British or French Patagonia, or Uruguay

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In OTL most of Patagonia was in native hands until the Argentine "war of the desert" of the 1870s or 1880s.

Could this have provided an opportunity for a European state to colonize the land.

From the late 1700s through the middle 19th century, Britain seems to be the power with the most raw strength & disposable resources to throw at a Patagonia project. France strikes me as the other, second place, contender. I don't see Spain as having the ability to succeed in both defeat the natives and hold off Argentine and Chilean attacks to set Patagonia up as a sort of "Canada" for loyalist refugees.

The British, perhaps could take Patagonia as a consolation prize for failing to conquer Buenos Aires, or they could decide on that rather than Australia as the location of their penal colony?

In a later era, perhaps a British Patagonia could be a vanity project of Palmerston when he is not too busy with the Crimean War, Arrow War and Sepoy mutiny.

Or Patagonia could become a vanity project for Louis Napoleon, one that might even last, if the situation in Mexico is not so conducive to an intervention in the 1860s.The circumstances of the Paraguay war may lend themselves to this, if France were to ally with Paraguay for instance and keep Argentina and Brazil too busy tto protect Uruguay.

Another alternative, that would yield better quality land, but also a larger alien population, would be a takeover of Uruguay. Argentina/LaPlata may have been too much for the British to bite off in OTL, but Uruguay seems more manageable an area to pacify.

Either the British under Palmerston or French under Louis Napoleon, if motivated to do so, could occupy Uruguay from one end to the other.

Now I don't think Patagonia nor Uruguay could be made tempting for Maximilian.

Thoughts?
 
Any British or French movement into the vulnerable fringes of the old Viceroyalty of La Plata would either be some sort of protectorate or a straightforward official colonization.
 
In OTL most of Patagonia was in native hands until the Argentine "war of the desert" of the 1870s or 1880s.

Could this have provided an opportunity for a European state to colonize the land.

From the late 1700s through the middle 19th century, Britain seems to be the power with the most raw strength & disposable resources to throw at a Patagonia project. France strikes me as the other, second place, contender. I don't see Spain as having the ability to succeed in both defeat the natives and hold off Argentine and Chilean attacks to set Patagonia up as a sort of "Canada" for loyalist refugees.

The British, perhaps could take Patagonia as a consolation prize for failing to conquer Buenos Aires, or they could decide on that rather than Australia as the location of their penal colony?

In a later era, perhaps a British Patagonia could be a vanity project of Palmerston when he is not too busy with the Crimean War, Arrow War and Sepoy mutiny.

Or Patagonia could become a vanity project for Louis Napoleon, one that might even last, if the situation in Mexico is not so conducive to an intervention in the 1860s.The circumstances of the Paraguay war may lend themselves to this, if France were to ally with Paraguay for instance and keep Argentina and Brazil too busy tto protect Uruguay.

Another alternative, that would yield better quality land, but also a larger alien population, would be a takeover of Uruguay. Argentina/LaPlata may have been too much for the British to bite off in OTL, but Uruguay seems more manageable an area to pacify.

Either the British under Palmerston or French under Louis Napoleon, if motivated to do so, could occupy Uruguay from one end to the other.

Now I don't think Patagonia nor Uruguay could be made tempting for Maximilian.

Thoughts?
Ugh. People need to understand that the whole "Monroe Doctrine" wasnt Monroe's idea. The British asked him to add it to a speech about Americans needing to stay out European affairs at a time when people were wanting to get involved with Greek independence. British policy already was for open free trade in the Americas once the Spanish colonies went independent. By 1870s the British arent taking Patagonia and they and the Americans arent letting the French. Having the power to do something doesnt mean it makes sense. There's nothing in Patagonia to make it worth it. Colonies are a drain.
 
the spot ripe for colonization by a non spanish power is Bahia Blanca. Excellent port, surrounded by good land. From there, you can control the southern Pampas and all of Patagonia. the only real issue (beside's being claimed by Spain) is a very violent and potent native population that is going to be very, very difficult to pacify without a major effort. doable, but not really much incentive to go through the effort. there was no European presence at all til mid 1800's. your POD has to be before the Napoleonic Wars. Afterwards, the desire for settler/mercantile colonies had dramatically decreased while open trade with former Spanish colonies eliminated the need for an expensive governing role. There was little strategic or economic reason to colonize the area. But, if you hand wavium a reason, Bahia Blanca is your spot.
 
French Patagonia is pretty straightforward... if you can avoid Maximilian of Mexico coming to a horrible end and the Franco-Prussian War I can see Napoleon III really pushing for France intervening on behalf of the guy who the Mapuche crowned king.

A British Tierra Del Fuego isn't impossible either. Have more successful Anglican missionaries and an incident during one of the gold rushes that prompts British outrage and eventual intervention.
 
I'm tempted to direct the OP to my TL on this subject, admittedly on indefinite hiatus about halfway through...

Slightly more seriously, but Britain could definitely have done it, and indeed made a claim of sovereignty over Patagonia south of the Rio Negro from at least 1670 until the mid-19th century. (How serious? Not serious enough to actually settle it, but serious enough that the few Spanish attempts to do so tended to attract hostile visits from the Royal Navy.) all you really need is to find someone in Britain with a reason to want to do it.
 
Ugh. People need to understand that the whole "Monroe Doctrine" wasnt Monroe's idea. The British asked him to add it to a speech about Americans needing to stay out European affairs at a time when people were wanting to get involved with Greek independence. British policy already was for open free trade in the Americas once the Spanish colonies went independent. By 1870s the British arent taking Patagonia and they and the Americans arent letting the French. Having the power to do something doesnt mean it makes sense. There's nothing in Patagonia to make it worth it. Colonies are a drain.
The Americans can´t stop the French in Patagonia, the French would probably not do it but if they wanted the Americans are not going to be able to do much, probably the Argentinians themselves would deal with it.
 
The Americans can´t stop the French in Patagonia, the French would probably not do it but if they wanted the Americans are not going to be able to do much, probably the Argentinians themselves would deal with it.
Read all of my post. The British are the ones that started the "Monroe Doctrine". The British WILL NOT let the French take Patagonia, it will be against some 40 years of British policy and it will put the French dangerously close to the Falklands
 
Read all of my post. The British are the ones that started the "Monroe Doctrine". The British WILL NOT let the French take Patagonia, it will be against some 40 years of British policy and it will put the French dangerously close to the Falklands
The French weren´t stoped in Mexico and the Falklands are not some kind of last fort that the British have to prevent being at risk, otherwise they would have annexed Patagonia for themselves if that was such a focal point.
 
Read all of my post. The British are the ones that started the "Monroe Doctrine". The British WILL NOT let the French take Patagonia, it will be against some 40 years of British policy and it will put the French dangerously close to the Falklands

Why wouldn't they let France have it? They didn't seem to mind when France invaded Mexico and installed a foreign emperor.
 
France and Britain cooperated in a blockade of La Plata in 1840's. That's still short of allowing a French colony, but the 1800's are a different era than the 1700's where anything either side wanted, the other side automatically opposed.
 
how about Bradenberg-Prussia getting a new world toe hold, they did own a pair of colonies in africa until the french seized one and they sold the other to the dutch
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
how about Bradenburg-Prussia getting a new world toe hold, they did own a pair of colonies in africa until the french seized one and they sold the other to the dutch

While that would be a nifty timeline, I see it as pretty implausible without multiple-PoDs going pretty far back that for instance allow the late 1600s-1700s Prussian overseas enterprise to survive, expand, and generate alot of self-sustaining wealth.

The more marginal colonial powers had to be choosier about colonies and focus on ones with a better ratio of profit to cost. I tend to think that only France and Britain could afford "vanity colonies".

The British certainly could afford them, after all they took Australia and New Zealand.

Also, the British and French had much more experience than other Europeans with dealing with the harsh environment and fighting Amerindians. They had many successful, and many failed, colonies under their belt, and the experience was probably valuable. A lesser power would probably not come back after the failure of the first attempt.

Even a Spanish Patagonia is more likely than a Prussian. (It's settled as a Spanish Halifax and Ontario, a refuge for loyalists from the rest of South America). Although in the Spanish case, I don't know if mass emigration is even what happened to loyalists after Latin American independence was won. Anybody else know?
 
Top