The Fall of the Spanish Empire

[Venocara]

With a POD during or after the Napoleonic invasion of Spain how could an independent centralised state encompassing all of modern-day Spanish South America be created?

On a related tangent, what would have happened if the Spanish Royal Family had managed to escape to Mexico in the aftermath of the Napoleonic invasion, and would the Latin American Revolutions have been possible without the Napoleonic invasion?

 

[Alex Richards]

I don't think this is actually possible. The vast distances involved meant that the Spanish had three distinct colonial entities- New Grenada, Peru and the Rio de la Plata- governing the territories, and they were better connected by sea to eachother than by land.

 

[Ricardolindo]

With a POD during or after the Napoleonic invasion of Spain how could an independent centralised state encompassing all of modern-day Spanish South America be created?

On a related tangent, what would have happened if the Spanish Royal Family had managed to escape to Mexico in the aftermath of the Napoleonic invasion, and would the Latin American Revolutions have been possible without the Napoleonic invasion?

I can see Gran Colombia surviving but I can't see all of Spanish South America becoming a single independent state.
I think that if the Spanish royal family fled to Mexico, Spain would have kept Mexico and maybe even other colonies.
I think that without the Peninsular War, the Latin American Revolutions would have, at least, been delayed by a few decades.

 

[Venocara]

I don't think this is actually possible. The vast distances involved meant that the Spanish had three distinct colonial entities- New Grenada, Peru and the Rio de la Plata- governing the territories, and they were better connected by sea to eachother than by land.

Weren't they originally one colony: the original Viceroyalty of Peru before its division in the 1770s? If I recall correctly, that was the base for Thande's UPSA, created in LTTW's 1780s.

For some reason, I've always thought that the biggest obstacle to this unified state is Peru (and maybe Charcas). From what I've read, Peru was always a Royalist colony and this made unification into Gran Colombia impossible. On another tangent, how long is Spanish control of Peru viable for?

 

[Alex Richards]

Weren't they originally one colony: the original Viceroyalty of Peru before its division in the 1770s? If I recall correctly, that was the base for Thande's UPSA, created in LTTW's 1780s.

For some reason, I've always thought that the biggest obstacle to this unified state is Peru (and maybe Charcas). From what I've read, Peru was always a Royalist colony and this made unification into Gran Colombia impossible. On another tangent, how long is Spanish control of Peru viable for?

Gran Colombia had gone in 1717. Rio de la Plata was split off in the 1770s, but bear in mind that's about 30-odd years before the Napoleonic invasion of Spain and LTTW has earlier differences.

 

[Venocara]

Gran Colombia had gone in 1717. Rio de la Plata was split off in the 1770s, but bear in mind that's about 30-odd years before the Napoleonic invasion of Spain and LTTW has earlier differences.

Then what do you think the biggest possible unified state would look like?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

The thing is, the eighteenth century saw the Bourbon Reforms which created new Viceroyalties- and even they were too large to effectively govern.

There's two fundamental problems, I think:

1. The tyranny of distance. A state that controls all or most of Spanish South America probably couldn't be physically governed in say, 1820. The infrastructure just isn't there. The roads don't exist, the bridges don't exist, the open mountain passes don't exist and perhaps most importantly the economies of the different areas don't actually interconnect that much- they're far too dependent on Spain and other overseas ports.
2. The persistent argument in the newly independent states between Federalism and Centralism took decades to settle. I think that the largest possible states would have to be federalist- but even if you manage to settle the argument in any one legislature in favor of federalism, what's to stop the argument flaring up again ten years later? That happened again and again.

Let's say that the hypothetical 'big countries' you can get out of Spain's New World colonies are:

1. Some kind of unified La Plata. So that's Argentina, Uruguay, probably most of modern Paraguay and maybe much of Chile if you can somehow overcome the obstacle of the Andes. A little bit of Bolivia, maybe.
2. Gran Colombia, or more properly just Colombia. Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Panama- maybe a little Peru and Bolivia. Conceivably the Dominican Republic.
3. An Andean territory consisting of areas too hard to govern from the South or North. Peru, Bolivia, perhaps a bit of Paraguay, maybe some of Ecuador, probably northern Chile.
4. It's not South America, but for completion's sake- a Mexico that includes Central America and perhaps some of the Caribbean. Also, of course, the lost territories in the North.

Trying to keep any one of these together was beyond the best efforts of some very talented people in our timeline. Trying to unify even two of them was never a feasible possibility.

I think if you want a timeline with a powerful, unified Latin American state it's better to focus on a single area.

 

[Venocara]

2. The persistent argument in the newly independent states between Federalism and Centralism took decades to settle. I think that the largest possible states would have to be federalist- but even if you manage to settle the argument in any one legislature in favor of fedderalism, what's to stop the argument flaring up again ten years later? That happened again and again.

Trying to keep any one of these together was beyond the best efforts of some very talented people in our timeline. Trying to unify even two of them was never a feasible possibility.

From my research, it seems that Simon Bolivar was absolutely terrified of federalism (based on the example of the early United States) and was resolutely convinced that only centralism would save Gran Colombia from falling apart. I think a big part of getting Spanish America to be as united as possible would have to be letting Bolivar have more success, possibly by preventing his fall to consumption, or by killing off some of his rivals. I heard that Jose de San Martin was in favour of important foreign princes to rule some of the countries that had newly been created. If Bolivar had more success and was then convinced by San Martin's idea, that could go some way to creating large stable states...

Trying to unify even two of them was never a feasible possibility.

I know that I said "independent" in the OP, but could the Spanish retain control of Mexico, Central America and Peru even after the Napoleonic Invasion and the Latin American Revolutions?

 

[d32123]

The Latin American independence was probably inevitable once the Spanish metropole began to decline. Way too many commercial interests in both Latin America itself and rival imperial powers seeking to sever that bond. Just look at how much the British jumped at the chance to help the revolutonaries along. Now it could be a more gradual affair with less violence than OTL. Maybe even some sort of Spanish Commonwealth could exist today. And I think it's totally possible for Spain to hold some territory in the New World up until the present day.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

From my research, it seems that Simon Bolivar was absolutely terrified of federalism (based on the example of the early United States) and was resolutely convinced that only centralism would save Gran Colombia from falling apart. I think a big part of getting Spanish America to be as united as possible would have to be letting Bolivar have more success, possibly by preventing his fall to consumption, or by killing off some of his rivals. I heard that Jose de San Martin was in favour of important foreign princes to rule some of the countries that had newly been created. If Bolivar had more success and was then convinced by San Martin's idea, that could go some way to creating large stable states...

I'm absolutely no expert, but from what I do know the irony of Bolivar is that he was

A: The single most committed proponent of a united Colombia and,
B: The advocate of the form of government that made it impossible.

I really don't think Colombia could be held together as a strong unitary state at that time. Santander's ideas were much more practicable.

I know that I said "independent" in the OP, but could the Spanish retain control of Mexico, Central America and Peru even after the Napoleonic Invasion and the Latin American Revolutions?

They could absolutely have retained territory in the Americas, and conceivably a surviving Viceroyalty in Peru might be an important jolt to the newly independent neighboring states- hang together or hang separately.

 

[Venocara]

I really don't think Colombia could be held together as a strong unitary state at that time. Santander's ideas were much more practicable.

The only problem that I see is that federalism (and the pursuit of it) seems to be the cause of so many of the civil wars in South America, Mexico and even Spain itself. It only eventually worked for Argentina and Venezuela, whilst the rest of the Spanish American countries adopted centralism. It seems like as soon as the regions were devolved powers, they immediately wanted more... I'm not sure though. I think Bolivar's natural inclination towards authoritarianism combined with too many rivals that opposed this (and saw federalism as the solution) may have been the root cause of Gran Colombia's demise.

They could absolutely have retained territory in the Americas, and conceivably a surviving Viceroyalty in Peru might be an important jolt to the newly independent neighboring states- hang together or hang separately.

How long do you think Spanish control of Peru (and potentially even Charcas) could have been feasible for?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Direct rule probably couldn't have lasted too much longer once the precedent of violent rebellion had been set. It's about whether the Spanish do what the British did with Upper Canada, learn from the drubbing they just received and devolve government to the colonies.


The thing is, this is the Bourbons- who remembered everything and learned nothing, as the clever bastard said.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

Direct rule probably couldn't have lasted too much longer once the precedent of violent rebellion had been set. It's about whether the Spanish do what the British did with Upper Canada, learn from the drubbing they just received and devolve government to the colonies.


The thing is, this is the Bourbons- who remembered everything and learned nothing, as the clever bastard said.

One thing that strikes me about Post-Napoleonic Spain and Restoration France is that their were clever, reformist, liberal (for the time) voices offering much needed ideas-the Constitution of 1812 for example, or the people who forced the Charter on Louis XVIII, to a less extent. But they were ignored/shouted down by an Establishment that was so reactionary it became stupid.

I did have an idea for an Alt Napoleonic War wherein Spain ends up retaining what is OTL Peru, Bolivia and northern Chile/Argentina as part of a constitutional federal monarchy.

 

[Venocara]

One thing that strikes me about Post-Napoleonic Spain and Restoration France is that their were clever, reformist, liberal (for the time) voices offering much needed ideas-the Constitution of 1812 for example, or the people who forced the Charter on Louis XVIII, to a less extent. But they were ignored/shouted down by an Establishment that was so reactionary it became stupid.

I guess this could be fixed with a different king...

I did have an idea for an Alt Napoleonic War wherein Spain ends up retaining what is OTL Peru, Bolivia and northern Chile/Argentina as part of a constitutional federal monarchy.

Would you like to share this idea?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

The only problem that I see is that federalism (and the pursuit of it) seems to be the cause of so many of the civil wars in South America, Mexico and even Spain itself. It only eventually worked for Argentina and Venezuela, whilst the rest of the Spanish American countries adopted centralism. It seems like as soon as the regions were devolved powers, they immediately wanted more.

You've touched on the heart of the matter. That's an absolutely valid viewpoint. However, I put it to you:

'The only problem that I see is that centralism (and the pursuit of it) seems to be the cause of so many of the civil wars in South America, Mexico and even Spain itself. It eventually became the doctrine of most countries outside Argentina and Venezuela, and contributed to the formation of sclerotic oligarchies concentrated in the capitals. It seems like as soon as the central government acquired more powers, they immediately wanted more.'

Now, whether that contrarianism is right or not- and I was being deliberately glib- the point is that this isn't an easy debate.

However, one thing I am certain of is that states on the size we're discussing could not have been governed by a centralised administration- at least not for many decades. The machinery of government didn't exist, and as I said the actual physical infrastructure and integrated economies weren't there.

Ecuador and Venezuela can't be ruled from the same place without some degree of autonomy. So it's not even about federalism versus centralism as much as it is about keeping the centrifugal tendencies of federalism in check.

Eventually the tendency towards further autonomy will weaken once the state and the economy strengthen and unify, and a shared political culture emerges. That will take a long time, however, just as it did in the US. The external threat of the Spanish might help, but fundamentally this requires a solution found by an engaged citizenry and committed local leaders.

 

[Venocara]

Now, whether that contrarianism is right or not- and I was being deliberately glib- the point is that this isn't an easy debate.

I understand what you're saying - you make a very good point.

Ecuador and Venezuela can't be ruled from the same place without some degree of autonomy. So it's not even about federalism versus centralism as much as it is about keeping the centrifugal tendencies of federalism in check.

Eventually the tendency towards further autonomy will weaken once the state and the economy strengthen and unify, and a shared political culture emerges. That will take a long time, however, just as it did in the US. The external threat of the Spanish might help, but fundamentally this requires a solution found by an engaged citizenry and committed local leaders.

If they keep hold of Peru and Charcas, I think that the threat of the Spanish would be key in keeping Gran Colombia and the Union of La Plata together.

Alongside federalism and devolution of powers, do you have an idea of what this solution may look like in practice? Could the resulting states end up much like OTL's USA?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I should be clear that I'm not a hispanophone, nor have I even visited Latin America. I don't make any claim to expertise in this matter.

However, one thing I would be cautious of is using the USA as too much of a model. You see this in alternate history discussions quite frequently, where hypothetical great powers in South America are framed as counterparts to the United States.

There will be important points of comparison, absolutely. For one thing, the Latin American revolutionaries were deeply influenced by the British North Americans, and many of them spent time there. And some of the tricky constitutional questions were indeed the same- federalism and devolution of powers, as you say, but also things like the role of slavery, who should have suffrage, the appropriate relationship with the former colonial power and so forth.

There will be major differences, however. I think that the Platinean state would probably end up closer to the USA, complete with its romanticised conquest and attempted cultural genocide on the indigenous frontier.

Colombia, on the other hand, I suspect will end up quite differently. This is an instinctual reaction- I think that because the constituent parts are further removed economically and politically from each other than the United States the resulting government will be quite different. In the event that the Federalism versus Centralism debate gets settled, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes Federalism versus Confederalism, with some local leaders envisioning the state as being not much more than a military alliance against the Spanish.

The big difference will be that indigenous voices are far louder in this country than they were in the US. I am not going to speculate as to what the effects will be, but the historical development of all settler colonial democracies is absolutely bound up with domestic racial politics, and those politics are fundamentally different in South America from the US.

 

[Venocara]

Another important question to ask is: who would lead New Spain and Peru-Charcas on behalf of the Spanish (as they would need to be very competent to stop the threat of the United States, Colombia and La Plata) and who would succeed Bolivar and San Martin in Colombia and La Plata respectively? (Assuming of course that Bolivar lived longer, say by 10 or so more years)

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I honestly don't think Bolivar had it in him to build a Gran Colombia that would hold together after his death. You really need to be looking at people like Santander.

 

[Venocara]

I honestly don't think Bolivar had it in him to build a Gran Colombia that would hold together after his death. You really need to be looking at people like Santander.

Ok. Let's say that Bolivar is killed at the Battle of Junín (or some other similarly decisive battle) in a decisive Royalist victory, thereby solidifying Royalist control over Peru and Charcas. Then, Santander can take over for 1824, before they fell out. How would he stabilize the country (now ruling Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia and Panama), and who would succeed him?