mspence
Warrant Officer
Posts: 236 
Likes: 204
|
Post by mspence on Jan 10, 2023 7:22:16 GMT
Bolivar had been inspired by the American revolution and Thomas Jefferson to create Gran Colombia; WI it had survived into the late nineteenth or early 20th century?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Jan 10, 2023 14:35:45 GMT
Bolivar had been inspired by the American revolution and Thomas Jefferson to create Gran Colombia; WI it had survived into the late nineteenth or early 20th century?
Well a lot would depend on how it survived and developed and what butterflies that causes for the wider world. Is it a 'typical' Latin American state written somewhat larger, with a small wealthy elite dominating the economy and military or something with a broader base? Similarly how have the issues of sharing of power geographically developed. Is there great conflict between a central city and the more outlying areas or a fairly stable system that meets the basic needs of the periphery regions? If its been reasonably successful then does that mean its possibly seen expansion - going up the isthmus beyond Panama, clashing with Britain over the borders with British Guyana or south against Peru? If its been decently successful and developing a broad economy what are its relations like with the US as that presumably still develops as an economic great power and a claimant to dominate the Americas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 11, 2023 15:26:21 GMT
Since the isthmus of Panama was mentioned: It'd make a big difference whether a canal connecting the oceans would be on the territory of tiny Panama or a regional power. Gran Colombia would be the strongest state between Mexico and Brazil...
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Jan 11, 2023 18:10:25 GMT
Since the isthmus of Panama was mentioned: It'd make a big difference whether a canal connecting the oceans would be on the territory of tiny Panama or a regional power. Gran Colombia would be the strongest state between Mexico and Brazil...
That's one of the things I was thinking of. If Grand Columbia survived and had become a significant regional power and resolved regional desires for independence then it would be a lot harder for the US to arrange a coup in Panama to detach it from that state as it did from Columbia OTL. They might have to try the Nicaragua option - assuming it would be the US building such a canal TTL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 11, 2023 18:43:02 GMT
Well, it'd make sense that the US would profit most from such a canal, wherever it is.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Jan 11, 2023 22:27:28 GMT
Well, it'd make sense that the US would profit most from such a canal, wherever it is.
Well in military terms yes. Which is another reason why they would want a canal they have exclusive control of. Of course that doesn't exclude there being two canals in different locations possibly. Depending on how things develop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 11, 2023 22:56:29 GMT
Well, it'd make sense that the US would profit most from such a canal, wherever it is.
Well in military terms yes. Which is another reason why they would want a canal they have exclusive control of. Of course that doesn't exclude there being two canals in different locations possibly. Depending on how things develop.
Two canals? Sounds awfully expensive. And the Monroe doctrine would prevent any other big power of controlling it anyway. Unless you have an idea I can't see.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Jan 12, 2023 12:56:26 GMT
Well in military terms yes. Which is another reason why they would want a canal they have exclusive control of. Of course that doesn't exclude there being two canals in different locations possibly. Depending on how things develop.
Two canals? Sounds awfully expensive. And the Monroe doctrine would prevent any other big power of controlling it anyway. Unless you have an idea I can't see.
Actually the Monroe doctrine wouldn't if it was a commercial deal with a local power. OTL there was an agreement ~1850 IIRC where the UK and US basically said they wouldn't start such a canal without approval/links with the other.
What I was thinking of was because the US interest is as much military as commercial and someone - probably Britain but possibly France or someone else made a deal with say GC [Grand Columbia] via the Panama route or Nicaragua - the other generally considered route - then the US would probably want a canal under its direct control for military purposes. It wouldn't want to depend on a foreign power which could - or might be obliged by the terms of the charter for that 1st canal to ban passage for warships of a belligerent. Would be awkward for the US if that happened when it was at war with someone in either the Pacific or Atlantic/European region as they could only move warships via Cape Horn. As such economics would be less of a driver than perceived military requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 14, 2023 13:53:22 GMT
Two canals? Sounds awfully expensive. And the Monroe doctrine would prevent any other big power of controlling it anyway. Unless you have an idea I can't see.
Actually the Monroe doctrine wouldn't if it was a commercial deal with a local power. OTL there was an agreement ~1850 IIRC where the UK and US basically said they wouldn't start such a canal without approval/links with the other. Well, the US and UK have a special relationship, war plan "Red" notwithstanding.
But any other power should think twice before building an expensive canal which the US might attack in case of a war with them. Because sending troops there to defend it would break the Monroe doctrine.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2023 15:53:51 GMT
Actually the Monroe doctrine wouldn't if it was a commercial deal with a local power. OTL there was an agreement ~1850 IIRC where the UK and US basically said they wouldn't start such a canal without approval/links with the other. Well, the US and UK have a special relationship, war plan "Red" notwithstanding.
But any other power should think twice before building an expensive canal which the US might attack in case of a war with them. Because sending troops there to defend it would break the Monroe doctrine.
It would depend on the circumstances and whether the Monroe doctrine actually exists and has any relevance in TTL. Plus it wouldn't literally break the 'doctrine' as there would be no change of control of the territory involved. IIRC the doctrine seeks to block any exchange of control of territory held by a European power - other than of course its transfer to US control.  |
|
