WI Argentina: a nation divided?

[Admiral Brown]

Most of you probably don’t know this, but between 1852 and 1859 Argentina experienced its own version of the Southern Secession: in 1852, the province of Buenos Aires seceded from the Argentinian Confederation and formed an independent state, which lasted till 1859. Both states had their own capitals, their own foreign representatives abroad and their own constitutions. (The Argentinian Confederation passed its constitution in 1853, and the State of Buenos Aires voted its own in 1854).

Of course, the situation between both “states” was very tense. The confederation didn’t accept the secession of Buenos Aires, and established in its constitution that its capital was... the city of Buenos Aires (!) (The city of Paraná was de facto the capital of the Confederation throught this decade).

Meanwhile, in Buenos Aires, two parties were formed: the autonomists and the nationalists. The autonomists, led by Alsina, wanted Buenos Aires to go its own way, as an independent state. The nationalists, led by Mitre, wanted Buenos Aires back in the Confederation, but only if Buenos Aires was assured an “hegemonic” place in this nation.

The questuion is, given these circunstances, could this secession have lasted? If so, what would the future of both states be like? Would Buenos Aires be able to control all the territory it claimed for itself? How would the South Cone and South America have evolved differently in this scenario? Would this situation have produced any relevant effect outside South America?

 

[Thande]

This is a bit of an obvious one and I assume there's a reason why it didn't happen in OTL, but could perhaps some external power have supported Buenos Aires to weaken the Confederation? Either the UK or a European power for trade reasons (though probably not us, come to think of it, as I think we had too much investment in Argentina proper) or one of Argentina's neighbour rivals like Chile?

 

[Admiral Brown]

Here's a map, wikipedia. The territory in a lighter colour was a territorry claimed by the state of Buenos aires, but, in practice, it was occupied by Independent Indian tribes. These were horse-riding nomads, and their population was very low, except maybe in western Neuquen.

 

[Tocomocho]

Maybe Brazil could support them?

I remember reading a TL about this in that perpetually updated AH site whose name I can't remember. It was surprisingly good. Buenos Aires and Argentina became different countries and during the next decades had multiple wars supporting different countries. Both the *War of the Pacific and the *Triple Alliance War had different endings, and there was even a French intervention in Uruguay (!).

 

[Ed Costello]

Here's a map, wikipedia. The territory in a lighter colour was a territorry claimed by the state of Buenos aires, but, in practice, it was occupied by Independent Indian tribes. These were horse-riding nomads, and their population was very low, except maybe in western Neuquen.

Blimey, that's a bit different. I can't see Buenos Aires controlling the entire Southern cone - Argentina would no doubt want it own sea access, rather than having to rely on using the River Plate (and thus bringing its shipping past Buenos Aires).

No doubt in a scenario where Argentina is 'encircled' by two opposing powers (Buenos Aires and Chile) in a war would be of interest to any powers in a similar situation in Europe...

 

[Gonzaga]

Maybe Brazil could support them?

Well, we discretely supported the Confederation IOTL, because the Brazilian government believed that a more federalized Argentine state was better in order to ensure the free international navigation on the Paraná, Paraguay and Uruguay rivers. Buenos Aires hardly would have Brazilian support, despite the fact that IOTL Mitre would later become the best ally Brazil ever had in the 19th century due to the Uruguayan crisis and the Tripple Alliance War (a fact that the stupid minds of the Brazilian Parliament, the Army and the Navy didn't understand at that time).

I can only see Brazil supporting Buenos Aires if the Confederation starts to form an alliance with Paraguay and/or Uruguay which could threat the Brazilian interests in the region.

 

[Admiral Brown]

This is a bit of an obvious one and I assume there's a reason why it didn't happen in OTL, but could perhaps some external power have supported Buenos Aires to weaken the Confederation? Either the UK or a European power for trade reasons (though probably not us, come to think of it, as I think we had too much investment in Argentina proper) or one of Argentina's neighbour rivals like Chile?

Well, it’s possible. I don’t know what was the possition of Great Britain during this period. I guess they prefered just to wait and see. Given that united Agentina would have meant peace, commerce, and a bigger market than a divided one, the British probably had more reasons to support unity than to favour divission. But if this the divission of the country become a fact, they would have had to deal with it. And if one or both sides asks to buy weapons, well, business is business....

France supporting Buenos Aires is an interesting possibility. There was a history of relations between the French government and the leaders of Buenos Aires. Maybe we could see the French empire trying to intervene, and Great Britain discouraging them.

Chile’s support is also interesting... but this would deal to conflict between both states around Patagonia at a certain point.

Brazil? Well, it poses the problems Gonzaga explained.

 

[Admiral Brown]

Blimey, that's a bit different. I can't see Buenos Aires controlling the entire Southern cone - Argentina would no doubt want it own sea access, rather than having to rely on using the River Plate (and thus bringing its shipping past Buenos Aires).

No doubt in a scenario where Argentina is 'encircled' by two opposing powers (Buenos Aires and Chile) in a war would be of interest to any powers in a similar situation in Europe...

That's the key issue, and it's probably the main reason why it's very hard for this situation to last. There's not an easy way for the Confederation to gain sea acces except through Buenos Aires*. But since an hipotetical State of Buenos Aires wound never renounce to its historical core territory, the city of Buenos Aires, both states would always be in a perpetual state of war (whether cold or hot). Since the Confederation had more population and effectively controlled territory than Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires could only survive if it keeps herself perpetually richer, more developped and more advanced (technologicaly and militarly) than the Confederation.

Since Buenos Aires had the port and it's resources, and was better situated for recruiting immigrants and foreign capitals, she might try this for a while.

But, how could she keep the Confederation distracted while she develops in order to become stronger than the confederation. Wouldn't the confederation attack before Buenos ires had advanced enough?

And, even if she could do so, defending the Northern frontier would be a nightmare and a constant drain of resources, as there are no natural barriers at all.

Another possibility is to have her existance granted by the Great Powers or by a system of local alliances. You'll then have the South Cone in a sort of pre-WWI situation.

*A different possibility is to have Uruguay joining the Confederation. But I don't think Brazil or Great Britain would allow it, and, even if they did, I don't see why the Uruguayans would want to join in.

 

[Admiral Brown]

Maybe Brazil could support them?

I remember reading a TL about this in that perpetually updated AH site whose name I can't remember. It was surprisingly good. Buenos Aires and Argentina became different countries and during the next decades had multiple wars supporting different countries. Both the *War of the Pacific and the *Triple Alliance War had different endings, and there was even a French intervention in Uruguay (!).

It would be interesting to read such a TL

 

[Youdontwanttoknow]

I wonder what BA's postion towards the Malivinas would be? and if that is different, would there still be a Falklands War or something along similar lines for the islands themselves.

 

[maverick]

Maybe Brazil could support them?

I remember reading a TL about this in that perpetually updated AH site whose name I can't remember. It was surprisingly good. Buenos Aires and Argentina became different countries and during the next decades had multiple wars supporting different countries. Both the *War of the Pacific and the *Triple Alliance War had different endings, and there was even a French intervention in Uruguay (!).

What site was that? and What TL?

I once did a TL on this topic, but the POD being Rosas winning at Caseros, it kinda sucked...

Oh, anyhow...remembering the IOTL situation and the fact that Mitre was defeated by Urquiza in the battles of Cepeda and Pavon, but that Buenos Aires was able to take control of the River Plate and continue to remain independent until 1860s...

It will in any case need international support...

Either France or Brazil...both would be interesting...

Now, things to consider...

-Immigration: Buenos Aires will receive the most immigrants...
-The Conquest of the Desert: who gets Patagonia? I can see part for Buenos Aires and part for the Confederacy...not to mention the Confederacy would demand access to the Atlantic...perhaps through Carmen de Patagones, Viedma or another southern port...
-General Roca, and others...were living in the Confederacy...

-National sentiment: I for some reason can see Buenos Aires existing separatel until the 1880s or 1890s, but not forever...

 

[juanml82]

Any port in the Patagonia is way too far for the Confederacy, speciallly since there is no railroad and you need to get the funds for:
Building the railroad itself (hundreds of kilometres)
Securing the railroad course
Conquer at least some regions of the Patagonia or ally with the local indians
Create some kind of towns along with the railway (witch means in the middle of nowhere) and the port at the destination
Building railroads that connect that port with at least most of the provinces.
Plus: guarding/watching the long border with Buenos Aires
Preventing/do a naval blockade by/to Buenos Aires
Improving the economy,

And do most of that before Buenos Aires decides to launch a major offensive. It's simpler to try to achieve some sort of naval balance/superiority in the River Plate and using Parana as a port,
I concur that international alliances/support are needed to mantain such a status.
Also, that could trigger some kind of diplomacy with the Mapuche Indians (who where sort of united at that time IIRC as they were expecting an all out attack by Argentinians in the future), if not for any other reason that having them raid the other country

 

[Tocomocho]

Maybe Brazil could support them?

I remember reading a TL about this in that perpetually updated AH site whose name I can't remember. It was surprisingly good. Buenos Aires and Argentina became different countries and during the next decades had multiple wars supporting different countries. Both the *War of the Pacific and the *Triple Alliance War had different endings, and there was even a French intervention in Uruguay (!).

OK, I found it: http://www.othertimelines.com/viewtimeline.php?timelineID=3389

The happy end sucks, but the rest is gold compared to most of the TLs posted in that site.

 

[Thande]

I wonder what BA's postion towards the Malivinas would be? and if that is different, would there still be a Falklands War or something along similar lines for the islands themselves.

Butterflies, please!

But it is an interesting question. The Argentine claim to the islands is based on them being considered part of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata by the Spaniards and Argentina or its predecessor considering itself the successor to that Viceroyalty (IIRC). If Buenos Aires' secession is of a particular character, they might find it harder to sustain that claim - the claim would be more rightfully that of the rump Argentine Confederation but, without sea access, there's no way they could even try to enforce it...

 

[juanml82]

Oh, but the islands were part of the province of Buenos Aires and the governor and settlers the Bristish expelled when they took them over in 1833 were from Bs. As.
You could end up with a three way dispute.

In any case, the confederacy will have to get sea acess through the River Plate - or use the negotiating power of firearms to get access through it, otherwise it won't last long

 

[maverick]

OK, I found it: http://www.othertimelines.com/viewtimeline.php?timelineID=3389

The happy end sucks, but the rest is gold compared to most of the TLs posted in that site.

Oh, my GOD! That is my Timeline!

And yes, I know what you mean, I was a regular member and even a Moderator at OTL.com...before the end...

Hey, don't judge me by it, it was one of my first...the happy epiloguing was just part of my writting back then...I think that 'The Napoleon Restoration' has a similar epilogue...

The TL is not very detailed or realistic, but It was one of my first...maybe I should re-write it one day...

 

[Susano]

Butterflies, please!

fillerfillerfiller

 

[Admiral Brown]

What site was that? and What TL?

-The Conquest of the Desert: who gets Patagonia? I can see part for Buenos Aires and part for the Confederacy...not to mention the Confederacy would demand access to the Atlantic...perhaps through Carmen de Patagones, Viedma or another southern port...

Any port in the Patagonia is way too far for the Confederacy, speciallly since there is no railroad and you need to get the funds for:
Building the railroad itself (hundreds of kilometres)
Securing the railroad course
Conquer at least some regions of the Patagonia or ally with the local indians
Create some kind of towns along with the railway (witch means in the middle of nowhere) and the port at the destination
Building railroads that connect that port with at least most of the provinces.
Plus: guarding/watching the long border with Buenos Aires
Preventing/do a naval blockade by/to Buenos Aires
Improving the economy,

I think we may see a sort of "race" between Buenos Aires and the Confedaracy in order to see who gets more territory in the pampas and Patagonia. Buenos Aires will cry "go west", and the Confederacy "go South".

Chile might try to get Tierra del Fuego and maybe Southern Santa Cruz.

The Mapuche, led by Calfucurá, will probably ally with any of these nations in order to survive as long as possible.

Britain might also get involved, but only if there the proper circunstances are in place (I.e.: 1st) the Welsh colonize Chubut in 1865, under the soveraignity of by Buenos Aires. 2nd) The Confederacy, Chile or the Mapuche invade them, and Buenos Aires is unable to help them, because she's also at war. 3rd) So, the Welsh send a ship to Port Stanley and ask for protection. 4th) You can imagine the rest)

The question is: would the Confederacy be able to encircle Buenos Aires, conquer Patagonia, and adquire an acces to the sea? If she does, she'll face all the problems Juanml82 mentioned. But that wouldn't probably stop her from tryng to grab the land. She'll have to deal with them later, once she has it. Bu,t would she be able do it???

Here's my disastrous attempt for a map. The part South of Buenos Aires, coulered in what's aimed to be the same colour of the territory effectively occupied by Buenos Aires, is Carmen de Patagones. It was "effectively occupied" since the late XVIII century, but, given the menace of Indian raids, the only safe communication between the city and the rest of the territory was by ship.

 

[juanml82]

Also think that a lasting secesion might not buttefly the OTL war / an ATL war (initially) between Brazil and Uruguay against Paraguay. And while Buenos Aires doesn't need to get involved, the Confederacy might:
A) Decide to join Paraguay to assure sea access through Uruguay (Unlikely, but possible), or
B) Be invaded by Paraguay as OTL
And Buenos Aires might just be watching

 

[Admiral Brown]

Butterflies, please!

But it is an interesting question. The Argentine claim to the islands is based on them being considered part of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata by the Spaniards and Argentina or its predecessor considering itself the successor to that Viceroyalty (IIRC). If Buenos Aires' secession is of a particular character, they might find it harder to sustain that claim - the claim would be more rightfully that of the rump Argentine Confederation but, without sea access, there's no way they could even try to enforce it...

This might undermine the claim, but only (very) slightly. If nobody had reclaimed the land between the time the Spanish left (1811) and the British came (1833), the story might have been different. But since Buenos Aires reclaimed the land in 1820 (for the United Provinces of río de la Plata, granted), appointed a governor, and set up a colony which depended directly from Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires would still have a lot of arguments for mantaining the claim. Stronger arguments than the Confederacy, I think.

But this is a legal issue, and the world rarely follows international law. In practice, if the Confederacy controls Patagonia, she will probably find an argument to reclaim the islands, and we might see a three way dispute between the Confederacy, Buenos Aires and Great Britain.

If the Confederacy doesn't control Patagonia, and hasn't got access to the Atlantic except through the River Paraná-Río de la Plata, the Confederacy wouldn't care at all about the island. It probably won't reclaim them, in the same way in which Uruguay hasn't use the fact that the last Spanish troops on the Islands were (briefly) under the jurisdiction of Montevideo (Buenos Aires had rebelled a year earlier) to reclaimed them. If the Confederacy makes a claim under this circunstances, it would be only to piss off Buenos Aires. Which is still something possible...