# Talk:Platine War

Based on comments in the discussion above, I launched a discussion at Talk:Guerra Grande as to whether it should be a disambig page or continue to redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I could understand Brazil gaining hegemony in the Southern Cone, but to claim that it acquired hegemony in South America? I see one note and two sources that justify this claim (all in Portuguese). What exactly do the sources state? Is this only seen in Portuguese sources, or do non-Portuguese authors agree with them? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worthy to point out that the note does not justify the exceptional claim being made (although it is a good elaboration of Brazil's increased prestige). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
See Empire of Brazil#Foreign relations, third paragraph. "'Brazil is, next to ourselves, the great power on the American continent', affirmed James Watson Webb, the U.S. minister to Brazil, in 1867. The Empire's rise was noticed as early as 1844 by John C. Calhoun, the U.S. Secretary of State: 'Next to the United States, Brazil is the most wealthy, the greatest and the most firmly established of all the American powers.' By the early 1870s, the international reputation of the Empire of Brazil had improved considerably, and it remained well-regarded internationally until its end in 1889. Christopher Columbus Andrews, an American diplomat in the Brazilian capital in the 1880s, later recalled Brazil as an 'important Empire' in his memoirs." As early as 1844 Brazil was already regarded as the second great power in the Americas, not only South America, that is, eight years before the end of the Platine War. This article was the very first one I wrote on Wikipedia, and that's why it rely so much on Portuguese sources. --Lecen (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not doubt, or challenge, that the Empire of Brazil held much prestige in the world. I also do not doubt that the Platine War placed the Empire on a better position relative to Argentina (thereby making it a power in the South Atlantic). What is in question here is that the Platine War actually gave Brazil "hegemony in South America". I cannot find this claim on any English source. What do the sources in Portuguese state?
Regarding the primary sources you bring up, it's worth mentioning that Americans (during those times) used Brazil in their slavery discussions. Thus, people like John Calhoun and Zeph Kingsley used Brazil in their proslavery arguments. In other words, it was not so much as them actually trying to praise Brazil, but rather them trying to over-state Brazil's prestige for their own proslavery benefit. That's the danger of using primary sources (figuring out the intentions of the people); and (in any case) they also do not justify the claim that Brazil attained hegemony in South America after the Platine War.
For the first article you wrote, it's actually great. Perhaps you should give thought to making a profit out of your research. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Your observation to why the U.S. Secretary of State in 1844 and U.S. diplomatic ministers in 1867 and 1888 regarded Brazil as a major power is not only original research, but also flawed. The slavery in the USA had been abolished in 1865, so it would make no sense that they would be supporting somehow slavery in the U.S. as late as 1888. For Brazil's hegemony: "But the Praieira was subdued, the national government enforced a ban on the slave trade demanded by London, and Brazil's success against dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas in Argentina consolidated its southern borders and gave it the status of hemispheric power." Source: Levine, Robert M. (1999). The History of Brazil. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30390-6, pp.63-64. Notice that this American historian used "hemispheric", which means the all Americas, not only South America. So, yeah, remove your "dubious" tag from this article. And lastly: no, I don't wish to profit from anything I write here. It's the Free Encyclopedia, not the "cash-in Encyclopedia". --Lecen (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned two specific people, Calhoun and Kingsley, and at no point mentioned in the 1867 or 1888 people in my explanation. So, no, my observation is not flawed (nor is it original research; see Balancing Evils Judiciously by Daniel Stowell).
Again, your source at no point uses the term "hegemony" or "South America". Therefore, your conclusion is original research. The claim being made by Robert Levine is exceptional and, per Wikipedia policy, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Alternatively, you can write it within the text and attribute it to Levine. However, to claim "South American hegemony" or "hemispheric power" in the infobox, you'll need reliable sources that actually state it (for the former) and several more that state it (for the latter).
And why can you not provide the direct quotes from the Portuguese sources? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disputes that the Empire of Brazl was a regional power. But how is that caused by this conflict, and not simply by Brazil's own internal managment? The whole recreation of the viceroyalty thing is just counterfactual history: Argentina did not control Bolivia, Paraguay or Uruguay before Caseros, neither after it. So, nothing had actually changed in that sense. In fact, Lecen said it himself some lines above: "As early as 1844 Brazil was already regarded as the second great power in the Americas, not only South America, that is, eight years before the end of the Platine War". So... if the Empire of Brazil was already a regional power a decade before Caseros, then this is not a consequence of Caseros. The "result" line can be simply "Allied victory", or a "See aftermath" link to the section. Otherwise, we should mention as well the 1853 Constitution of Argentina and the State of Buenos Aires. Cambalachero (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I switched the text for "Brazilian hegemony in the Platine region". That is what most of the sources state (per the Aftermath -> Brazil, section). I also made note that Brazilian historian JF Maya claimed that it was hegemony in South America. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a distressed reader... the level of POV and uncited material is ridiculous. I would love for a serious impartial editor to go over this article and fix a few of the more blatant discrepancies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.145.225 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC) 
I'm not an expert on this conflict (nor claim to know much about it), but I would like to see some sources I can actually take a look at. I can't find many sources regarding a Brazilian invasion of Uruguay with 16,200 men. Were these 16,200 men mostly Uruguayan troops with some Brazilian support like in the Battle of Caseros (Argentine rebels w/Brazilian support) or did Brazil formally invade Uruguay with a large invasion force? From some of the sources I'm looking at it seems that the Brazilians crossed the border to pressure the Blancos into surrendering to the Colorados but there were no actual battles fought or blood shed between the invasion force and the Uruguayan Blancos.
In the Spanish wiki, this conflict seems to be part of a wider conflict known as the "Guerra Grande" or "Large War" from 1839-51 where Unitarios (Arg.) and Colorados (Ur.) (assisted by Brazil and other outside powers) supported each other against the Federales (Arg.) and Blancos (Ur.).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.112.216 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)