Since when are guachos not predominantly spanish speaking?
Sorry, I meant the civilized Spanish-speakers were predominantly urban. Gauchos numbered significantly less, formidable as they were.
Since when are guachos not predominantly spanish speaking?
You underestimate how violent that era was. "Those Argentines who would be in a mood to flee" wouldn't flee, they'd fight.
I don't think it is very realistic for Argentina to become anglophone with this late POD. Even with its population boom in the XIX century, the UK doesn't have an unlimited number of emigrants to send. It is already sending people to USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Kenya - how many are going to go to Argentina, especially if the Argentines rebel, which seems very likely?
As I've noted elsewhere, it was only in the last quarter of the 19th century that these areas, cold and dry and distant, began to gain a large population (as in, more than a few thousand). How, using the resources available to the early 19th century, will this be advanced significantly.
That is because, over the course of the 19th century, Francophones were gradually made a minority population throughout most of Canada, through the British government's sponsoring of Anglophone immigration. That is something that simply will not work in Argentina, a place with a larger population.
If Francophones had retained their majority--if there had been more French settlement, say, or maybe a wave of post-conquest French immigration--then you might indeed have had more Francophone areas. Even OTL, much of northern and eastern Ontario remains populated by substantial Francophone minorities, even majorities in some areas in the far north and east, while Francophone minorities persist in much of the west including in the southeast of Winnipeg. A Francophone-majority Canada would have been much more solidly Francophone.
Before all of you go too far with the possibilities of unlimited resentment by the Spanish-Argentines and by Latin Americans against the British, I just realized something that most probably would have lessened at least some of that resentment - local equivalents of the Quebec Act. In other words, once the British take over each area in question in the piecemeal fashion I present early in this thread, they enact and implement legislation that permits the preservation of the Spanish legal system and the Catholic religion already active in those areas, just like the Quebec Act did the same for the French legal system and the Catholic religion in Quebec.
There is a problem with the comparison though - the Canadiens in the 1770s were not thinking about independence and just wanted a fairer deal whereas the Argentines in the 1810s very much were. With the rest of South America fighting for independence at this same time, it seems unlikely they are going to decide that their new British rulers are acceptable, when they could become their own country instead.
Before all of you go too far with the possibilities of unlimited resentment by the Spanish-Argentines and by Latin Americans against the British, I just realized something that most probably would have lessened at least some of that resentment - local equivalents of the Quebec Act. In other words, once the British take over each area in question in the piecemeal fashion I present early in this thread, they enact and implement legislation that permits the preservation of the Spanish legal system and the Catholic religion already active in those areas, just like the Quebec Act did the same for the French legal system and the Catholic religion in Quebec.
Those Argentines who would be in a mood to flee the newly-British areas would most probably flee either to various parts of the frontier, or to Paraguay or Brazil or maybe Bolivia (maybe not to Chile, given the immense efforts to cross the Andes).
Speaking of the frontier, there might eventually be some economic benefits from trade, especially once the grape industry sets shop in Mendoza and the sugar industry in Tucuman - though those are pretty late in the 19th century.
And there may indeed be rebellions, but then again, in Quebec (and also in Ontario, on a non-linguistic/ethnic basis) there was a rebellion that threatened to secede from the British Empire, but guess what happened (esp. in the long term) after those rebellions were quashed by the British imperial government? Canada kept on developing!
Anyway, just why were the Canadiens so much less independence-minded? Because that was before the American and French Revolutions, whereas with the Argentines in question it's afterwards?
The issue with this is that Argentina would a much more rebellious place than Quebec. IOTL, when the British invaded Argentina, the result was uprisings, and I really don’t see how you can avoid similar popular uprisings against the British. The manner of conquest is quite incomparable to your Quebec example - and naturally the rest of Latin America becoming independent will serve as an example for Argentina, unlike your Quebec example.
It has more to do with Argentina being more of a frontier society. The Canadiens largely lived in a single drainage basin, and even Anglophone Canadians were largely restricted to the Great Lakes, Maritimes, and British Columbia (later) until the late nineteenth century. On the other hand, Argentina had a large frontier and rapidly expanded into it, which naturally resulted in it being a more independent-minded society.
This is basically OTL (sans Uruguay). The revolution of the pampas was basically a domination of the British land holdings/railroad/wheat extraction. TTL, you'll see the same thing, except instead of a Spanish Argentine gov't you'll have a British gov't. The emphasis will still be wheat extraction, because that's the going commodity. You'll still see large holdings because that's what will attract the money to invest in the region. Once the investments pay off, you'll still see the profits going to where they went OTL, which is in the hands of the 1%/Britain. If that leads to long term stability, I'm guessing you'll see something analogous to interior/plains/British Columbia Canada. I really don't know if that Canadian region is anything to write home about other than stability/lack of inflationary pressures.Now that I'm hearing what you're saying about increased Spanish-American resentments against increased British rule, here's what I propose:
From 1807 onward, just like what I've proposed before, the British take over Uruguay and, a few years later, also Entre Rios (and Artigas and his followers flee ultimately north to Corrientes and Paraguay), and the British grant Buenos Aires independence anytime from 1807 to 1810, under British suzerainty. Also just like I've proposed before, after much of an effort, the British directly take over Santa Fe roughly in the 1830s and Buenos Aires roughly in the 1840s, perhaps when a nationalistic Rosas threatens to kick the British out, because otherwise the British risk losing all their existing colonies in the River Plate. Meanwhile, also like I've proposed before, the British settle the southern Pampas and ultimately also Patagonia, and much of the Chaco as well.
Now here's where the real change is from what I've thought before: The British just leave Cordoba, Mendoza/San Juan/San Luis, Tucuman/Catamarca/La Rioja/Santiago del Estero, and Salta/Jujuy/Oran alone, because the British wouldn't want to spend a lot of money and other resources to take over areas where, just like Buenos Aires, the local population would be quite rebellious and which, unlike Buenos Aires, have little value as trading entrepots and what not (and not too many agricultural resources beyond Mendoza grapes, Tucuman sugar, and Salta/Tucuman tobacco). In other words, let the folks there have one or more independent republics to this day. (Maybe the British annex the far eastern part of Cordoba province, though - that part being well away from Cordoba city and closer to Santa Fe.) The British also leave Corrientes and Paraguay alone, for that's where the Orientales (Artigas' followers) now have their republic, and there too there aren't many agricultural resources beyond cotton and yerba maté. I mean, none of those above areas are like the interior Boer republics in South Africa, with their diamond and gold deposits!
I hope all of that sounds better than the still-piecemeal but more widespread British takeover of most of OTL Argentina/Uruguay?
While I'm thinking about South Africa, it's not like there's a large native population for the white settlers to band together over. Any labor the British settlers would need would either be forced out of the Spanish population (see the black peasantry of South Africa) or imported (Indian or Chinese laborers given the era) both of which would probably be limited to an underclass status to keep a reserve pool of labor.
Not conditions for prosperity
This is basically OTL (sans Uruguay). The revolution of the pampas was basically a domination of the British land holdings/railroad/wheat extraction. TTL, you'll see the same thing, except instead of a Spanish Argentine gov't you'll have a British gov't. The emphasis will still be wheat extraction, because that's the going commodity. You'll still see large holdings because that's what will attract the money to invest in the region. Once the investments pay off, you'll still see the profits going to where they went OTL, which is in the hands of the 1%/Britain. If that leads to long term stability, I'm guessing you'll see something analogous to interior/plains/British Columbia Canada. I really don't know if that Canadian region is anything to write home about other than stability/lack of inflationary pressures.
What will be different is that you'll have a British colony/gov't which be looking to play Buenos Aires off against the interior. Or, if we look at the early days, you'll butterfly San Martin's base of operation to assist in liberating Chile and Peru. With this TTL of Britain looking to establish a presence, they are in a position to influence happenings in the region. OTL, they saw independence movements as a way to penetrate south America. Here, with a boots on the ground presence, they'll want stability, and may see continued Spanish colonial presence as a positive and prop up the Spanish in Royalist strongholds. Thus you could see a Royalist Peru/Chile and a buffer independent interior Argentina, perhaps Bolivia, and an isolated Buenos Aires. British interests could penetrate the interior, who would have to toe the line, as Britain would be a backer against Peru looking to revanche.
We're still lacking the why (they got the same thing OTL, without the mess), but if hand wavium Britain wants to put the effort in, there's plenty of sparsely populated area to conquer and create a presence. Attempting to subjugate Buenos Aires is a fools errand, but BA can be isolated. It'll take a lot of effort, but they can do it if the hand wavium wand sprinkles a dose of wanting to do it.
As I see it the big deal is not the language - its the political culture. If argentina inherited after independence a strong sense of pairlementary democracy where the military taking over is unthinkable thats a huge benefit. If it gets independence as a dominion ther is a good chance for that.
if I remember my history, subjugating the Boer republics wasn't all that easy. There were gold, diamonds, and hegemony in a huge chunk of southern Africa at stake, which made the effort worthwhile. As I said, IF the will is there, Britain can do it, but there's the whole question of why. We've already stretched it pretty thin as to why Britain is going through all this effort to establish a settler colony. It's really stretching it to have them willingly take on a hornets nest.Would subjugating Buenos Aires really be that much harder than subjugating the Boer republics
Yes, it´s a lot more difficult, the colony don´t depend of the commerce to the level the Cape colony was, and it´s well feed from the inland farms and well fortified against English Pirates Attack, there is a reason that Both tries to conquer Buenos Aires By the British (1806 and 1807) were a failure, even if the Anglo historiography tend to gloss over this.Would subjugating Buenos Aires really be that much harder than subjugating the Boer republics?
No, not Really Peru was Liberated in the same part from Bolivar efforts as from Chileans Efforts, so Peru will be declared independent.So Peru and/or Chile, in this case, would perhaps remain a part of the Spanish Empire until easily the 1820s or 1830s, or even just about as long as Cuba or Puerto Rico?
As I see it the big deal is not the language - its the political culture. If argentina inherited after independence a strong sense of pairlementary democracy where the military taking over is unthinkable thats a huge benefit. If it gets independence as a dominion ther is a good chance for that.
That is not a guarantee of anything. South Africa, to name one nearby and actually relevant example, ended up taking quite a nasty detour away from parliamentary democracy.
if I remember my history, subjugating the Boer republics wasn't all that easy. There were gold, diamonds, and hegemony in a huge chunk of southern Africa at stake, which made the effort worthwhile. As I said, IF the will is there, Britain can do it, but there's the whole question of why. We've already stretched it pretty thin as to why Britain is going through all this effort to establish a settler colony. It's really stretching it to have them willingly take on a hornets nest.
In your post of #49, you advocated taking the sparsely populated regions, leaving areas with significant Spanish presence to the Spaniards, including Buenos Aires, precisely because it was too much effort to conquer them.
Yes, it´s a lot more difficult, the colony don´t depend of the commerce to the level the Cape colony was, and it´s well feed from the inland farms and well fortified against English Pirates Attack, there is a reason that Both tries to conquer Buenos Aires By the British (1806 and 1807) were a failure, even if the Anglo historiography tend to gloss over this.
I know what a say and Yes I confuse both.I think Lenwe, that you're confusing the Cape Colony (taken over by the British in 1806 and formally in 1814) with the Boer republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State (taken over by the British in the early 1900s with great effort - the second Boer War).
Anyway, just why were the Canadiens so much less independence-minded? Because that was before the American and French Revolutions, whereas with the Argentines in question it's afterwards?
No, not Really Peru was Liberated in the same part from Bolivar efforts as from Chileans Efforts, so Peru will be declared independent.
Chile will also declared Independence, even without Buenos Aires, the Chilean Cause have a lot of Support in Mendoza and other "free" cities in Argentina.
You could See a more important Role in the Jose Miguel Carrera Actions, that was trying to ensure USA support in the Chilean, and America in general, Independence Movement. The history will be different, But most of L.A will end independent or close enough