If the British, under the command of John Whitelocke, had been able to capture Buenos Aires in July 1807 (after a much smaller British force was defeated the year before, following an initial victory in a private, unauthorized expedition), how would the British have proceeded with the River Plate region and elsewhere in southern South America?

I was thinking, until recently, that all or most of Argentina and Uruguay (as a single country) would have evolved to become like Canada or Australia in terms of being anglophone and highly developed. However, from what I understand, that is not quite realistic, given that the Buenos Aires inhabitants were much more interested in independence than in rule by either the Spanish or British Empires, and the British government was becoming more interested in economic than political influence in Latin America in general. Besides, Buenos Aires had a much larger population than Montevideo; the latter's population size was more comparable to that of Cape Town (captured by the British in 1795 and again in 1806) or that of Quebec City (captured by the British in 1759).

What I have come up with lately, therefore, are two main possibilities:

1) Buenos Aires and the rest of Argentina proper (excluding Patagonia) becomes an independent state under British suzerainty ca. 1810 (since the British are likely to have trouble dealing with Buenos Aires directly - due to insurgencies in the surrounding area, relatively big population size, not-so-strategic value, etc.), Uruguay remains a British colony (because Montevideo, its capital, is more strategic to British interests than Buenos Aires), and Patagonia evolves to be a British colony. The upshot is that Argentina is an independent country while Uruguay and Patagonia are British colonies, then dominions, and finally highly developed independent countries under the British Commonwealth.

2) Both Buenos Aires/Argentina and Uruguay become independent British client states (in the event that the British find Montevideo as well as Buenos Aires too much to deal with, owing to insurgencies around Montevideo also), and only Patagonia becomes a British colony (then dominion and finally a highly developed British Commonwealth country).

Which of these two possibilities sounds better or more realistic?

  • $\begingroup$ The British were interested in economic influence in South American because domestic business interests wanted a market to help replace the losses in income from Napoleon's Continental Blockade. While it was not as effective as he would have liked, if was still hurting the British economy. Large scale military adventures (in SA) were also discouraged because Britain already had trouble putting together anti-French coalitions due to the lack (or size of) British armies on the Continent.. $\endgroup$ – WPrecht Nov 16 '15 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ Just a coment, "and Patagonia evolves to be a British colony"... Why would you think that being a British colony is evolving? $\endgroup$ – AleOtero93 Nov 17 '15 at 12:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AleOtero93 Evolving does not really imply improvement, just adaptation to existing environment. Becoming a British colony is adapting to British dominance of the area and hence does count as evolution. In a stricter and more proper sense than the word is usually used even. $\endgroup$ – Ville Niemi Nov 17 '15 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ The English had been grabbing overseas territories and returning most of them right back to the original owners at the end of the war for generations if not centuries. Since Argentina was nominally the property of Spain, an ally, it would have been returned in 1815 if not earlier to their control. $\endgroup$ – Oldcat Nov 18 '15 at 1:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Oldcat: The Spaniards were too weak by then to force the British to hand back such territory. Plus, after the British captured Trinidad (as in Trinidad and Tobago) from the Spaniards in 1795, the British kept it. $\endgroup$ – Yossi the Montrealer Nov 18 '15 at 13:26

The only reason the British were in South America is because they lost the American colonies. I don't think the British were ever really serious about taking big chunks of South America. The British had huge, valuable holdings and trade routes in the East, but not so much in the West.

So they would have if they could have, but the fact that they lost the Buenos Aires battle and basically left for good indicates that it wasn't very interesting for them, and it wasn't worth the effort. After that, everything was done by proxy.

If they had won the battle, it's likely that Buenos Aires would have been an important port, but only for maybe another 50 years or so. The end of the era of sailing ships made a lot of ports around the world a lot less important. And once you build the Panama Canal, there isn't any compelling reason to be down in the South Atlantic.

So Argentina doesn't get dominion status. It's not that important now, and it wasn't that important then. Compare it to Africa, where there were plenty of British colonies, but only one was a dominion.

  • $\begingroup$ In the West after the American Revolution, the British did have valuable (if not huge) holdings and trade routes in the West Indies and what is now Canada, and they also have had claims as well as settlements in the Falklands. Plus, on an informal empire level, they had tremendous economic influence in Argentina and certain other South American countries in the late 19th-early 20th century. $\endgroup$ – Yossi the Montrealer Nov 17 '15 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ I grant that the Southern Cone wasn't as interesting to the British as many other parts of the world (especially India, the way to/from India, and the West Indies), but the British lost the second and official battle in Buenos Aires largely because the commander was inept, and they left that area for good because the rioplatenses pressured them to do so right after that battle. The British were actually interested in fighting in South America some more and were about to in 1808 when the outbreak of war in the Iberian Peninsula rerouted British efforts to the Peninsula. $\endgroup$ – Yossi the Montrealer Nov 17 '15 at 20:39

I am not sure its right to assume that the south american would have fought for independence so quickly (although at some point would arguably have been inevitable). One key differentiation between the Spanish colonial rule and the British system was land ownership. The ability of the people to share in the wealth generation could have placated the populous enough to make it a major hub.

I think they would have expanded into Chile to make the colony cross-continental. In terms of trade, Chile/Argentina/South Africa/Australia would have almost guaranteed Britain trade and naval dominance of the southern ocean and the south pacific.

  • $\begingroup$ Add control of Suez and Panama when the time comes later, and the British would have controlled trade between the oceans. Which would have made Suez and Panama a high priority for other powers... Nice catch. $\endgroup$ – Ville Niemi Nov 17 '15 at 14:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.