various PODs for a British River Plate/Argentina

There's been a fair about of childish snark going on, which I'd expect on somewhere like reddit, but I'd hope on a site like this people are thoughtful enough to discuss things sensibly. Instead people are misquoting, jumping to other time periods, or making otherwise silly comparisons.

Let us go back to the original argument: it was that the British political institutions and British political culture of British settler colonies help with stability and governance. Now let's look at the anodyne comparisons:

The three Kingdoms, 1639-51. A century before the time period we're talking about, and notably before the constitutional setup we are talking about developed in 1689.

The American colonies, 1775-83. This is the best of a bad bunch of comparisons, but still doesn't work. They had the British culture, but not the British institutions. That was the whole reason the war happened: they did not have responsible government and revolted because of it. Of course, if River Plate in this scenario doesn't get given substantial autonomy by the Brits, then there will be a revolt here, but no-one argued otherwise.

Canada, 1837-38. The rebellion in Upper Canada was so pathetic it is barely a historical note. The rebellion in Lower Canada was obviously a place of French culture and was still very small. In fact, this is a good example of how revolutionary plans don't get traction with the wider public in a place where British political norms and institutions have given them a stake in governance.

India, 1857-58. To claim that 19th century India had British political culture in the broader population is so obviously incorrect I'm not even going to address this one.

USA, 1861-1865. A war that occurred in a system that had thrown out British political institutions, notably the parliamentary angle, over the worry about one side capturing an over-mighty presidency and the patronage network that went with it.

South Africa/Boer states, 1880-81, 1899-02. This was a war between a British colony and two foreign states with their own instiutions that were never under British rule.

I'm happy to have a grown-up discussion about this, but pithy one-line putdowns that stereotype the other side don't constitute that. Nor do arguments akin to "smoking can't be less healthy to non-smoking: my nan smoked and lived to 95!"
 
USA, 1861-1865. A war that occurred in a system that had thrown out British political institutions, notably the parliamentary angle, over the worry about one side capturing an over-mighty presidency and the patronage network that went with it.

I'm not really quibbling here, but this is an extremely pro-southern view of the Civil War. I don't want to derail the thread to get into this, but.

Anyway. I'm still really skeptical about a 1760s invasion. For one, it assumes Britain continues the war longer than OTL, but instead of seizing New Orleans, or trying to take Santo Domingo, or launching another assault on New Grenada, seizes Argentina. It then assumes Britain succeeds in this conquest, perhaps relying on Portuguese support. (Okay, let's assume this). It then assumes Britain keeps it in the peace treaty, and not somewhere more valuable like Cuba. Finally, it assumes that Britain doesn't lose it again in the American Revolution.

This seems like a lot of ifs.
 
I'm not really quibbling here, but this is an extremely pro-southern view of the Civil War. I don't want to derail the thread to get into this, but.

Anyway. I'm still really skeptical about a 1760s invasion. For one, it assumes Britain continues the war longer than OTL, but instead of seizing New Orleans, or trying to take Santo Domingo, or launching another assault on New Grenada, seizes Argentina. It then assumes Britain succeeds in this conquest, perhaps relying on Portuguese support. (Okay, let's assume this). It then assumes Britain keeps it in the peace treaty, and not somewhere more valuable like Cuba. Finally, it assumes that Britain doesn't lose it again in the American Revolution.

This seems like a lot of ifs.

Again, not derailing the thread over it, but I don't take a pro-Southern view at all. The South had rigged the system to get complete domination over the presidency through southerners having their votes be worth something like 1.5 of a northern vote. When demographics changed to overcome that massive advantage, they went to war. Part of the reason they feared a republican president so much is because they knew how much power they had when they controlled the presidency.

On topic, you're correct that the British could well have chosen to focus on other targets. Though the New Grenada attempt was far more mad than a River Plate one would be, that didn't stop them from trying it in our timeline. However, that failure might put them off again. Santo Domingo would likely be a bigger priority. As would New Orleans, although that would probably be from an overland attack by colonial troops, so probably doesn't compete for resources.

In terms of the peace table, I actually think it's quite likely for them to keep it, as the British had greater preference for potential settler territories than the Bourbon powers, who preferred spice islands. Spain getting Cuba back would be a huge red line for them, and would likely trade away almost every other loss to keep it.

As for the American Revolution, ignoring any butterflies that stop it happening, I think your arguments about other focuses apply here in reverse. France would far rather get Jamaica or Santo Domingo than the River Plate.
 
Presumably 1 through 8 were Spanish settled by the 1760s? What about 9 and 11?

Both Córdoba and Salta were more populated than Buenos Aires in 1760. You see, Spanish colonization of the Southern part of South America was a bit odd: the Spaniards first occupied Panama, then Peru and western Bolivia, then Chile and Northern Argentina (Salta), and then, from Chile, presnt day Western Argentina (what is now Mendoza and San Juan).

The Spanish tried to colonize the River Plate Bassin directly from the Atlantic, and they founded Buenos Aires in 1536. But colonization failed, the city was abandoned in 1540/1541, survivors relocated to Paraguay, and, from there, they founded again the city in 1580. But for all the period from 1580 to 1776, Buenos Aires was poorer and less populated than present day western and northwestern Argentina.
 
Last edited:
recap: British colony vs. British protectorate vs. earlier independence

Just to recap, it seems to me that if the POD is after 1776 (the formation of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, with Buenos Aires as its capital), the Rio de la Plata area would more likely than not have become a British protectorate or (certainly by 1806-07) an independent country 5-10 years before OTL or perhaps a Hong Kong-like trading colony in Buenos Aires and/or the Uruguayan coast? And if the POD were before 1776, that area would have more likely become a substantial, Canada-style British colony? (Full disclosure: I am Canadian - indeed, in Montreal.)
 
range of possibilities for British Argentina/Uruguay

Here are some possibilities for the outcome of a British win in Buenos Aires in 1807:

Maximalist - in which most of OTL Argentina plus OTL Uruguay (including Misiones Orientales right to the north) becomes British, and the resulting British dominion and eventually country is also called Argentina. The Pampas (including Buenos Aires) and Uruguay become British right away - with Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego automatically following down the road. Cordoba and especially the Cuyo and Tucuman regions are independent republics under British protection/suzerainty at first, but eventually get incorporated into Argentina (cf. the Boer republics in South Africa).

Middle of the road - The British take over just the Pampas and Uruguay, plus eventually Patagonia etc. - with all of that being one British dominion and eventually country called Argentina. Perhaps Buenos Aires and elsewhere in the Pampas is at first an independent republic (or a group of them) but then get incorporated into the British dominion/country (again, cf. the Boer republics).

Minimalist - Uruguay (but just that) could have become a British colony. After all, OTL, Montevideo was taken over by the Brits from February to September 1807 and, at least in Montevideo and at other points along the Banda Oriental coast, the Spanish/local opposition to the Brits was not as ferocious as in the city of Buenos Aires. At the same time, Buenos Aires and the rest of that side of the Rio de la Plata could become independent under a British protectorate, and proceed to develop more or less like in real life. Much like how, after the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico becomes a permanent US possession while Cuba is soon thereafter independent under US protection. In other words, I see Uruguay in 1807 (as opposed to the Rio de la Plata and beyond, as a whole, in that time frame - which I've always thought of) as possibly being a more proper analogy to Quebec in 1759 or the Cape Colony in 1795 and 1806. Certainly in population size, the Banda Oriental (rather than that plus Buenos Aires plus elsewhere in the greater River Plate) was more equal to Quebec or the Cape. Besides which, it was the British who, in real life, established Uruguay as an independent country in 1828 after the Cisplatine War. So, if not British Argentina as a whole (except if the start date is the 1700s), then at least British Uruguay! So what if it's a much smaller area of pink, but even that's something - a much bigger population and more European-like environment than, say, Guyana (the real world's only English-speaking country in South America).

Other possibilities (which I'm not as interested in): Super-maximalist - much more of South America than just Argentina/Uruguay is taken over formally by the British; super-minimalist - either nothing at all gets taken over by the British in the long term, or the British hold on only to Montevideo and/or Buenos Aires, and maybe one or two other locations along the Rio de la Plata.

Just wondering: Which of all the above possibilities sound(s) the best to you?

I'm also wondering: If John Whitelocke (or some more competent commanding officer) had pulled off a victory in Buenos Aires in early July 1807, would the fierce opposition to the British among the porteños have been somewhat blunted, in much the same way that anti-British opposition in Montevideo among its locals was somewhat blunted earlier in 1807 after the British victory there under Samuel Auchmuty? (Whitelocke was a significantly better administrator than commanding officer, and Auchmuty was quite a good officer and administrator.) Or would it have been more difficult to do so in Buenos Aires, given its differences with Montevideo?
 
Or would it have been more difficult to do so in Buenos Aires, given its differences with Montevideo?

Well, I'll note that in OTL, capturing New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Savannah didn't end the American Revolution. So I don't think the capital is enough.
 
Well, I'll note that in OTL, capturing New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Savannah didn't end the American Revolution. So I don't think the capital is enough.

The thirteen colonies were a far bigger geographic area, however, meaning the Americans could always get supplies by sea in coastal areas between the British controlled patches. The Platineans (to coin a term) would be relying on support from a long distance over land via Lima.

But yes, I think a small statelet of Montevideo and Buenos Aires will face the odd attacks from the hinterland, which will need to be subjugated at some point. I think the Cape Colony is a good example here.
 
from 1807: independence or British colony for Buenos Aires?

Here's a key question with regard to the immediate outcome of British success in 1807: Would Buenos Aires have gotten independence either in 1807 or certainly by 1810 with British help (in which case the Banda Oriental might - but just might - split off and become a separate British colony, due to smaller population, greater British ease of control of Montevideo, and especially Montevideo's rivalry with BA), or would Buenos Aires (and thus the River Plate as a whole) have been reduced to a British colony (in which case there's hope for British Argentina as a whole)?

A rather important thing to consider is that the new British government that came to power in March-April 1807 was interested even more in just economic power than military/political power for South America, though perhaps it could have changed its mind with a capture of Buenos Aires.
 
Top