• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI: British Patagonia

SinghSong

Well-known member
Location
Slough
Pronouns
he/him
Continuing something I touched upon in the Florida without Spanish colonization thread:
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).

Nuevo_mapa_del_virreinato_del_rio_de_la_plata.PNG


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:
First though is if a British colony/dominion exists in South America, the Monroe Doctrine is dead in the water - America's got a rival power wanting interests down south. That could make Anglo-US relations harder (and give South American states a chance to play London & DC off against each other)
 
First though is if a British colony/dominion exists in South America, the Monroe Doctrine is dead in the water - America's got a rival power wanting interests down south. That could make Anglo-US relations harder (and give South American states a chance to play London & DC off against each other)
To be fair though, we're talking about a POD which precedes the American Revolution and the US Declaration of Independence by over a decade, and which involves at least a couple of individuals who played a major role in that conflict, as well as an endeavor which would presumably divert a significant amount of GB's time, resources and attention southwards. Would this have had the potential to shake things up in that regard? For instance, The Royal Proclamation of 1763 IOTL redrew boundaries of the lands west of Quebec and the crest of the Allegheny Mountains, making them indigenous territory and barred to colonial settlement for two years, which invoked civil unrest and protests among the colonists, sowing one of the seeds for the American Revolution and arguably providing the original impetus for the USA's 'Manifest Destiny' cultural belief- might this be changed ITTL, to maintain greater consistency between Trans-Appalachia and the newly acquired region of Patagonia, to facilitate its colonization?

If not, might the Americans in the 13 Colonies kick up more of a stink about not being allowed to settle west of the line (and still do it anyway, even more agressively)- and/or might Patagonia wind up being governed in a similar manner, with 'First Nations' established there in relatively short order? Particularly given the strength of the Mapuche Nation, with the Araucanization of Patagonia in full swing at this stage, and with the Mapuche having already reconquered all Chilean territory south of the BíoBío River with the exception of Chiloé Archipelago themselves, along with conquering/exerting their influence over the present Argentine provinces of Chubut, Neuquen, La Pampa and Río Negro (with the river's name being a direct transliteration of the recently arrived Mapuche name for it). Might the British be willing to acknowledge their land claims and grant them a greater degree of self-government, with the long-term goal of arming and enlisting them to cross the Andes, reclaim their homeland and defeat the Spanish for them? Might the Mapuche have a decent shot at achieving full indigenous self-government for themselves as well ITTL?
 
It may strain relationships between the UK and Argentina, once it gets independence. Argentina is going to want to expand south and will have a historical claim to Patagonia.
 
Back
Top