How strong were the south American countries ?

TFSmith121

Banned
1900? Not well...

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 ?

1900? Not well... Brazil had 17 million people (3 million fewer than Spain) and Argentina had about 5.8 million (about the same as Portugal). Industrialization would have been similar, or lower. Wealth in Argentina and Brazil came from agriculture, largely for export; not from manufacturing.

By comparison, the US had 76 million people and the US share of world manufacturing output in 1900 was 23.6 percent, largest in the world (the UK was at 18.5 percent, Germany at 13.2, Russia at 8.8, and France at 6.8 - figures are from Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).

Argentina and Brazil were both well into the period of national consolidation, and had fought their major conflicts over spheres of influence, the last being the war of the Triple Alliance against Paraguay.

Both were largely focused on agriculture and extractive economies, and both were (and are) largely limited to the coastal and (temperate) river basins. Neither have as much arable land, even for cash crops, as one would expect simply by looking at a map. Industrialization was very limited, as others have said, and even large-scale export of (for example) Argentine beef would require refrigeration.

Both were certainly the major powers in South America generally and in Atlantic-focused South America specifically, but neither was capable of deploying and sustaining military power of significance outside of their borderlands.

On the Pacific side, Chile and Peru had already fought it out for regional dominance in the War of the Pacific, and Chile won, but Chile's economy was based largely on extractive resources (phosphates, moving into copper) and Peru's was almost entirely agricultural. Industrialization was even more limited than in Argentina and Brazil.

Basically, the issue for South America (as it is/was for Australia or South Africa, for example) is that it is a long way from the economic nexus of the western world's economy, which was the North Atlantic. Set aside everything else; the southern hemisphere was just too far away, and the local populations just too small, to compete with industry in western Europe or North America (notably the US and UK/Germany, obviously).

Best,
 
Last edited:
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.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The US also had markets, both internal and external,

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,
 
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,

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.
 
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.
 
I think the best way to put it would be paper tigers; when the resource of the week was going for lots of money then the countries in turn were financially healthy. See booms in cattle, rubber, copper, and guano as examples. But when the prices stopped being sky high....well, you can imagine.

South America's biggest weakness is IMO demographic. Most of its lands were low priority settler states with the few regions that had large populations being ruined demographically by Spanish exploitation economics for way too long. The best way(IMO) to allow for a South American state to be considered strong and wealthy relative to other world powers in the 19th and 20th century would be to avoid the demographic collapse of the Andes region because of Spanish exploitation. This provides a large and populated market that can purchase manufactured goods with its large amount of gold and other natural resources, that will in turn increase intercontinental trade between the North Atlantic and the Southwestern Pacific that will make the South Atlantic a more competitive economic region.

tl;dr: The Spanish ruined South America's chances through their actions
 
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.
 
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.

Well, he was speaking about borders, not political alignment. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that the current Bolivia didn't want anything to do with neither Buenos Aires nor Lima during the independence wars. Apparently, sacking and looting doesn't win hearts and minds.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Mexico and Peru

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.

Mexico had a population of 12 million in 1900, which was one-sixth that of the US in the same year, and in territory without control of a major river - so not quite the same as the Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri basins. Mexico is (generally) much more arid than the US, and being at the south end (essentially) of the Colorado and Rio Grande watersheds means the upstream water users have first rights.

Peru had a population of 3.7 million in 1900, about the same as Switzerland the same year; unfortunately for the Peruvians, whereas the Alps are essentially ramparts for Switzerland, the Andes are a wall running through Peru.

If one goes back to 1840, pre-Mexican Cession, the US had 17 million people; no one really knows how many people lived in Mexico, because the country was so unstable even after independence in the 1820s that there was not an official census until the end of the century; in 1900, Mexico's population was less than 14 million. Estimates (for 1808-1810, for example) range from 5.5 (McCaa) to 6.1 (Navarro y Noriega) to 6.5 (Humboldt); for 1840, INEGI (Mexican government) gives 8 million, although even that may be high; McCaa suggests it was roughly 7.6 million.

Bottom line, these were countries that were land-rich (although not rich in arable land) but poor in both population and resources in comparison to (for example) the US.

Neither is well suited to be a regional power; Mexico, for example, historically failed trying to exert influence over Central America, while Peru lost in the battle over dominance on the Pacific coast of South America to Chile.

Best,
 
Top