Hispanismo Becomes Popular Unifying Force in Hispanic Latin America?

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Hispanismo was a movement that emphasized Spanish heritage amongst Latin Americans of Spanish-speaking countries. There are many similar movements that also called for unity amongst the Spanish-speaking peoples of the Americas.

Could it be possible that Hispanic nationalism would become a unifying force in Latin America where a single pan-Hispanic nation can be established in Latin America? What would require? How would it go? And what are the effects?

EDIT: Had to add some things to clarify confusion

 

[Danifa94]

As a Latin American, I must say that there are several factors that would represent serious obstacles to the success of Hispanicism as a doctrine in any aspect beyond historiography or culture. Although it is true that nearly all the pro-unification movements since Independence have used as a basis the fact of the common language, religion and heritage, that is different from the marked emphasis that Hispanicism does.


First, it must compete with the other -isms:

• Criollism: It is the idea that the common heritage of the Republics that once were part of the Spanish Empire is not the Spanish or indigenous one, but a mixture of them, which is in turn its own thing, different from what originated it. It can be summed up in Simón Bolivar's quote: “…no somos indios, ni europeos, sino una especie media entre los legítimos propietarios del país, y los usurpadores españoles…” ("... we are not Indians, nor Europeans, but a middle species between the legitimate owners of the country, and the Spanish usurpers ..."). One of the oldest -isms, it was part of the arguments used by the Latin American leaders to justify independence and create the new national identities, from the "idea" or "fact" of not being Spaniards (more on this later).
• Indigenismo: the opposite -ism to Hispanismo, this movement emphasizes the political and social identity and the value of Amerindian culture. The true, real, genuine, heritage of the latin american countries is the indigenous one. For this point of view, the Spaniards were only genocidal oppressors, destroyers and rapists to whom nothing should be owed.
• Latinamericanism: An -ism created by the French to have an excuse to be involved in the region, is the idea that the common heritage is not exclusively Spanish, but a Latin one. While Criollism only involves the former Spanish colonies, and Hispanicism also involves Spain, Latin Americanism also involves France, Portugal, and the former colonies of both.
• Iberoamericanism: The idea that the common heritage is that of the Iberian Peninsula. It includes the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies, and its metropolis. There is also a criollist version that includes the former colonies only.
• Panamericanism: An -ism created by the United States to have an excuse to be involved in the region, it is the idea that all the former colonies, now countries, in the american continent have more in common which each other than with the Europeans.
• Regionalism: It is the idea that all the regions that made up the former colonies of the Spanish Empire are too different from each other to unify, in spite of a common heritage (if that even exist).This is what ruined the first attempts at unification post-independence, because it was said that once free from the yoke of Madrid, why Caracas should submit to the yoke of Bogotá or Montevideo to that of Buenos Aires, when during the colonial era they did not, and Madrid was the only common authority to all?

Second, it must overcome the following:

• The Black Legend and the founding myths: To emphasize the common Spanish legacy, you should be proud of it. Which is not possible if it is believed that Spain is an irredeemable retrograde, fanatic land wrapped in the purest medieval obscurantism. This vision of Spain and its legacy, disseminated by the English, the French, the United States and the Enlightenment, is the same that the Founding Fathers of Latin America had: They saw themselves as victims, held by the Spaniards (those foreign Peninsulares) in the most absolute ignorance and barbaric oppression. In a way, redeeming the Spanish legacy would mean admitting that the founding fathers were wrong, and considering that the logical conclusion of Hispanismo is that what Latin Americans have in common is to be Spanish, why did we become independent in the first place? The Spaniards cannot at the same time be those to whom we owe civilization and culture (as an Hispanista would say) and those who kept us 300 years under the deepest darkness. This paradox must be resolved if Hispanismo is going to be the force behind the unifying movement. Also,the Black Legend has been so successful that even the Spaniards themselves believed it (So much that certain arguments of the Spanish liberals were used by the Founding Fathers against the Spaniards themselves), so to present a positive image of the colonial legacy outside the academic field, and have enough impact in the Latin American public for an unification movement would be... difficult. It means going against a well-established stereotype.
• The Anglo-Saxon Ascendancy and the Spanish Decadence: During most of the 19th and 20th century, Spain was definitely not an example to follow. Unstable and weak, what was left of its self-esteem was eliminated when the United States defeated them in the Spanish-American war, by proving that Spain was definitely no longer a power. If you wanted to forge an identity of prosperity and progress for your country, you looked up to the British Empire, or to the United States, that country that liked to be seen as Latin America´s Big Brother. Although the flag of Latin or Hispanic brotherhood were agitated every time the Anglo-Saxons assaulted the sovereignty of a Latin American country, it is very difficult to emphasize the Spanish heritage when the Spaniards themselves were denying it: The main Spanish cultural movement after the disaster of 98, el Regeneracionismo(Regenerationism), had pessimistic judgments about Spain, and called for total regeneration through reform of all the country's institutions to save it from its chronic decline. Some members of the Generación del 98 declared Spain, and even the entire Latin race, as irredeemably degenerate, renouncing their Spanish identity and seeking new identities in the past, such as connections with the Visigoths or the rebirth of Basque or Catalan. This tendency even came to be seen in France, where there were thinkers who extolled the Celtic at the expense of the Roman. Hispanismo to be succesful would need to refute somehow the idea that the U.S.A. is on the rise while Spain is going down, because if it doesn't do so, then the Latin American nations would prefer to imitate the United States (be more "American") and not Spain (be more "Spanish").

Other facts that must be taken into account are:

• Unlike other unifying movements in Latin America, Hispanismo would be seen mainly as a conservative, traditionalist, catholic, even reactionary, movement. This is not Criollism or even Indigenismo, which both left and right used. Only a certain type of people will make it happen as a political movement.
• A successful Hispanismo movement is inconvenient to the interests of the United States of America, especially one that unifies the old Spanish colonies. The resulting country would be a strong competitor who would consider having more brotherhood ties with a European nation than with the United States. The -ism they support is Panamericanism. Therefore, a Hispanismo movement would have to compete and even fight against the influence of both Washington and Hollywood to be successful.
• Spain is not in a position to counteract the influence of the United States or provide real support to the movement. Also, the post-1898 moment in which Spain placed greater emphasis on its heritage was, controversially, probably during the Franco regime. After la Transición, Spain has taken advantage of cultural connections but for mainly economic, not political, reasons.
• Basically, Hispanismo is/was a cultural movement, not a political one.

What it would require (at least):

• A more powerful, rich and prosperous Spain, which is also Hispanista.
• A weak United States.
• A Spanish Victory in the Spanish-American War. (No Spanish-American war is not enough.)
• A political Hispanismo.
• A greater dissemination of this political Hispanismo among the ruling elite in Latin America, or at least among military officers who can implement coups that lead to Hispanistas in power in the most powerful countries.

If I have to be honest, I don't think that political Hispanismo can plausibly achieve unification, moreover, after Independence, the most likely unification of the former Spanish America is European Union style, not that of the "forming a single nation" style. So far what I can think of are military dictatorships with Hispanismo as its ideology, that collapses in the formation process of making the former Spanish America join, or after the death of the visionary leader. A unification by elites is even less plausible, due to the tendency of most of them to support regionalisms or Pan-Americanism instead of true unification, to preserve their power like they did after Independence. And in regards to a popular revolution, the level of obstacles that would have to be overcome to achieve the awareness and support for an hypothetical political Hispanismo by most Latin Americans (taking into account the amount of influence cultural Hispanismo had on the population OTL) needed for such a thing to happen and succeed, is immense.

I hope this opinion will be useful, at least, to promote participation and debate.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

As a Latin American, I must say that there are several factors that would represent serious obstacles to the success of Hispanicism as a doctrine in any aspect beyond historiography or culture. Although it is true that nearly all the pro-unification movements since Independence have used as a basis the fact of the common language, religion and heritage, that is different from the marked emphasis that Hispanicism does.


First, it must compete with the other -isms:

• Criollism: It is the idea that the common heritage of the Republics that once were part of the Spanish Empire is not the Spanish or indigenous one, but a mixture of them, which is in turn its own thing, different from what originated it. It can be summed up in Simón Bolivar's quote: “…no somos indios, ni europeos, sino una especie media entre los legítimos propietarios del país, y los usurpadores españoles…” ("... we are not Indians, nor Europeans, but a middle species between the legitimate owners of the country, and the Spanish usurpers ..."). One of the oldest -isms, it was part of the arguments used by the Latin American leaders to justify independence and create the new national identities, from the "idea" or "fact" of not being Spaniards (more on this later).
• Indigenismo: the opposite -ism to Hispanismo, this movement emphasizes the political and social identity and the value of Amerindian culture. The true, real, genuine, heritage of the latin american countries is the indigenous one. For this point of view, the Spaniards were only genocidal oppressors, destroyers and rapists to whom nothing should be owed.
• Latinamericanism: An -ism created by the French to have an excuse to be involved in the region, is the idea that the common heritage is not exclusively Spanish, but a Latin one. While Criollism only involves the former Spanish colonies, and Hispanicism also involves Spain, Latin Americanism also involves France, Portugal, and the former colonies of both.
• Iberoamericanism: The idea that the common heritage is that of the Iberian Peninsula. It includes the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies, and its metropolis. There is also a criollist version that includes the former colonies only.
• Panamericanism: An -ism created by the United States to have an excuse to be involved in the region, it is the idea that all the former colonies, now countries, in the american continent have more in common which each other than with the Europeans.
• Regionalism: It is the idea that all the regions that made up the former colonies of the Spanish Empire are too different from each other to unify, in spite of a common heritage (if that even exist).This is what ruined the first attempts at unification post-independence, because it was said that once free from the yoke of Madrid, why Caracas should submit to the yoke of Bogotá or Montevideo to that of Buenos Aires, when during the colonial era they did not, and Madrid was the only common authority to all?

Second, it must overcome the following:

• The Black Legend and the founding myths: To emphasize the common Spanish legacy, you should be proud of it. Which is not possible if it is believed that Spain is an irredeemable retrograde, fanatic land wrapped in the purest medieval obscurantism. This vision of Spain and its legacy, disseminated by the English, the French, the United States and the Enlightenment, is the same that the Founding Fathers of Latin America had: They saw themselves as victims, held by the Spaniards (those foreign Peninsulares) in the most absolute ignorance and barbaric oppression. In a way, redeeming the Spanish legacy would mean admitting that the founding fathers were wrong, and considering that the logical conclusion of Hispanismo is that what Latin Americans have in common is to be Spanish, why did we become independent in the first place? The Spaniards cannot at the same time be those to whom we owe civilization and culture (as an Hispanista would say) and those who kept us 300 years under the deepest darkness. This paradox must be resolved if Hispanismo is going to be the force behind the unifying movement. Also,the Black Legend has been so successful that even the Spaniards themselves believed it (So much that certain arguments of the Spanish liberals were used by the Founding Fathers against the Spaniards themselves), so to present a positive image of the colonial legacy outside the academic field, and have enough impact in the Latin American public for an unification movement would be... difficult. It means going against a well-established stereotype.
• The Anglo-Saxon Ascendancy and the Spanish Decadence: During most of the 19th and 20th century, Spain was definitely not an example to follow. Unstable and weak, what was left of its self-esteem was eliminated when the United States defeated them in the Spanish-American war, by proving that Spain was definitely no longer a power. If you wanted to forge an identity of prosperity and progress for your country, you looked up to the British Empire, or to the United States, that country that liked to be seen as Latin America´s Big Brother. Although the flag of Latin or Hispanic brotherhood were agitated every time the Anglo-Saxons assaulted the sovereignty of a Latin American country, it is very difficult to emphasize the Spanish heritage when the Spaniards themselves were denying it: The main Spanish cultural movement after the disaster of 98, el Regeneracionismo(Regenerationism), had pessimistic judgments about Spain, and called for total regeneration through reform of all the country's institutions to save it from its chronic decline. Some members of the Generación del 98 declared Spain, and even the entire Latin race, as irredeemably degenerate, renouncing their Spanish identity and seeking new identities in the past, such as connections with the Visigoths or the rebirth of Basque or Catalan. This tendency even came to be seen in France, where there were thinkers who extolled the Celtic at the expense of the Roman. Hispanismo to be succesful would need to refute somehow the idea that the U.S.A. is on the rise while Spain is going down, because if it doesn't do so, then the Latin American nations would prefer to imitate the United States (be more "American") and not Spain (be more "Spanish").

Other facts that must be taken into account are:

• Unlike other unifying movements in Latin America, Hispanismo would be seen mainly as a conservative, traditionalist, catholic, even reactionary, movement. This is not Criollism or even Indigenismo, which both left and right used. Only a certain type of people will make it happen as a political movement.
• A successful Hispanismo movement is inconvenient to the interests of the United States of America, especially one that unifies the old Spanish colonies. The resulting country would be a strong competitor who would consider having more brotherhood ties with a European nation than with the United States. The -ism they support is Panamericanism. Therefore, a Hispanismo movement would have to compete and even fight against the influence of both Washington and Hollywood to be successful.
• Spain is not in a position to counteract the influence of the United States or provide real support to the movement. Also, the post-1898 moment in which Spain placed greater emphasis on its heritage was, controversially, probably during the Franco regime. After la Transición, Spain has taken advantage of cultural connections but for mainly economic, not political, reasons.
• Basically, Hispanismo is/was a cultural movement, not a political one.

What it would require (at least):

• A more powerful, rich and prosperous Spain, which is also Hispanista.
• A weak United States.
• A Spanish Victory in the Spanish-American War. (No Spanish-American war is not enough.)
• A political Hispanismo.
• A greater dissemination of this political Hispanismo among the ruling elite in Latin America, or at least among military officers who can implement coups that lead to Hispanistas in power in the most powerful countries.

If I have to be honest, I don't think that political Hispanismo can plausibly achieve unification, moreover, after Independence, the most likely unification of the former Spanish America is European Union style, not that of the "forming a single nation" style. So far what I can think of are military dictatorships with Hispanismo as its ideology, that collapses in the formation process of making the former Spanish America join, or after the death of the visionary leader. A unification by elites is even less plausible, due to the tendency of most of them to support regionalisms or Pan-Americanism instead of true unification, to preserve their power like they did after Independence. And in regards to a popular revolution, the level of obstacles that would have to be overcome to achieve the awareness and support for an hypothetical political Hispanismo by most Latin Americans (taking into account the amount of influence cultural Hispanismo had on the population OTL) needed for such a thing to happen and succeed, is immense.

I hope this opinion will be useful, at least, to promote participation and debate.

To clarify I meant like a pan-nationalist identity for Latin Americans of a more Hispanic bent. It wasn’t like something that believed that they should be unified under Spain again. I don’t think I made it clear enough and I apologize.

 

[Danifa94]

To clarify I meant like a pan-nationalist identity for Latin Americans of a more Hispanic bent. It wasn’t like something that believed that they should be unified under Spain again. I don’t think I made it clear enough and I apologize.

Don't worry, there's nothing to apologize for. When I answered your post I never thought that you were asking about the plausibility of a movement supporting the literal restauration of the Spanish Empire in America (and then, something like that happened OTL, only not at the level of all the old Spanish America: General Pedro Santana, who had taken power in the Dominican Republic as a Dictator, offered the reinstatement of his country as a Spanish colony in 1861, which was accepted by the government of Queen Isabel II. The restoration only lasted 4 years in which the colonial administration alienated the local population, which favored a new rebellion, which ended Spanish rule over those lands).

If I mentioned the question "why did we become independent in the first place?" is because as I said before, the Latin American national identities were shaped around the idea that we are not Spanish, but something different. Cultural Hispanismo worked around that saying that Hispanic American countries should not deny their cultural roots because in doing so they are denying themselves, that the most important root is the Spanish one ("the decisive factor, the only one that could attract them all" as the chilean historian Jaime Eyzaguirre called it), and that they should build upon their "own heritage" (which would be in practice the same as Spanish heritage).
In conclusion,the movement sought to reaffirm the cultural link between Spain and Hispanic America. However, this is introspective: it encompasses the connection between the Latin American people, their past and Spain, but not between the Hispanic American peoples themselves.

To serve as an ideological-philosophical basis for a unifying political movement, what is useful as a reaction to Indigenismo in the cultural sphere may not be enough, because the idea is not to reaffirm the political connections too.

Still, there is a way, it is not (technically) impossible. Given the effects of the impact and the accelerated penetration of American culture in Latin America, philosophers, thinkers and intelligentsia were worried about how that affected the identity of the region: one thing is that Latin Americans admire the United States, another thing is they would like to be assimilated and lose their cultural distinctiveness. In addition to the humiliation the "gringos" generated to the Latin Americans (because of the envy they inspired or because of the abuses they committed)this affected regional self-esteem. It was necessary to answer, what is the Latin American idiosyncrasy with respect to the North American one?

One of those answers OTL was Arielism. Arielism was a Latin American ideological current of the early twentieth century that took its name from the work Ariel of the Uruguayan writer José Enrique Rodó. It was characterized by opposing to Anglo-Saxon utilitarianism the values of Greco-Latin culture. It expressed an idealistic vision of Latin American culture as a model of nobility and spiritual elevation as opposed to the culture of the United States as an example of sensualism and materialistic rudeness. According to the author, in order for the Latin American continent to recover its spiritual values, it is necessary that it follow the aesthetic ideals of the culture of Classical Greece, as a model of good taste for its use of art as a mental activity that enriches the spirit. Likewise, it should be noted that he also considers Christianity as a source of idealism. That way, Latin American countries should defend themselves against American cultural domination through spiritual idealism. Instead of searching models in the corrupt U.S.A. (only rich in material things but not in spirit) or the decadent Europe, Latin America could be constituted from and by itself, without being affected by external influences and reaching superiority through culture and morals.

This current was very influential in its time and in later Latin Americanism, despite the criticisms that were made to it later, which range from the fact that the instrument used to make it popular was a modest copy of a work by Shakespeare (Caliban) in the form of an essay, that it was aristocratic-antipopular, or that they were just excuses to justify why they were not as successful as those in the United States, using a false pride to not make the neccesary reforms.

Arielism appeared after the Spanish-American War, when Spain and its prestige were in the doldrums, so it's understandable why Rodó made the enphasis in the Greco-Latin roots, but I think it could serve as a good base to what a more proactive Hispanismo could be. You just need to replace the values of greco-latin culture with the values of Spanish culture (after all, the greco-latin roots of Hispanic America come through Spain), with Catholicism (inseparable from the Spanish heritage) as the other source of spiritualism and ideals. Hispanismo can be useful to create the idea of a Latin American identity, opposite and even superior (morally, not materially) to the United States, in order to overcome humiliations, achieve self-esteem and generate an idea of Hispanic Brotherhood (In Union there is Strenght!), which could even include Spain itself (Something like the British Commonwealth or French Francophonie?).

Of course, the real difficulty lies in converting that feeling of brotherhood (which in some way already existed OTL) into a unifying political movement in/of all Hispanic America, as well as getting it developed through a Hispanic route instead of the Latin one of OTL, or that this is more successful than the aforementioned latin route (Let me explain, OTL there where several intellectuals who made calls to the unity of all latin peoples against anglo-saxon agression... in practice it didn´t go beyond feeling and achieved very little.)

Also, the factors that I mentioned in my other post, that still would apply to any movement based in Hispanismo.

 

[Nivek]

Hispanismo was a movement that emphasized Spanish heritage amongst Latin Americans of Spanish-speaking countries. There are many similar movements that also called for unity amongst the Spanish-speaking peoples of the Americas.

Could it be possible that Hispanic nationalism would become a unifying force in Latin America where a single pan-Hispanic nation can be established in Latin America? What would require? How would it go? And what are the effects?

EDIT: Had to add some things to clarify confusion

Very hard, as much of the region don't like how others got cold feet during the independance movements and others, we're spanish speaks...but that is the only thing join us, the rest is irrelevant

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Given the mountains, rainforests, deserts, and lack of infrastructure, I’m guessing we can’t do the lazy thing and have some guy conquer it...

 

[Nivek]

Given the mountains, rainforests, deserts, and lack of infrastructure, I’m guessing we can’t do the lazy thing and have some guy conquer it...

What thing¡

 

[NiGHTS]

If this was in pre-1900, I could suggest having the Hispanic nations go independent in the same way that Australia/Canada did. Despite the romantic image violent revolutions they have, they breed instability and are too easy for the corrupt to convert into their money scheme.

 

[Nivek]

If this was in pre-1900, I could suggest having the Hispanic nations go independent in the same way that Australia/Canada did. Despite the romantic image violent revolutions they have, they breed instability and are too easy for the corrupt to convert into their money scheme.

Maybe because your country never have the story we've, and that is too pro european bias, plus early nation were not that corrupt...except colombia and part of peru at the time.

Still that is a pipedream/asb, spain was an awful state at the time and still show

 

[NiGHTS]

Maybe because your country never have the story we've, and that is too pro european bias, plus early nation were not that corrupt...except colombia and part of peru at the time.

Still that is a pipedream/asb, spain was an awful state at the time and still show

Well, do you have any ideas?

 

[Nivek]

Well, do you have any ideas?

The general idea of a full unify latam/hispanic is a pipedream, from ancient communication means(would take telegraph for realtime communication and full fledge steamships just to decent travel times) but the idea of a latin america coordinate as a block would need to start with 1810(Miranda first independentist junta in april and them the rebellion in july and mexico scream) with more coordinates indepenentist group and one can achieve a quick one, so for 1815 and before nappy I is defeated, we've a fully independant continent(the carribean can come...but is possible for Cuba, PR and Dominican republic too) and full fledge nation like Empire/Republic of Mexico, Centroamerica republic, (Grand) Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Chile and La Plata(Argentina+Uruguay...maybe more of soth brazil too) alongside paraguay, and them coordinate common policy to keep spanish out and avoid meddling of USA fillibuster in the future.

The rest is the biggest i can imagine, Maybe Peru+Bolivia not collapse and become an indigenous based nation, Chile could sign a mutual alliance with argentina with chance a federation, ditto paraguay, but the rest is hard to pull

 

[Danifa94]

The general idea of a full unify latam/hispanic is a pipedream, from ancient communication means(would take telegraph for realtime communication and full fledge steamships just to decent travel times) but the idea of a latin america coordinate as a block would need to start with 1810(Miranda first independentist junta in april and them the rebellion in july and mexico scream) with more coordinates indepenentist group and one can achieve a quick one, so for 1815 and before nappy I is defeated, we've a fully independant continent(the carribean can come...but is possible for Cuba, PR and Dominican republic too) and full fledge nation like Empire/Republic of Mexico, Centroamerica republic, (Grand) Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Chile and La Plata(Argentina+Uruguay...maybe more of soth brazil too) alongside paraguay, and them coordinate common policy to keep spanish out and avoid meddling of USA fillibuster in the future.

With all due respect, I must disagree. You don´t need such an earlier coordination as 1810, and anyway at that time the independence movements could not take advantage of such coordination: before they can help other movements, they must agree among themselves, and defeat the loyalists of Spain in each of their regions. OTL, the closest movements tried to help each other, with diverse results, but a coordination of all simultaneously is also a pipedream. The distances, the internal divisions between centralists and federalists (La Patria Boba in New Granada, Buenos Aires vs Montevideo), the different natures of the movements (Hidalgo and Morelos movement compared with the Juntas in Venezuela or Argentina) and the closest royalist menace, also we can´t forget the unfavorable international situation (at that time Britain supported Spain, as its ally against Napoleon and did not suit to their interest the weakening of such ally, until the Corsican ogre was defeated). Instead, you could achieve the same result that you search, with a succesful Amphictyonic Congress of Panama.

Precisely, Simón Bolívar organized that congress in 1826, with the objective of bringing together the new republics to develop a "common policy to keep spanish out and avoid meddling of USA fillibuster in the future", and for that, he also proposed creating a league of American republics, with a common military, a mutual defense pact, and a supranational parliamentary assembly. The Liberator invited all of the Hispanic America independent governments (and Brazil), but only was attended by representatives of Gran Colombia (comprising the modern-day nations of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela), Peru, the United Provinces of Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica), and Mexico. Chile and Argentina were not interested (they distrusted the Bolivarian project and feared that this would mean the beginning of a Gran Colombian "hegemony". Also Argentina was distracted with a War with Brazil over Uruguay), Brazil did not attend (because they thought they would receive a hostile reception there due to the war with Argentina), Paraguay rejected the invitation (because its dictator, Dr. Francia, was a firm believer in isolationism) and Bolivia did not arrive on time (political struggles caused delays in the appointment of delegates).

Unfortunately, among the countries that did attend, only Gran Colombia ratified the agreements reached in Panama, the idea of continuing the Congress in Tacubaya (Mexico) did not materialize, and the combination of internal tensions, mutual distrust and political struggles not only did prevent further unification, but ruined existing attempts: Just 4 years after Congress, Gran Colombia had dissolved.

If all the invited countries had attended, and if all had ratified the agreements, either in the terms of Bolivar or those more limited that were achieved in Panama OTL, the region would have advanced a lot in integration. But for that it would be necessary that the leaders of Hispanic America had the same firm belief in that "grandiose idea"; that the regionalist tendencies of local elites who did not want to have anybody over them after being free from Madrid, of "caudillos" who preferred to be first in their village rather than second in Rome, were overcome.

The rest is the biggest i can imagine, Maybe Peru+Bolivia not collapse and become an indigenous based nation, Chile could sign a mutual alliance with argentina with chance a federation, ditto paraguay, but the rest is hard to pull

I don't want to be negative, but to get a federation of Chile, Paraguay and Argentina would be as hard to pull as the rest. Argentina spent a good part of its history in a perpetual conflict between Buenos Aires and the provinces, as in practice, Argentina could be described to work as "Buenos Aires über alles ". The conflict only ended in 1861, with the battle of Pavón, in which the Buenos Aires forces defeated the rest of the country. Chile is not going to federate under that rules, and will need to defeat Buenos Aires to change them. There is also the fact that Chile, unlike Paraguay, Uruguay or even Bolivia, was never part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, so there is no prior colonial link that leads them to want union with them. Chile was a General Captaincy that once belonged to the Viceroyalty of Peru. Also, we are talking about the country that helped most in ending Peru-Bolivia, Chileans are not very integrationist. The only way to establish a federation with Argentina, instead of an Alliance, is if Chile is in charge of the Federation, if Chile is led by someone as integrationist as Simón Bolívar or if they have been integrated by force (read conquered).

The rest, true, is easier because Paraguay and Uruguay where part of the same Viceroyalty as Argentina(Remember, the largest integrationist unions OTL were formed based on the borders of the viceroyalties, as the legal justification was the Uti Possidetis Iuris). To get Uruguay to join, Artigas or Montevideo must defeat Buenos Aires, or Buenos Aires/Argentina must defeat Montevideo... and Brazil too, because they claimed it as a province. In fact, Uruguay is only independent as a Solomonic result of the war between Argentina and Brazil, which ended in a draw. To get Paraguay, Argentina must conquer it or neutralize Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia, its first independent ruler, its first dictator and an isolationist who did everything possible so that Paraguay did not join the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. If Francia is out of the way, support for unification can be obtained in that critical first years.

To keep Gran Colombia together, a war would be necessary to crush secessionism in Venezuela and Ecuador. Technically, it has been said that the success of federalism over centralism could also be used to achieve that goal, but in practice, it would be a union de iure, a disunity de facto: the result would not be guaranteed. And if I'm honest I doubt it. Just look at the history of the federations that were subsequently implemented in Colombia and Venezuela during the 19th century, or the disastrous First Venezuelan Republic. The Liberator had his reasons to doubt the "innate benefits of federalism".

Peru-Bolivia... if it becomes an indigenous based nation, then it is more likely to become indigenista than hispanista. In addition, Andrés de Santa Cruz had as problems the fact of having his power base in the weakest half of the Union (Bolivia), while needing to fight against the rebels AND an intervention from Chile and Argentina. At a minimum, for Peru-Bolivia to survive, it is necessary that Chile and Argentina do not interfere, and it must be admitted that the dissolution of Peru-Bolivia benefited their national interests, especially Chile´s.

Mexico... is doomed. Too far from God, too close to the United States. Too unstable. Perhaps if Iturbide had not fighted with Congress, allowing the crisis that ended the First Empire not to occur. A surviving first empire could even prevent the separation of Central America from Mexico. Keep in mind that discounting Central America, Mexico retained most of the territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, but the weakness caused by political instability and successive uprisings prevented the country from defending itself well against the threat of the United States, who practically took away half of its territory.

Centroamerica... is a mess. There the conflict between conservatives and liberals, common in the rest of Latin America, degenerated into a civil war (the second since the formation of the Federal Republic) that ended up dissolving the country. There were subsequent attempts at reunification, such as the so-called "Intentona de Barrios", tried by the Guatemalan president Justo Rufino Barrios in 1885, but the opposition of the other Central American republics, as well as the United States, led every attempt to failure. Actually, I am going to leave to someone with greater knowledge of the history of Central America the task of imagining a way to save the Federal Republic.

Of course, all this corresponds to how achieve greater regional unification and integration in general, not to how achieve it through a Hispanic pan-nationalism, or how to achieve it post-1900.