foreign relations of Brazil next to a British Argentina

[Socrates]

Oh, BTW, Paraguay was heavily garrisoned by the Spanish. So I'd love to hear how are the British conquering it when, in OTL, were defeated by irregular militias.

When were the British defeated by irregular Paraguayan militias? From what I read upthread, people weren't talking about the British conquering Paraguay but rather it becoming a sort of protectorate.

Oh, and since we're at this, how is this ATL Half-Argentina becoming some sort of Southern Canada when there isn't a USA to help bolster it's economy and this Half-Argentina still has plenty of border conflicts Canada never had?

Canada had border disputes with the US, they were just solved amicably. As for not having the US to bolster it's economy, Australia seemed to do as well as Canada despite not having the USA next door.

 

[Socrates]

So it seems to me that the most plausible outcome of the presence of a British Argentina as far as British-Brazilian relations are concerned is that these relations would be not much different from OTL? And does that mean that slavery would be abolished more or less at the same time as OTL, and the republican coup would take place either in/around 1889 or a few years later depending on the strength of the Brazilian army (given that the monarchy was in such trouble succession-wise anyway)?

My discussion was of the strategic motives of the country. Of course, politicians in a country are not always strategic! I a lot would also depend on internal politics and ideology of the groups that gain power. I can imagine a lot of leftist ideology in Brazil being much more explicitly anti-British.

 

[Plumber]

Why? Independentist movements in the Spanish colonies started in 1809 and your POD is 1806-7. So, why would the Argentine one be butterflied away?

Oh, BTW, Paraguay was heavily garrisoned by the Spanish. So I'd love to hear how are the British conquering it when, in OTL, were defeated by irregular militias.

Oh, and since we're at this, how is this ATL Half-Argentina becoming some sort of Southern Canada when there isn't a USA to help bolster it's economy and this Half-Argentina still has plenty of border conflicts Canada never had?

Because Britannia Empire Kitchener Churchill.

 

[Kidblast]

Oh, BTW, Paraguay was heavily garrisoned by the Spanish. So I'd love to hear how are the British conquering it when, in OTL, were defeated by irregular militias.

Yah, I'm wondering about this too. Paraguay was not some howling wilderness untouched by civilization. It had enough infrastructure to maintain its independence from the other powers, and I doubt the British would just be able to blitzkrieg their way through to Paraguay.

I'm sure if Britain cared a lot, it could eventually become a protectorate, but it wouldn't be taken over within 5 years or something.

 

[Kidblast]

When were the British defeated by irregular Paraguayan militias? From what I read upthread, people weren't talking about the British conquering Paraguay but rather it becoming a sort of protectorate.

In OTL, the British invasion of Argentina was pushed by irregular militias. That's what he is referring to.

 

[Socrates]

In OTL, the British invasion of Argentina was pushed by irregular militias. That's what he is referring to.

So an amphibious assault with supply chains over the Atlantic Ocean... a bit different from a land invasion from an up and functional colony.

 

[yofie]

So an amphibious assault with supply chains over the Atlantic Ocean... a bit different from a land invasion from an up and functional colony.

Paraguay may have been up and functional, but most of the people were royalists (i.e. pro-Spain and not pro-independence). Now that they are cut off from the rest of the Spanish Empire with the Chaco wilderness (with only indigenous peoples) to the west, the British now to the south, and the Portuguese to the north and east, they could only sustain themselves as part of the Spanish Empire for so long. It would be very hard for Spanish supplies to be continually replenished through enemy territory or wilderness. At the same time, they don't get the inspiration of independence that they got OTL from the Argentine example. This adds to the vulnerabilities to being absorbed by some other power - even through a British chartered company (with Portuguese/Brazilian stakeholders as well).

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

My discussion was of the strategic motives of the country. Of course, politicians in a country are not always strategic! I a lot would also depend on internal politics and ideology of the groups that gain power. I can imagine a lot of leftist ideology in Brazil being much more explicitly anti-British.

There were no different ideologies in the Empire of Brazil, the two parties were the same. "Nothing more liberal than a Conservative in power and nothing more conservative than a Liberal in power" was a common saying.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Couple of things to remember

In 1806/7 Britain and Spain were at war. 1808 they were allies. As are Britain and Portugal. If Britain is staying in the River Plate region its probably because they had the locals on their side prior to 08 else someone will want it back and frankly defeating Napoleon is more important than Canada with Llamas.

Its not impossible to have a British sponsored independence movement there were some moves towards that overtaken by the OTL BA expedition and the Peninsular war.

From 08 - 14 Portugal and Britain (and Spain) are allies and that allows plenty of time for any fundamental border issues to be sorted out if not then the two UKs (of Great Britain and Ireland and Portugal the Algarve and Brazil) are allied through the 1820's and Britain basically supporting the local indepence movements in latin america anyway, and I would expect the British basically would not give a damn as long they could trade freely and there was not too much banditry.

In 1812 Brasil's army is being commanded Wellington and its in France.

What you are likely to see is a Protectorate/semi independent state around BA maybe developing into a colony further south and more independent states forming out of the old Viceroyalty but with more British and Brasilian support for smaller and weaker states.

I think the tenor of the time is that Britain would not be seeking to conquer 'civilised' states more likely to run their economies, which in any case get strongly linked to the Britain OTL.

 

[yofie]

In 1806/7 Britain and Spain were at war. 1808 they were allies. As are Britain and Portugal. If Britain is staying in the River Plate region its probably because they had the locals on their side prior to 08 else someone will want it back and frankly defeating Napoleon is more important than Canada with Llamas.

Its not impossible to have a British sponsored independence movement there were some moves towards that overtaken by the OTL BA expedition and the Peninsular war.

Remember that when the British invaded the River Plate area in 1806-07, they fought not so much against Spain as against Spanish-speaking local criollos in places like Buenos Aires who preferred independence over continued Spanish control. These locals did not get much direct help from Spain or Spanish troops, and that was what in OTL fired up the independence movements a few years later, led by the likes of Belgrano and San Martin. Therefore, and especially after the Joseph Bonaparte invasion of Spain in 1808 which alienates many Spanish Americans from Spain, we're talking about British-local criollo conflicts rather than strictly British-Spanish conflicts. Britain may support independence movements by Spanish speakers elsewhere in Spanish America, but in the River Plate would accommodate Spanish speakers with something similar to the Quebec Act.

Here's another way of approaching it: the fact that Spain is first pro-France then (except that which is controlled by Joseph Bonaparte) pro-Britain doesn't necessarily mean that Britain would give up whatever it gained in Buenos Aires that time. A thing to add is that it seems to me, once Britain gains Buenos Aires in 1807 and the Spanish viceroy flees to Cordoba (just like he did the previous year after the previous British invasion), the British would chase after him and try to kill or capture him (once the word is out to them). The Maitland Plan calls on the British to advance to Mendoza (in the far west of Argentina) and maybe Chile from Buenos Aires anyway; once the Mendoza-bound troops get word of the need to hunt down the viceroy in Cordoba, they get diverted to Cordoba, and game over for Chile (esp. since the Andes are such a formidable barrier and the higher priority is to secure a buffer zone hundreds of miles out of Buenos Aires). All of this takes place prior to Spain changing hands and the move of the pro-British government in Spain to Seville in late 1808; after that, Britain gives Cordoba back to Spain but keeps Buenos Aires and the Plate region - partly balance of power issues, but for other reasons too. (The Spanish American colonies are now administered out of Seville.) After 1810, the Spanish American independence movements start in a serious way, and Britain takes advantage of the chaos to try to secure more territory in the interior. The interior (including Cordoba) gets slowly absorbed into British hands.

 

[yofie]

Another thing, since British Argentina does not have the French blockades of 1838-40 and 1845-50 in Buenos Aires going on (the latter in conjunction with the British), maybe the French could use at least some of the resources that were used for those blockades OTL for pressuring Brazil to abolish the slave trade instead (in cooperation with the British)? (I'm sure the French, at the same time, would be freer to use these resources in their endeavours in Europe, where they were mainly focused in; right?)

 

[Teejay]

When Britain takes the Rio de la Plata basin in 1807, and eventually most of the rest of that general region, the Spanish people are not pushed out of the Rio de la Plata any more than the French were pushed out of Quebec ca. 1760 or the Dutch pushed out of the Cape in 1795 or 1806. The Spanish people are accommodated by the British in some way or another much like the French in Quebec were. So I see a large Spanish-speaking minority (with a majority in some areas, especially in the west and to a degree in the north) in British Argentina.

I would suspect a small Spanish speaking minority in the Rio De La Plata region. It would be much like what happened in Louisiana after the Americans annexed it. Although the Northwest if it remains a part of British Argentina would still be majority Spanish speaking.

There is going to be a lot more British immigration into Argentina than there was in South Africa. Instead of OTL Argentina receiving predominately Spanish and Italian immigrants, it receives English, Scottish and Irish immigrants.

Given until the 19th century, the Brazilian states of Parana and Rio Grande Du Sul were thinly populated. It could be conceivable that British Argentina annexes those regions and English speaking settlers move in.

 

[yofie]

I would suspect a small Spanish speaking minority in the Rio De La Plata region. It would be much like what happened in Louisiana after the Americans annexed it. Although the Northwest if it remains a part of British Argentina would still be majority Spanish speaking.

There is going to be a lot more British immigration into Argentina than there was in South Africa. Instead of OTL Argentina receiving predominately Spanish and Italian immigrants, it receives English, Scottish and Irish immigrants.

Given until the 19th century, the Brazilian states of Parana and Rio Grande Du Sul were thinly populated. It could be conceivable that British Argentina annexes those regions and English speaking settlers move in.

There were significantly more Spanish speakers in the River Plate region than French speakers in New France or Dutch-speaking whites in the Cape of Good Hope region. Therefore, even with a massive amount of British immigration to that area, there would still be at least some pockets of Spanish speakers left in that area. I don't think it would be quite as devastating for the Spanish speakers as in Louisiana for its French speakers, though much more so than with Quebec. Of course in much of the interior, especially further west and north, there would be many more Spanish speakers left.

In terms of annexing southern Brazil, I'd say that the western half of OTL Rio Grande do Sul (aka Misiones Orientales) would be annexed indeed - just like OTL Uruguay had at least a claim in that same region until 1851. The rest of Rio Grande do Sul as well as neighbouring Santa Catarina and Parana states - they would belong to Brazil no matter what.

 

[yofie]

The problem is that France is utterly non-credible as a defence against the British in this time period (early 19th century). If a war ever erupted, Britain is already immediately present due to having a colony in the area, has absolute naval supremacy to stop French troops getting there, and would also consider an alliance with strategically non-important country in far flung South America to be of secondary important if ever they did fight Britain. Strategically, Brazil's best approach is to try and become friends with the schoolyard bully in the hope that he gets picked on least.

I've just realized that any French influence in Brazil refers mainly to French financial and especially cultural influence (i.e. soft power), rather than to political and military influence. In other words, there would be even more French cultural/financial influence in Brazil (along with other non-Argentine South American countries) than OTL. For example, there would be markedly more French investment in railways in Brazil or Chile, or more French cafe culture in those same countries. Correspondingly, there would be proportionally somewhat less British soft-power influence in those same countries than in real life (though even that could be offset by influence emanating from British Argentina itself). Of course, British Argentina would have no more French influence than Australia, New Zealand, or anglophone South Africa did. (The Afrikaner part of white South Africa came partly from French Huguenot stock in the 1600s.)

 

[invol]

Two thoughts occurred to me:
1. Instead of French alliance with the potential overshadowing that could bring, what about Brazil befriending the USA? I know they aren't that great of a power at this point, but Brazil could possibly see the potential in aligning with the other sizeable newly-independent Atlantic country in the Americas being hassled by the British.

2. If the British have Argentina, what's to stop them from setting up a Quebec type province in OTL Uruguay for the Spanish-speaking population? It's not like they are being given crap-land, so they might go for it.

 

[yofie]

Two thoughts occurred to me:
1. Instead of French alliance with the potential overshadowing that could bring, what about Brazil befriending the USA? I know they aren't that great of a power at this point, but Brazil could possibly see the potential in aligning with the other sizeable newly-independent Atlantic country in the Americas being hassled by the British.

2. If the British have Argentina, what's to stop them from setting up a Quebec type province in OTL Uruguay for the Spanish-speaking population? It's not like they are being given crap-land, so they might go for it.

Perhaps Brazil could befriend the US, but firstly, Brazil is quite far from the US (and distance was a much bigger deal in those days than today), and also, the US was not to become a great power until the early 20th century. And Latin America as a whole did get increasing US influence over the course of the 20th century. In OTL, Brazil did get lots of French cultural influence and some French investment.

Regarding the second point, I'd say that the Quebec-like areas for the Spanish-speaking population would be mainly in the western part of the country, from Cordoba and Mendoza north through to Tucuman. (Salta/Jujuy becomes part of Bolivia.) In fact, many of these places, for much of the 19th century, become small hispanophone republics and perform not unlike the Boer republics in South Africa (only later do they get incorporated into Argentina). Uruguay is in the same general area as the rest of the Rio de la Plata region and went through the initial British invasions at the same time as Buenos Aires. As such, I think Uruguay becomes anglicized. Besides which, Montevideo becomes a major British naval port.

 

[invol]

Perhaps Brazil could befriend the US, but firstly, Brazil is quite far from the US (and distance was a much bigger deal in those days than today), and also, the US was not to become a great power until the early 20th century. And Latin America as a whole did get increasing US influence over the course of the 20th century. In OTL, Brazil did get lots of French cultural influence and some French investment.

But that was kinda my point. If the leaders in Brazil could look long-term and see the potential of an ally in the same boat as them (i.e. former Atlantic-coast colonies that are also against the British), I would think that they would try to foster the alliance/friendship. In this way, the two countries could feed off of each other and grow together. Each one helping the other through times of crisis and war. Coordinated campaigns against the British occupancy in the Americas as well. The cultural influence would probably be mutual as well, as opposed to the one-sidedness of OTL. And could you imagine a joint Monroe Doctrine "enforcement"? Not to mention Manifest destiny, with the Brazil helping to consolidate NA for the USA, and the USA helping to consolidate SA for Brazil. It doesn't seem ASB to me to see the long-term potential of a brother-in-arms.

Regarding the second point, I'd say that the Quebec-like areas for the Spanish-speaking population would be mainly in the western part of the country, from Cordoba and Mendoza north through to Tucuman. (Salta/Jujuy becomes part of Bolivia.) In fact, many of these places, for much of the 19th century, become small hispanophone republics and perform not unlike the Boer republics in South Africa (only later do they get incorporated into Argentina). Uruguay is in the same general area as the rest of the Rio de la Plata region and went through the initial British invasions at the same time as Buenos Aires. As such, I think Uruguay becomes anglicized. Besides which, Montevideo becomes a major British naval port.

You are right. Montevideo could potentially become the southern equivalent of Halifax. Pushing the hispanophones even more west might work as well, as in push them over to the other side of those huge mountains. Out of sight, out of mind in OTL Chile. Perhaps getting them to mine the crap out of the mountains while they are there?

 

[yofie]

But that was kinda my point. If the leaders in Brazil could look long-term and see the potential of an ally in the same boat as them (i.e. former Atlantic-coast colonies that are also against the British), I would think that they would try to foster the alliance/friendship. In this way, the two countries could feed off of each other and grow together. Each one helping the other through times of crisis and war. Coordinated campaigns against the British occupancy in the Americas as well. The cultural influence would probably be mutual as well, as opposed to the one-sidedness of OTL. And could you imagine a joint Monroe Doctrine "enforcement"? Not to mention Manifest destiny, with the Brazil helping to consolidate NA for the USA, and the USA helping to consolidate SA for Brazil. It doesn't seem ASB to me to see the long-term potential of a brother-in-arms.

Problem is, in the 19th century, any such alliance would have been more rhetorical than actual, since the United States was a importer of capital coming from the UK (and Europe in general) and did not generally export capital. The United States would have competed with Brazil for European capital, just like OTL. As I've said before, the US in the 1800s did not project power beyond its immediate region except maybe during the Civil War and at the turn of the 20th century. Brazil also would not have been sufficiently powerful beyond its immediate region.

 

[yofie]

British Argentina and the abolition of slavery in Brazil

If a British Argentina existed, would William Dougal Christie (being the British consul in Brazil) still have exerted pressure on the Brazilians in the late 1850s or early 1860s, at which point they would refuse to yield and they would ultimately cut off diplomatic relations with Great Britain for two years? If not, would that have been a function of how British consuls in non-British countries next to major British colonies have acted (e.g. Brazil or Chile next to British Argentina) vs. how British consuls in non-British countries not near major British colonies have acted (e.g. OTL Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, or Chile)? What I'm asking here, essentially, is whether Christie would have had to consult the governor of the biggest of the British Argentine colonies rather than wing it on his own.

If Christie is going to have to consult one or more of the colonial governors within British Argentina, what effect would that have on the process of ultimately abolishing Brazilian slavery? I think that slavery would be abolished there in due course anyway, because the country was modernizing at any rate in the latter half of the 1800s, and abolitionism was becoming increasingly active. I was thinking that in this case, slavery would be abolished in Brazil a couple of years before it was done OTL in 1888.

I'm sure that the Aberdeen Act of 1845 would still have been passed - right? I think that the British would use increasing pressure in the ensuing years - a few years earlier than OTL due to no conflict with Rosas in Argentina - to root out the Brazilian external slave trade, so that Brazil bans it in 1848 rather than 1850 like OTL. Is that fair to say?

 

[yofie]

If a British Argentina existed, would William Dougal Christie (being the British consul in Brazil) still have exerted pressure on the Brazilians in the late 1850s or early 1860s, at which point they would refuse to yield and they would ultimately cut off diplomatic relations with Great Britain for two years? If not, would that have been a function of how British consuls in non-British countries next to major British colonies have acted (e.g. Brazil or Chile next to British Argentina) vs. how British consuls in non-British countries not near major British colonies have acted (e.g. OTL Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, or Chile)? What I'm asking here, essentially, is whether Christie would have had to consult the governor of the biggest of the British Argentine colonies rather than wing it on his own.

If Christie is going to have to consult one or more of the colonial governors within British Argentina, what effect would that have on the process of ultimately abolishing Brazilian slavery? I think that slavery would be abolished there in due course anyway, because the country was modernizing at any rate in the latter half of the 1800s, and abolitionism was becoming increasingly active. I was thinking that in this case, slavery would be abolished in Brazil a couple of years before it was done OTL in 1888.

I'm sure that the Aberdeen Act of 1845 would still have been passed - right? I think that the British would use increasing pressure in the ensuing years - a few years earlier than OTL due to no conflict with Rosas in Argentina - to root out the Brazilian external slave trade, so that Brazil bans it in 1848 rather than 1850 like OTL. Is that fair to say?

On second thought, it seems that in the British Argentina world, Christie is still the British consul in Rio at the same time as OTL, and hence, still does his deed at the same time as OTL. Because cable communications are non-existent between Brazil and both Argentina and London at that time, Christie still wings it on his own. He may ask the naval base in Montevideo to provide navy ships for when the British seize Rio during the Christie affair, but that's about it for that. In any event, I think slavery does get abolished in Brazil up to 2-3 years before 1888 the way it was OTL, simply because there's no Paraguayan War to delay the process in Brazil (by Dom Pedro II) of debating bills for the sake of gradual abolition.