Continuing something I touched upon in the Florida without Spanish colonization thread:
So then, following on from that, let's say that ITTL, the Treaty of Paris sees the Spanish ceding their potential future claim over the Patagonian region to the British as well (either due to the British seeking mildly greater gains from their military conquests, or due to the Spanish seeking to weaken the British in the Americas by stretching them thinner); with John MacBride promoted to Captain and dispatched a year or two earlier than IOTL, commanding a larger fleet, on a mission not only to establish a colony on the Falkland Islands as IOTL, but to establish colonial settlements in mainland Patagonia as well, starting with the consolidation of the pre-existing British fort at Port Desire (Puerto Deseado) down in the south, but focused upon the establishment of northern settlements in the Rio Negro valley, in the general vicinity of Viedma/Carmen de Patagones (which effectively still gets founded as the oldest European settlement in Patagonia, but by the British instead ITTL, c.14-15yrs earlier than the twin cities were by the Spanish IOTL).
How well could you imagine British Patagonia faring, in a best case scenario? Could it stand a chance of surviving to the post-colonial era, and gaining independence as an Anglophone nation? Or perhaps even of expanding further, either across the Andes to the Pacific through Britain claiming all of the 'Indigenous Territories' for themselves, or northwards after the collapse of The Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (the first invasion of which by the British during the Napoleonic Wars was successful enough IOTL- ITTL, how much greater might the chances for the success of TTL's equivalent to the Maitland Plan be, with Patagonia already under the rule of the British Empire)? And how much of a impact could you envision this having, particularly on the rest of South America, and the Americas as a whole?
IOTL, Britain gained control of Florida (and Menorca) in 1763 as a Spanish concession in the Treaty of Paris, acquiring it in exchange for Cuba, which the British had captured from Spain after the Siege of Havana (which had been the third largest city in the Americas at this time) during the Seven Years' War (1756-63). Spain evacuated Florida immediately after the exchange, leaving the province virtually empty. And the Spanish concession of Florida, in exchange for regaining Havana, had been negotiated IOTL on France's advice that declining the offer could well result in Spain being forced to concede Manila (along with Luzon and the rest of the Philippines by extension, which had also been conquered by the British in the Seven Years' War), Mexico, and/or much of its South American mainland colonial territory, to the British instead.
ITTL though, the Spanish wouldn't have had any pre-existing claim to, or colonial presence in, Florida; it'd either have been conquered from the French (and thus conceded to the British along with all of the rest of the eastern half of French Louisiana), or belonged to the British to begin with. Ergo, this begs the question- which other colonial territory might have taken Florida's place in being conceded by the Spanish to the British ITTL's Treaty of Paris? Could the British have kept either Havana (resulting in a British Cuba TL) or Manila (resulting in a British Philippines TL)? Or could it have acquired one of the other Capitanías/Real Audiencias of the Spanish Empire ITTL- in which instance, what might be the long term consequences of each of these alternatives? And which would be the most interesting option to explore? British Venezuela, British Chile, British Pueblos Originarios (the 'indigenous territories', which comprised all of Argentinian Patagonia), or the British Provincias Internas (Eastern, comprising Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Nuevo Santander and Texas, and/or Western, comprising Arizpe, Durango, New Mexico, Baja California and Alta California)?
So then, following on from that, let's say that ITTL, the Treaty of Paris sees the Spanish ceding their potential future claim over the Patagonian region to the British as well (either due to the British seeking mildly greater gains from their military conquests, or due to the Spanish seeking to weaken the British in the Americas by stretching them thinner); with John MacBride promoted to Captain and dispatched a year or two earlier than IOTL, commanding a larger fleet, on a mission not only to establish a colony on the Falkland Islands as IOTL, but to establish colonial settlements in mainland Patagonia as well, starting with the consolidation of the pre-existing British fort at Port Desire (Puerto Deseado) down in the south, but focused upon the establishment of northern settlements in the Rio Negro valley, in the general vicinity of Viedma/Carmen de Patagones (which effectively still gets founded as the oldest European settlement in Patagonia, but by the British instead ITTL, c.14-15yrs earlier than the twin cities were by the Spanish IOTL).
How well could you imagine British Patagonia faring, in a best case scenario? Could it stand a chance of surviving to the post-colonial era, and gaining independence as an Anglophone nation? Or perhaps even of expanding further, either across the Andes to the Pacific through Britain claiming all of the 'Indigenous Territories' for themselves, or northwards after the collapse of The Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (the first invasion of which by the British during the Napoleonic Wars was successful enough IOTL- ITTL, how much greater might the chances for the success of TTL's equivalent to the Maitland Plan be, with Patagonia already under the rule of the British Empire)? And how much of a impact could you envision this having, particularly on the rest of South America, and the Americas as a whole?
Last edited: