Isn't Potosi in Bolivia?
And it's a silver mine. You don't get industrialization with resource exploitation economies
Isn't Potosi in Bolivia?
How did the nations of south and Latin America compare to the nations of Europe when it came to population, industrial development, and general power in military terms in around the turn of the nineteenth century? Could Brazil or Argentina for instance ever become powerful enough to challenge the U.S for control of the new world. I know they were developing in the time period, but at what level ?And what screwed their chances of becoming modern industrial nations ?
And it's a silver mine. You don't get industrialization with resource exploitation economies
Part of what helped the USA become a world power and industrialize was gold, coal, and oil. Resource exploitation economies can lead to industrialization. Starting with the Carolina Gold Rush, then the Georgia Gold Rush, on to the California Gold Rush and the Yukon then the North Slope of Alaska. Of course there was coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, Silver in Nevada, copper in Montana, iron in Michigan's upper peninsula. Again with oil you start in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, then Texas, then again end with Alaska.
Very true I was wrong that it's in Bolivia (which was once called Upper Peru and really the only reason Bolivia is NOT part of Peru is the large Native American population, historically based on pre-existing Spanish boundaries Peru really should have had Bolivia and thereby Potosi, though we can argue the concept of uti possidetis juris in international law if you want).
The gold rushs, and other precious metals were fundamental to being the catalyst for financing the northeast's rise in industrialization. The first oil exporting country was the USA, just because the oil-exporting nations of OPEC have been slower at diversifying and industrializing doesn't mean that the USA was the exception instead of the rule.
The US also had markets, both internal and external, and with - in comparison - much better transportation.
In 1860, for example, the US and UK alone created an economy of some 60 million people with (in a realtive sense) easy internal communications at each end of the sea lanes, which themselves were (although not easy) certainly faster than from London to Buenos Aires or New Orleans to Rio.
The US also had a four decade head start on internal stability and the creation of national institutions over the South Americans.
Best,
Based on preexisting Spanish borders, Bolivia should have been part of Argentina and Bolivar did offer that to the government of Buenos Aires, who declined and, thus, Bolivia had a referendum and chose independence.Part of what helped the USA become a world power and industrialize was gold, coal, and oil. Resource exploitation economies can lead to industrialization. Starting with the Carolina Gold Rush, then the Georgia Gold Rush, on to the California Gold Rush and the Yukon then the North Slope of Alaska. Of course there was coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, Silver in Nevada, copper in Montana, iron in Michigan's upper peninsula. Again with oil you start in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, then Texas, then again end with Alaska.
Very true I was wrong that it's in Bolivia (which was once called Upper Peru and really the only reason Bolivia is NOT part of Peru is the large Native American population, historically based on pre-existing Spanish boundaries Peru really should have had Bolivia and thereby Potosi, though we can argue the concept of uti possidetis juris in international law if you want).
The gold rushs, and other precious metals were fundamental to being the catalyst for financing the northeast's rise in industrialization. The first oil exporting country was the USA, just because the oil-exporting nations of OPEC have been slower at diversifying and industrializing doesn't mean that the USA was the exception instead of the rule.
Based on preexisting Spanish borders, Bolivia should have been part of Argentina and Bolivar did offer that to the government of Buenos Aires, who declined and, thus, Bolivia had a referendum and chose independence.
You have coal, you have iron relatively nearby, you have a large domestic market - you have the conditions for wealthy individuals to invest in a domestic industry. Those conditions simply didn't exist by the 1900s in Argentina or Brazil. Even when Argentina started to industrialize in the 1930s, that was because the military created demand and either lobbied for it, or was in power and industrialized.
That's...not exactly a good representation of the Bolivia situation. Spain's shift of Bolivia/Alto Peru to the Viceroyalty of La Plata was an administrative decision because it was cheaper and faster to send goods downstream to Buenos Aires than it was via shipping them across the mountains to Callao then across Panama and then to a port in the Spanish Main. This is all good and relevant when accounting for fattening the pockets of Spanish colonial overlords, not the local economy or elite of the region which was overwhelmingly aligned towards Peru and identified with Peru. It's why Peru and Bolivia attempted to unify post-independence and even today is still not an entirely dead idea.
And the reason the Trans-continental railroad was built in the first place was- to keep California and the gold (and silver and anything else) tied strongly to the Union and not have a repeat of the US Civil War (which people don't realize the RR was begun in the very middle of the US Civil War, 1863). If gold had not just been found in California it is possible the Mexican War repercussions may not have been so extensive, the US Navy may have been happy with San Francisco and not pressured that strange diagonal that resulted in San Diego being USA, which butterflies away possibly the southern route of a transcontinental railroad that the USA thought would need the Gadsen Purchase which leaves that Mexican to this day.
Population and markets... Mexico, especially pre-1848 has both, and on paper should have been the power that become something not the USA. Brazil has population and markets. Argentina to a lesser degree.
You have something there when you mention stability and longevity of stability. I grant you that concession.