Had Argentina Been Anglophone, Would It Have Been More Prosperous & Populous Today? (ctd.)

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by dovibear, Nov 22, 2018.

Loading...
  1. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Sorry, I meant the civilized Spanish-speakers were predominantly urban. Gauchos numbered significantly less, formidable as they were.
     
  2. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Or, some would flee and some would fight.
     
  3. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    There might be slightly more emigrants from the UK than IOTL, and a few of those who IOTL went to all those other countries but especially to the USA (where the biggest amount of these emigrants went) emigrate to Argentina instead.
     
  4. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Indeed, British Patagonia does develop in a big way starting from only in the last third of the 19th century (somewhat sooner "Conquest of the Desert" than OTL). But the southern Pampas, closer to the River Plate and not as cold or dry, could be developed a little bit earlier than that. And some pockets in and around the River Plate - those not occupied by the existing European inhabitants - could be developed even earlier still.

    The British government could sponsor Anglo immigration to some pockets of the River Plate, particularly those areas like Uruguay and Entre Rios that become continuous British colonies very early on, as I describe in the beginning of this thread. Also to the southern Pampas and - from the 1840s or so when Buenos Aires/Santa Fe is finally taken over by Britain - in those latter areas as well. It would be a somewhat larger-scale version of the 1820 Emigrants to South Africa. Those areas of Argentina - with the possible exception of Buenos Aires - have a smaller existing non-British European population than deep in the interior.

    Under those conditions, even a British sponsorship of Anglo immigration wouldn't make Argentina majority Anglo (unlike in Canada), but it would set the stage for more waves of immigration from Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Holland, etc. as well as the UK that would assimilate into English and thereby build up the Anglo share in the Argentine population even more, enough to forestall an Eastern Townships-style scenario in many if not all Anglo-settled rural areas. (By contrast, Quebec - including the Eastern Townships - didn't attract such northern Continental European immigration in the same way. Ontario and the Prairies got way more such migration.)

    The way I see it, the next massive wave of Spanish (plus Italian) migration to a British Argentina after 1807 is around the turn of the 20th century - way after the first big waves of post-1807 British/Irish immigration. (Because emigrants from Spain prefer Spanish-speaking areas.) Thus, the Spanish-speaking population of Argentina grows through most of the 19th century mainly by natural increase and not also immigration from Spain (and Italy).
     
  5. funnyhat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    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.
     
    Dan1988 and Lenwe like this.
  6. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    There might be some Anglophiles among the existing Argentine population - whether hard-core Anglophiles or those who become Anglophile as they warm up to British rule. Even IOTL, look at figures like Bernardino Rivadavia (who wanted to make Argentina - or at least Buenos Aires - into something resembling England or France) or Domingo Sarmiento (a great admirer of the American school system). Those who don't accept British rule - they'll flee or fight or both. Besides which, even those Argentines who aren't Anglophiles might accept an independence under British suzerainty (as would probably be the case in Buenos Aires in the 1810s-1840s) more than a British colonial situation.

    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?
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
    John I of Brazil likes this.
  7. Indicus Stuff

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Location:
    Torontum, Ontarium Minor, Imperium Romanum
    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.

    As early as 1806, there was an Argentine revolt which overthrew the ruling viceroy and replaced the ruling viceroy with the popular general Santiago de Liniers.

    I really, really doubt it. The Argentines would just rebel and fight for Argentina becoming an independent state like Paraguay or Bolivia.

    For most of the nineteenth century, Buenos Aires and the coast would benefit, but beyond it, I think little benefit of British trade would travel to Argentina. In fact, British trade with Latin America would see a net decrease, because many nations would refuse to trade with occupiers of their fellow Spanish Americans.

    Those were small rebellions - the Upper Canada rebellion in particular was little more than rioting over the oligarchical control of the Family Compact. In contrast, Argentina had numerous civil wars IOTL, largely over the federalist-centralist divide between Buenos Aires and the provinces. ITTL, that coastal-interior divide would be accentuated due to Buenos Aires benefiting from trade and the provinces not benefiting nearly as much, and this divide would naturally cause rebellions.

    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.
     
    Dan1988, Soverihn and Lenwe like this.
  8. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Even in Quebec, the French did put up a good fight against the British both just before and just after the British victory at the Plains of Abraham in 1759, as I already mentioned in this thread. (And in earlier English/British invasions of Quebec City, the French were victorious.)

    In South Africa, while the Dutch in Cape Town didn't resist so much during the British captures of Cape Town in 1795 and 1806, the Dutch/Afrikaners/Boers heavily resisted British rule thereafter and, all along, they had independence-from-Holland movements not unlike in Spanish America. The Afrikaners in the Cape area fled to the South African interior more than they actively fought the British, though during the Boer Wars late in the 19th century the Afrikaners did actively fight the British.

    Back to Argentina: The urge for the people of Buenos Aires (city and province) to be independent, and following the examples in the rest of Latin America, finds expression in it being a British protectorate, aka independent under British suzerainty, for a number of decades. There probably wouldn't be as much of such an urge in Montevideo and the Banda Oriental (smaller and less inhabited than Buenos Aires, and IOTL successfully captured by the British early in 1807), especially when Jose Gervasio Artigas and his followers flee increasing British rule. (IOTL, Artigas and his Orientales temporarily walked away from Uruguay rather than submit to Spanish or Portuguese rule.) Let's say, then, that Uruguay would be more or less like Quebec or the Cape, and Buenos Aires like the Boer republics or maybe even Ireland.

    Canada, too, has had a frontier - in fact, an immense frontier of boreal forests, tundra, and frozen wastelands!

    But you're saying that in terms of habitable space, in Canada one was largely limited to the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes basin and the Maritimes (and, later on, British Columbia and the Prairies), while Argentina had more than just the Rio de la Plata/Parana/Uruguay basin to expand to? Or was it more of a matter of distance from Old Europe?
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
    John I of Brazil and Lenwe like this.
  9. Threadmarks: possible scaled-down British takeover of River Plate area

    dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    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?
     
    John I of Brazil likes this.
  10. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    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.
     
    Dan1988, Lenwe and Soverihn like this.
  11. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    Labour could be drawn out of the gauchos (IOTL gauchos did become agricultural labourers starting later in the 19th century) as well as out of the mestizo and Indian elements of the Spanish-speaking, non-British Argentine population. Not so much out of the urban Spanish-speaking population or the hacienda owners or what not. To say otherwise is like saying that the Anglos in South Africa would draw labour not just out of the black population but also out of the Afrikaner population, and keep the latter as impoverished as the black South Africans (though it is true that for a long time the Boers on the whole weren't quite as prosperous as the Anglo whites).

    There may indeed be large land holdings in a number of areas of Buenos Aires province (ITTL, I'm excluding the OTL southern portion as that's part of a separate, Anglo-founded province in the southern Pampas which could be called Victoria), especially where the Spanish Argentines already have settled the land; but there may very well be a lot more family farms in many other areas of ATL Buenos Aires province than IOTL, especially those not settled before any British takeover. This is at least partly due to differences in cultural heritage, with the Spanish heritage favouring the latifundia/minifundia system and the British heritage favouring family farms à la Homestead Act. In the areas with large landholdings, the profits would end up in the 1% or the UK, but in the areas with family farms the profits would go directly to the farms and thereby fund economic development. In places like Santa Fe province, Entre Rios, Uruguay, and Victoria, there would surely be much more of an emphasis on family farms than on large holdings, except of course in the dryer areas that support ranches much more than family farms. Remember that IOTL, large areas of Santa Fe and Entre Rios consisted of family farms, bucking the trend of OTL Argentina!

    In the Canadian Prairies, there was much emphasis on family farms, which was one of the key differences from the OTL Pampas.

    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?

    Would subjugating Buenos Aires really be that much harder than subjugating the Boer republics?
     
  12. Tibi088 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    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.
     
    Teiresias and dovibear like this.
  13. rfmcdonald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    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.
     
    Dan1988, Soverihn, Ciniad and 3 others like this.
  14. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    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.
     
    Dan1988, Lenwe and John I of Brazil like this.
  15. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    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.
     
  16. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    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
     
    Dorozhand, Dan1988, Soverihn and 2 others like this.
  17. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    I forgot to say in post #49 and in earlier posts that those areas that end up British eventually get "responsible government" the way that the British colonies in the future "white dominions" elsewhere, like Canada and Australia, got. And I also forgot to say in post #49, though I said it much earlier in this thread, that those same areas federate, with that federation becoming a "white dominion" as well. If the "responsible government" experience and the parliamentary democracy in the Argentine Confederation (the formal name of the federation for a long time) go well, then parliamentary democracy might well be a guarantee, as Argentina doesn't have the race problems of South Africa because Argentina has a white majority.

    There is indeed justification for the British to take over the sparsely-populated areas (including Uruguay) for the sake of settling British people, what with fewer gauchos and other potential rebels per square mile/kilometre and also to control Montevideo/Uruguay for the sake of a naval base (thereby fulfilling one of the two main goals of the British in South America, namely to set up naval bases in the southwest Atlantic). Ca. 1807-10, there isn't much justification for the British to keep Buenos Aires as an outright British colony, as the main British goal there is to set up trading posts. This could be achieved by making Buenos Aires (the province as a whole, not just the city; excluding OTL southern Buenos Aires province) instead a protectorate or a residency or an independent republic under British suzerainty, any of these ways being midway between full British colonial status and full independence.

    By the late 1830s and 1840s, circumstances change, as the South American independence movement of the 1810s-1820s has now died out, more and more British immigrants move to the whole area (including Buenos Aires), and a nationalistic leader along the lines of Rosas threatens to kick the British out of the whole area. Fulfilling long-standing British ideals for the region to take over that city (as control of it is key to long-term control of the whole region), Buenos Aires then is conquered by the British, Rosas is ousted (IOTL, a combined British-French force in the 1840s played a key role in Rosas eventually stepping down), and it becomes a full-fledged British colony. Family farms for wheat and cattle (which become the economic mainstays and provide yet another justification for a takeover) take over those areas in Buenos Aires province (again, excluding OTL southern Buenos Aires province, which ITTL is its own Anglo province) not already taken over by ranches, and British immigrants also move to the city of Buenos Aires and work in business, trade, etc.

    By contrast, interior regions like Cordoba, Mendoza, Tucuman, and Salta - at least many of which are as rebellious as Buenos Aires - don't have as many economic resources (except Mendoza grapes, Tucuman sugarcane, and Salta/Tucuman tobacco) for the British to justify attempts to conquer those place establish settler colonies. Not to mention that the rural areas in those places don't have as much available land for new farming settlements as in the River Plate area. The only real justification(s) to take over those regions - and that would be no earlier than the 1860s - would be to exploit the grapes, sugarcane, and/or tobacco (and link them by railroad to Buenos Aires), as well as British immigrants already trickling in to many of those areas.

    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).
     
  18. Lenwe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Santiago
    I know what a say and Yes I confuse both.

    My point was that If you see the Taking over of the Cape Colony and the Two attempts to invasion of the River plate you could easily draw parallelism between the two, In Fact the English tried with more forces to take over the River Plate than the men they needed to take over the cape Colony.

    If they could take over Buenos Aires we could assume a proportional more strong resistance from the Interior of Argentina to a Conquest, taking into account the Boers Republics resistance to the Same
     
  19. funnyhat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    I think because their population was small (about 90 000 in the 1770s) and they felt they needed protection from the Americans.
     
  20. dovibear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal
    And so, potentially, Carrera is a much more important Chilean independence hero ITTL than IOTL and much more important than O'Higgins?!
     
    Lenwe likes this.
Loading...