British colony in Pacific South or Central America

What's it take to get Britain a colony in the Pacific coast in South or Central America?

Best odds are to do it before the USA exists or before the Monroe Doctrine blocks British expansion.
 
What's it take to get Britain a colony in the Pacific coast in South or Central America?

Best odds are to do it before the USA exists or before the Monroe Doctrine blocks British expansion.

I do not think that the Monroe Doctrine, just words would deter the British if they really wanted more of Central or South America other than the Mosquito coast, Guiana, and the Caribbean. From the Falkland's, why didn't they colonize the southern third of Argentina and Chile. I think that they were under populated at the time and Chile and Argentina did not settle Patagonia until the 1840's. Britain would have to act in the 1830's to establish military rule and settlements in Patagonia.

But why? Is this portion of South America worth it? Is it more beneficial than South Africa, East Africa, Nigeria?
 
The Monroe Doctrine would not stop Britain, especially since Britain was the one who mainly enforced it. If they wanted it, they would simply take it. There's the problem, though, why would they want it? After the various revolutions, they could just trade for whatever local resource they needed. Sure they could snatch up southern Chile and get away with it, but why? The lands there are fairly inhospitable, the natives aren't too friendly, overall there's a reason that the Chileans themselves took a while to settle the area.
 
I do not think that the Monroe Doctrine, just words would deter the British if they really wanted more of Central or South America other than the Mosquito coast, Guiana, and the Caribbean. From the Falkland's, why didn't they colonize the southern third of Argentina and Chile. I think that they were under populated at the time and Chile and Argentina did not settle Patagonia until the 1840's. Britain would have to act in the 1830's to establish military rule and settlements in Patagonia.

But why? Is this portion of South America worth it? Is it more beneficial than South Africa, East Africa, Nigeria?
I would argue no. Skip the colder, southern regions. What we need is Britain to score a colony like Ecuador or El Salvador from Spain, presumably in one of the peace treaties.
 
Conquering Mexico from the Spanish.
Perhaps instead of conquering Florida?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Florida#British_rule

In 1763, Spain traded Florida to the Kingdom of Great Britain for control of Havana, Cuba, which had been captured by the British during the Seven Years' War.

Instead of Florida, have Britain get Panama, or if the Spanish don't want to lose their land connection to Mexico, have Britain get El Salvador.
 
The best would be Tierra del Fuego and either Nicaragua or Panama. For Nicaragua they did have the Mosquito Coast right there to "expand", even though Nicaragua would probably be treated as a new colony. The purpose obviously being to control the isthmus. Grab it from either the Spanish or whichever independent state rules there. It would be a wedge in Anglo-American relations, and could give people like William Walker a bigger platform.

I do not think that the Monroe Doctrine, just words would deter the British if they really wanted more of Central or South America other than the Mosquito coast, Guiana, and the Caribbean. From the Falkland's, why didn't they colonize the southern third of Argentina and Chile. I think that they were under populated at the time and Chile and Argentina did not settle Patagonia until the 1840's. Britain would have to act in the 1830's to establish military rule and settlements in Patagonia.

But why? Is this portion of South America worth it? Is it more beneficial than South Africa, East Africa, Nigeria?

More solid control of the route around South America? In which case all they'd really need is Tierra del Fuego, where the natives are significantly easier to defeat than on the mainland. It's also a significant stop on the route back to Britain from Australia or New Zealand.
 

Deleted member 67076

Perhaps instead of conquering Florida?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Florida#British_rule

In 1763, Spain traded Florida to the Kingdom of Great Britain for control of Havana, Cuba, which had been captured by the British during the Seven Years' War.

Instead of Florida, have Britain get Panama, or if the Spanish don't want to lose their land connection to Mexico, have Britain get El Salvador.
I dunno. Panama was a strategic area and a major shipping magnate despite being landlocked and disease ridden. It was one of the major stops in the Manilla Galleon trade. Spain would have to be really foolish to give it up.

El Salvador would be indefensible and was densely populated by Hispanisized creoles and Mestizos so its not really worth it. Not even sure if the British can hold on to it forcibly to be honest.
 
I dunno. Panama was a strategic area and a major shipping magnate despite being landlocked and disease ridden. It was one of the major stops in the Manilla Galleon trade. Spain would have to be really foolish to give it up.

El Salvador would be indefensible and was densely populated by Hispanisized creoles and Mestizos so its not really worth it. Not even sure if the British can hold on to it forcibly to be honest.

Yeah, there's no reason to grab El Salvador (unless you're grabbing all Central America) when better places to cross the isthmus exist in Nicaragua and Panama. Though grabbing El Salvador would entail taking Guatemala as well and adding it to Belize.

What about Britain claiming the failed Scottish Darien colony and seizing Panama?

Would require a war with Spain. Arguably a good idea since that might get something out of the cesspit that was the Darien colony.
 
How about Britain takes the Galapagos? However I'm thinking of something more strategic to take it into WW2. Was north-coast Peru up for grabs IOTL?
 
How about Britain takes the Galapagos? However I'm thinking of something more strategic to take it into WW2. Was north-coast Peru up for grabs IOTL?

Wasn't that part of Peru often in contention with Ecuador OTL? I doubt Peru would want to part with it.

The Galapagos are a pretty obvious colony, since British pirates used it as a base, the islands have Anglo names thanks to said pirates, etc. Kinda a surprise they never were claimed by the British. Probably because the islands had no indigenous inhabitants, though if Polynesians had colonised the place, no doubt they would've been grabbed.
 
Wasn't that part of Peru often in contention with Ecuador OTL? I doubt Peru would want to part with it.
This is pre-Independence Peru, so it's whatever Spain is willing to trade away or concede.
The Galapagos are a pretty obvious colony, since British pirates used it as a base, the islands have Anglo names thanks to said pirates, etc. Kinda a surprise they never were claimed by the British. Probably because the islands had no indigenous inhabitants, though if Polynesians had colonised the place, no doubt they would've been grabbed.
I imagine there's nothing there, other than another Falklands-like coaling station, and ITTL we need to grab the territory before the end of Spanish rule, and thus before the age of steam and coal.
 
It's still a decently populated part of the Spanish New World. Paita, Piura, Guayaquil, etc. Better to grab a bit at the fringe like Chile, even if in the 18th century the nitrate resources weren't quite understood and Chile's silver was believed mostly tapped.

The Galapagos can also have sugar plantations (not ideal ones, but sugar plantations regardless) and other economic activities worth mentioning (more than the Falklands), even if it means Charles Darwin doesn't get to see such a nice display of biodiversity.
 
Top