay and the UK, Buenos Aires. The inner provinces would become "Boer (Gaucho) republics" that would be eventually annexed by Buenos Aires, one by one.

This scenario doesn't focus on British strength; it's more a coincidence of organic facts in local politics. What do you think?
 
There's a reason why they didn't insist in occupying Argentina as they did in South Africa. Cape Town is much better located than Bs As/Montevideo in the South Atlantic. Also, if they really wanted to control the Magellanic Straits, they'd simply take Punta Arenas from Chile (They never bothered OTL).

As for Montevideo, it is surely a better natural port than Buenos Aires, but then it would antagonize Luso-Brazilian interests over the Cisplatine Province.

I think the best chance that the British have is a joint invasion with the Luso-Brazilians, if Joao VI was a stronger king. Of course, military importance of Brazil would be minimal; but it would confuse and disunite the Argentinean resistence. The country would be divided between those who want independence, those who accept the Brits and those who support the Portuguese Catholic king, who was related to the rightful king of Spain after all (see Carlotism). In that scenario Brazil would keep Uruguay and the UK, Buenos Aires. The inner provinces would become "Boer (Gaucho) republics" that would be eventually annexed by Buenos Aires, one by one.

This scenario doesn't focus on British strength; it's more a coincidence of organic facts in local politics. What do you think?

The reason why the British didn't occupy Argentina the way they did in South Africa is because the British were beat back in Buenos Aires but not in Cape Town. Sure, the Cape is more strategic than the Plate, but still.

Also, with a British occupation of Montevideo, the British and the Portuguese/Brazilians would have amicably agreed on a common border, given that the Brits and the Portuguese have been staunch longtime allies.
 
The reason why the British didn't occupy Argentina the way they did in South Africa is because the British were beat back in Buenos Aires but not in Cape Town. Sure, the Cape is more strategic than the Plate, but still.

Well, my exact point. The Argentineans are not keen on being British subjects and there's no particular reason that makes the British push any further than they did OTL.

By the way, the British invaded the Cape twice. Rephrasing: There's a reason they didn't try twice in Argentina...
 
By the way, the British invaded the Cape twice. Rephrasing: There's a reason they didn't try twice in Argentina...

Well, technically, they did: once led by Bereford in 1806 and once by Whitelock in 1807. The first time they took the city bu were later expelled. The second time they took Montrvideo but were defeated in the outskirts of buenos aires...

I rewd somewhere there were even plans for a 3rd campaign, but the political situation had changed (France invaded Spain, the Spanish rebelled and became British allies, so it wouldn't look good if Britain took the city of an ally -in 1808, buenos aires belonged to the Spanish Crown-...). I am not sure though how serious were the plans for a third campaign nor if this was the reason why it was never carried out.
 
The British firstly occupied the Cape in 1795 (the very same year that France occupied the Netherlands) and gave it back to the Dutch in Amiens. Roughly a decade later they did it again. Their interest on the Plate region, on the other hand, seems rather punctual for the reasons that I have mentioned: Invasions in 1806-1807; Luso-Brazilian occupation a decade later; and the creation of a buffer state, Uruguay, twenty years later.

However, I agree that a change in European politics can change it all. ie. in 1808 the Royal Navy was occupied escorting the Portuguese court to Rio; Napoleon could have been interested in making the Cape a neutral ground; etc.
 
Well, my exact point. The Argentineans are not keen on being British subjects and there's no particular reason that makes the British push any further than they did OTL.

I think you're totally misunderstanding things. It's not that the South Africans wanted to be under British rule more than the Argentines did. The big reason why the South Africans lost was because they were much less competent in resisting the British than the Argentines were. As a matter of fact, Baird wasn't much more competent than Whitelocke, if at all; Baird happened to face a less competent foe than Whitelocke did.
 
There could be at least two countries in the Argentina area in the scenario I've just outlined - Argentina and Patagonia. Argentina would basically consist of Argentina proper and Uruguay, and it would be overwhelmingly Hispanic. In Uruguay and a few other areas like Entre Rios (or however it would be called), the population would be split roughly 50-50 between Hispanics and anglophones. In the provinces right to the west (e.g. Buenos Aires excluding Bahia Blanca etc., Santa Fe, Cordoba), probably 75-80% would be Hispanic and the rest anglophone. And in the far western provinces (e.g. Mendoza, Tucuman), which could be a whole separate country perhaps, 90-95% or more would be Hispanic. (Note that when I say anglophones, I mean not just descendants of Anglo-Celtic settlers but also descendants of non-British immigrants who assimilate to the Anglo sector. When I say Hispanic, I mean Spanish-speaking, no matter what the original ethnicity.) As for Patagonia, which includes not just Patagonia itself but also Tierra del Fuego, the Falklands, and Bahia Blanca etc. in southern and southwestern Buenos Aires prov., that would be 90-95% or more anglophone.

I've further reflected on this scenario, and I've decided that Patagonia (inc. the southern Pampas) - despite its sociolinguistic differences from Argentina proper - would not have become a separate country from Argentina proper, just as francophone Quebec became part of the same country as the anglophone rest of Canada and just like anglophone Natal became part of the same country as the largely-Afrikaner rest of South Africa. Just that there would be regionally- and sociolinguistically-based Patagonian separatist sentiments, more along the lines of Western Canadian or Newfoundland than Quebec nationalism, for example.
 
Top