Successful British America: what happens in Latin America?

If the American Revolution is somehow averted, and some deal is worked out with the colonies, what happens to Latin America?

Let's assume some sort of French Revolution happens, but Napoleon coming to power is butterflied away, so the peninsular war could well not happen.

Would other independence movements happen in the Americas? Who would be first?

What would Britain's policy towards Latin America be? What would be this timeline's equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine? Would they try to grab colonies? Would they make a grab for other Caribbean islands? What are the chances of getting the long hoped for colony in the River Plate?

Would they be prepared to support independence movements? Would they feel it was a bad example? Would they do it on condition of accepting British suzerainty over the new states?

Without the movement of the Portuguese court to Brazil, what would happen to that colony? Would it break up without the centralisation? What would independence movements there do to relations with Britain?

British America might intervene in the Wars of Independence, or otherwise seize control of the Spanish Americas.

Eventually, the British monarchy and nobility might be forced to the British Americas in the aftermath of an european war, where they would found a new empire called 'Britannia' in their revanchist ultraconservative zeal, hellbent on taking their homeland back from those who usurped her.

It's worth noting that the Spanish had a dominion-style empire proposed a couple times.

Once in 1783 by the Count de Aranda.

Once again in 1795 by Alessandro Malaspina.

In the Spanish Constitution of Cadiz, the captain-generalities and viceroyalties were invited to send in representatives to the Cortes in the vein the British colonies wanted to send MPs directly to Parliament.

------

Because of this I think we'd see the Spanish Empire slowly lurch into a dominion style government, following Britain's lead (after all, that 'give colonies some autonomy' seems to be working, eh?) albeit more of a 'United Kingdom of Portugal, Algarves, and Brazil' deal (primarily centralized with SOME local autonomy) than pure dominion-style realms (all internal affairs under the dominion juristriction).

Spain would probably inheirit the British 'informal empire' economy of OTL 19th century South America, and yet if even broad strokes parallel to OTL are followed, it probably pisses away this extra economic benefit until the Americas become truly independent in every way.

------

Fun facts. Even in OTL Napoleonic times, the USA had an armed merchantman capture San Diego, sent an explorer (Zebulon Pike) across the Southwest, the MacGee-Gutierrez Expedition captured Texas temporarily under a republican revolt, and George Rogers Clark planned a 1790s filibuster to capture New Orleans. Of course, we also had the Barbary Wars and Quasi-Wars going on, proving we had warships already giving a good punch or two.

In TTL, British America - obviously at war with Spanish America due to the state of conflict between the mother countries- could probably actually send warships to California in place of the Barbary Wars/Quasi-War and perhaps actual troops to support the (now probably happening) filibusters in Louisiana and Texas since we won't be dealing with the War of 1812.

Napoleonic-era *American-*Mexican War, anyone?

Count of Aranda's plan was meant to contain the United States. Without U.S. the it's unlikely.

Arcvalons said:

Count of Aranda's plan was meant to contain the United States. Without U.S. the it's unlikely.

Click to expand...

True, true, my good sir.

But we're assuming a deal worked out with the colonies, and the Galloway Plan was barely averted in OTL - I'm presuming some sort of de-facto Responsible Government for individual colonies, Dominion-style plan for the entire batch, or sending MPs directly to the Imperial Parliament has been implemented as the 'deal' in the topic post.

Arcvalons said:

British America might intervene in the Wars of Independence, or otherwise seize control of the Spanish Americas.

Eventually, the British monarchy and nobility might be forced to the British Americas in the aftermath of an european war, where they would found a new empire called 'Britannia' in their revanchist ultraconservative zeal, hellbent on taking their homeland back from those who usurped her.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. Taking New France was one thing, but New France was sparsely populated (~100,000 total settlers) and Parliament was able to rapidly placate the French there by offering them virtual autonomy within limits, allowing them to simply exist in peace. In New Spain, you have millions of Spaniards and a native population which has been almost entirely subsumed into Spanish culture - or rather, which has created for itself a Creolo-Spanish culture which it is content even if not happy in. It's also far far larger than New France, especially in terms of existing settlements to administer, and there's no way you can let an area like that run itself.

So the problems with taking over New Spain are this - too many natives (Spanish and Indian) to control and keep happy, far too high administration costs, and an economy which is based around being bled dry to Spain's benefit. The first two will cause financial haemorrhaging to the British treasury in the long term to keep under control, the third will cost an astronomical outlay to get on its feet. On top of this, the prevailing attitude was to centre all manufacturing in Britain and use the British colonies as one huge buyer's market so that the colonies' wealth rolled into England (not quite in the Spanish way, where all natural resources were also shipped straight to Sevilla for European Spain's usage), and I wonder if England, even with the money absolutely flooding in, would actually have the manufacturing capacity to supply New Spain or even part of it with the goods they'd be requiring, so that would mean a rethinking which would probably end up with the colonies of New England being turned into a manufacturing centre themselves and what you get out of that is...a sense of New England self-importance which will likely manifest itself in a desire to be independent. In short, you have the ARW all over again. Perhaps more localised and defeatable, but it's going to cause lasting problems.

So in short, unless they are trying to only pick off small parts of New Spain, a la the 1806 attempt to control the La Plata basin (Argentina), it's far more likely that Britain would simply seek to turn the Spanish colonies into economic dependents.

Umbric Man said:

It's worth noting that the Spanish had a dominion-style empire proposed a couple times.

Once in 1783 by the Count de Aranda.

Once again in 1795 by Alessandro Malaspina.

In the Spanish Constitution of Cadiz, the captain-generalities and viceroyalties were invited to send in representatives to the Cortes in the vein the British colonies wanted to send MPs directly to Parliament.

Click to expand...

Yes, but remember that the power of the Cortes was pathetic compared to the Westminster Parliament. When the colonies said they wanted representation in Parliament, it would actually be a chance to stand up for themselves and promote American interests in the very heart of British decision-making. Sure, the King still had a lot of power, but Parliament did the actual day-to-day running of the country. By contrast, the Spanish Cortes' were far more self-important in spirit than they actually were in reality, and the Spanish Kings could and usually did totally ignore them for the actual administration of the country. The Cortes' acted more as a jumped-up advisory body who believed they had the right to dictate policy on taxes and such but in actual fact had no such ability. New Spain receiving representation in the Cortes' would simply be another way of fooling the Spanish colonials into believing that they mattered to the Kings of Spain. It would change nothing in actual practice.

I wonder if England, even with the money absolutely flooding in, would actually have the manufacturing capacity to supply New Spain or even part of it with the goods they'd be requiring, so that would mean a rethinking which would probably end up with the colonies of New England being turned into a manufacturing centre themselves and what you get out of that is...a sense of New England self-importance which will likely manifest itself in a desire to be independent. In short, you have the ARW all over again. Perhaps more localised and defeatable, but it's going to cause lasting problems.

So in short, unless they are trying to only pick off small parts of New Spain, a la the 1806 attempt to control the La Plata basin (Argentina), it's far more likely that Britain would simply seek to turn the Spanish colonies into economic dependents.

Click to expand...

I'd actually imagine allowing New England to industrialise would reduce their chafing under mercantilism. Also, if they became much more of an export economy, then they wouldn't want to risk their ties to the British Empire.

But yes, I agree Britain isn't going to be in any state to grab all of Spanish America, and certainly not in one go. Is there consensus that they'd try to grab some of it, though? If so, which parts?

The Caribbean islands are obviously easiest. Peru is the most valuable, but I imagine it would be hellish to hold on to. The River Plate is a long way away, but probably makes most sense as a colony.

Falastur said:

Yes, but remember that the power of the Cortes was pathetic compared to the Westminster Parliament. When the colonies said they wanted representation in Parliament, it would actually be a chance to stand up for themselves and promote American interests in the very heart of British decision-making. Sure, the King still had a lot of power, but Parliament did the actual day-to-day running of the country. By contrast, the Spanish Cortes' were far more self-important in spirit than they actually were in reality, and the Spanish Kings could and usually did totally ignore them for the actual administration of the country. The Cortes' acted more as a jumped-up advisory body who believed they had the right to dictate policy on taxes and such but in actual fact had no such ability. New Spain receiving representation in the Cortes' would simply be another way of fooling the Spanish colonials into believing that they mattered to the Kings of Spain. It would change nothing in actual practice.

Click to expand...

No, I agree entirely on such consequences and actual facts in the ground. Entirely, entirely.

My base conclusion is that as 'independence' was the result of the American Revolution in our world and followed some fifty years later by Spanish America, so too would 'dominion-ism' or such a policy be followed by Spain in TTL, no matter what actually happened with it, well, afterwards.

I wouldn't disagree that the Hispanophone world would be in dire need of reform in any event, which is why I noted if Spain receives the economic benefit Britain got from South America in the 19th century it would be wasted. The map, OFFICIAL status, and the state names of the various countries in the Spanish Empire will be changed, but there's still waaaaaay too much work to be done.

Socrates said:

I'd actually imagine allowing New England to industrialise would reduce their chafing under mercantilism. Also, if they became much more of an export economy, then they wouldn't want to risk their ties to the British Empire.

But yes, I agree Britain isn't going to be in any state to grab all of Spanish America, and certainly not in one go. Is there consensus that they'd try to grab some of it, though? If so, which parts?

The Caribbean islands are obviously easiest. Peru is the most valuable, but I imagine it would be hellish to hold on to. The River Plate is a long way away, but probably makes most sense as a colony.

Click to expand...

Basically they tried to capture the Caribbean, New Granada and Peru a few times earlier in the century (one of them led by Vernon: Washington's brother fought there and renamed his plantation Mount Vernon after that), and probably the rest of the Spanish Empire would fall to British hands shortly afterwards.

Anyways, I'm not too sure that the attempts of putting the Infantes as Kings in America would entirely work.

Socrates said:

I'd actually imagine allowing New England to industrialise would reduce their chafing under mercantilism. Also, if they became much more of an export economy, then they wouldn't want to risk their ties to the British Empire.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the question is, once New England realises its potential as an export economy, when will some financial bright-spark realise that NE can make a lot more money by effectively rivalling English commercial interests and supplanting them as main supplier in key markets, such as South America - cos you can bet that the powerful manufacturing lobby in Parliament and the massive wealthy merchant/manufacturing middle class in England which controls most of England's government and public opinion, is going to have something to say about ensuring that England still receives the lion's share of trade and NE is seen as only there to support England where English supply can't keep up with demand.

I've just realised that was all one sentence. Ah well, I always was a fast-talker.

Of course, it's highly unlikely NE would do anything about that simmering mercantile discontent until it had a far bigger flashpoint to spark sentiment, but in a TL where the colonies get their representation it's surely only a matter of time before **something** - whether a major move to suppress growing American influence in Parliament, or even a simple one-off just like the Stamp Act, which was meant to be minor but works up a fury, causes people to look for other options. And then you could have a problem.

I don't know, I've just long had this opinion that American revolution was just an accident waiting to happen for England, and that without either dividing American interests and playing the colonies off, or essentially federalising the empire so much that England ceases to be important, that you can never keep the colonies from rising forever. At least, not without a POD which changes attitudes away from the kind of anti-government, personal-independence-over-national-focus, localised interests, frontier spirit, etc mindset which made the colonists restless under the rule of a powerful-but-distant government when there were no external threats to require British protection etc etc.

This is a very interesting discussion.

Umbric Man said:

In the Spanish Constitution of Cadiz, the captain-generalities and viceroyalties were invited to send in representatives to the Cortes in the vein the British colonies wanted to send MPs directly to Parliament.

Click to expand...

Someone has commented on how the Cortes were traditionally powerless in Spain, and this is true; but the Cortes of the Spanish Constitution was envisaged as being a constitutional monarchy along British lines. So this is worth noting.

Spain would probably inherit the British 'informal empire' economy of OTL 19th century South America, and yet if even broad strokes parallel to OTL are followed, it probably pisses away this extra economic benefit until the Americas become truly independent in every way.

Click to expand...

Why is that?

Of course, we also had the Barbary Wars and Quasi-Wars going on, proving we had warships already giving a good punch or two.

Click to expand...

Eh, I don't know what the Quasi-War shows, since we didn't launch any offensive operations overseas.

It is worth noting that the US took a big economic and demographic hit during the War of Independence. So the British colonies might be stronger than OTL's America, depending on how the Revolution was averted.

Napoleonic-era *American-*Mexican War, anyone?

Click to expand...

Arcvalons said:

Count of Aranda's plan was meant to contain the United States. Without U.S. the it's unlikely.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree; Britain will have come to some accomodation, and a British-American Empire is even more horrifying than America.

Falastur said:

So in short, unless they are trying to only pick off small parts of New Spain, a la the 1806 attempt to control the La Plata basin (Argentina), it's far more likely that Britain would simply seek to turn the Spanish colonies into economic dependents.

Click to expand...

Yep. Maybe more of Mexico, but that could have happened in OTL. Another possibility is Cuba, or a more active role in Latin American independence movements, which both Britain and America toyed with in OTL.

Falastur said:

Yes, but the question is, once New England realises its potential as an export economy, when will some financial bright-spark realise that NE can make a lot more money by effectively rivalling English commercial interests and supplanting them as main supplier in key markets, such as South America - cos you can bet that the powerful manufacturing lobby in Parliament and the massive wealthy merchant/manufacturing middle class in England which controls most of England's government and public opinion, is going to have something to say about ensuring that England still receives the lion's share of trade and NE is seen as only there to support England where English supply can't keep up with demand.

Click to expand...

It didn't happen with Scotland's successful export industry. The point of difference assumes that a successful British America occurs, which almost necessitates equal economic opportunities.

Faeelin said:

Yep. Maybe more of Mexico, but that could have happened in OTL. Another possibility is Cuba, or a more active role in Latin American independence movements, which both Britain and America toyed with in OTL.

Click to expand...

So I think we can assume that the UK will want economic informal empire over the whole continent. But let's get specific: are there any precise points that the UK will want to, and realistically can, pick off?

There seems to be agreement River Plate will be targeted. What's more likely: the British taking the place in a war with direct occupation, or supporting a criollo revolt?

I also imagine Panama and/or Nicaragua will be wanted under direct control for strategic reasons.

Peru seems like a clear case of British desire, but I'm not sure they could hold the place, considering it was a royalist bastion.

The Caribbean, its closest, and very rich. For the rest, trading rights would be a major boon, but if the crown still holds the north american continent, this ties up a much larger force, as well as not free up those loyalists who in otl left for other parts of the empire. New Orleans is also a must have target, for much the same reasons the Americans wanted the city.

Socrates said:

It didn't happen with Scotland's successful export industry. The point of difference assumes that a successful British America occurs, which almost necessitates equal economic opportunities.

Click to expand...

I am pretty confident that NE's manufacturing potential massively outstrips Scotland's. Not to mention that Scotland's manufacturing industry was largely based around less lucrative goods. For instance, when the Scots tried the Darien scheme in what? 1706?, the two goods they picked to take to sell to the native Indians were their two biggest goods of the time. Those items were wigs and shoes. They were somehow surprised when the natives weren't interested in buying them.

Socrates said:

So I think we can assume that the UK will want economic informal empire over the whole continent. But let's get specific: are there any precise points that the UK will want to, and realistically can, pick off?

Click to expand...

It kind of depends on the POD and the way that the TL goes. In a war where the colonies are entirely placated they may be willing to take more land as they haven't had their fingers burned yet, so places such as Cuba, Rio de la Plata, an area where they can build a canal - Panama or Nicaragua - and maybe even large parts of Colombia/Peru if they really want more land. In a war where they are far more tetchy and have reason to fear for the cost of holding the land they take, perhaps just Cuba and the Plata basin, plus the Caribbean colonies.

Also, they would want to control Cape Horn because it was part of British naval theory to hold all the choke points on the naval trade map. Hence why they took Gibraltar, Singapore, the Falklands, the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa), Egypt later on etc etc. I think they'd prefer direct control over southern Patagonia than risking leaving it to a future rival, but OTL the Monroe doctrine put paid to that.

Socrates said:

There seems to be agreement River Plate will be targeted. What's more likely: the British taking the place in a war with direct occupation, or supporting a criollo revolt?

Click to expand...

Again, depends on situation, but they'd probably prefer to hold it outright given the choice. There was no reason to control the inland if they controlled the basin.

Socrates said:

Peru seems like a clear case of British desire, but I'm not sure they could hold the place, considering it was a royalist bastion.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, though local sentiment frequently was not considered a part of operational planning. The colonial powers all suffered from it at one point or another - decisions for where to expand to where entirely made on the basis of military and economic advantage, and rarely considered exactly how friendly the locals were, whether the terrain away from major cities was easy to hold, what the local social mix was like etc

Socrates said:

There seems to be agreement River Plate will be targeted. What's more likely: the British taking the place in a war with direct occupation, or supporting a criollo revolt?

Peru seems like a clear case of British desire, but I'm not sure they could hold the place, considering it was a royalist bastion.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of a British invasion of Peru OTL...

There seems to be an assumption that the UK can just walk into Argentina, but as OTL showed it would face strong local opposition.

And it's not like British North America needs more farmland. So why bother taking it?

Arcvalons said:

British America might intervene in the Wars of Independence, or otherwise seize control of the Spanish Americas.

Eventually, the British monarchy and nobility might be forced to the British Americas in the aftermath of an european war, where they would found a new empire called 'Britannia' in their revanchist ultraconservative zeal, hellbent on taking their homeland back from those who usurped her.

Click to expand...

This sounds eerily similar to Kaiserreich with a twist.

slydessertfox said:

This sounds eerily similar to Kaiserreich with a twist.

Click to expand...

It's Code Geass.

If Portugal doesn't move its capital to Rio de Janeiro, then Brazil will fragment on independence, no matter when it is.

Even without a successful ARW, Britain's industrial revolution would have spread to the colonies, apart from being an inevitable force for change, proximity to resources, high cost of labour in the (northern) colonies and absence of luddites with vested interests would have made it an inexorable force of nature.
No Napoleon would have maintained Spain as Britain's major foe and one that was far inferior to Napoleon's France in technology, finance and organisation. Caudilloism existed in Spanish America before Napoleon and an intelligent British Government and East India Company ( acting autonomously at that time) would have encouraged it. In OTL, Cuba and Manila were both detached from Spain during the Napoleonic wars and places like Minorca were delighted to be British for a while.
The colonists of British North America though would surely have been more interested in the lands West of the Mississippi and the Vice-Royalty of New Spain.