How unified could (independent) Latin America have realistically become?

I'm admittedly quite ignorant on the topic of Latin American history, though I know a little bit about Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. I am broadly aware that the various cultural differences and the geography make a U.S.A. style union of Spanish colonies virtually impossible (even if we limit that to South America), and of course Brazil has its own thing going on.

I do not know how accurate this is, so forgive me, but I've seen it opined elsewhere that with enough "wanking" (tee-hee) you could end up with a Latin America consisting of...

  • Mexico
  • (Gran) Colombia
  • Peru
  • Argentina
  • Brazil
What say you, historiadores alternativos?

(Note: I am excluding the Caribbean because I am mostly interested in the continent)
 
I'm admittedly quite ignorant on the topic of Latin American history, though I know a little bit about Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. I am broadly aware that the various cultural differences and the geography make a U.S.A. style union of Spanish colonies virtually impossible (even if we limit that to South America), and of course Brazil has its own thing going on.

I do not know how accurate this is, so forgive me, but I've seen it opined elsewhere that with enough "wanking" (tee-hee) you could end up with a Latin America consisting of...

  • Mexico
  • (Gran) Colombia
  • Peru
  • Argentina
  • Brazil
What say you, historiadores alternativos?

(Note: I am excluding the Caribbean because I am mostly interested in the continent)

The spanish-portuguese union never ends and Spain absords Portugal completely, later creating a über latin american colony encopassing Brazil and it's own holdings. With a lot of luck they could keep this block united after independence (using brutal repression, way more than OTL) and resulting in such a state.
 
It is possible to have a South America composed of 4 or 5 nations. The difficult part is how to get these countries to coexist without screwing each other over. The even more difficult part after that is figuring out how the internal politics in these countries would work without tearing each other apart because that is what happened in OTL. In OTL Latin America DID start out fairly unified but various issues such as liberals vs conservatives and federalists vs centralists caused various breakaway states to develop into the independent states of today.

In an all goes well timeline we might see:
Gran Colombia: The second most important state bordering the Caribbean.

Peru-Bolivia: Another union that almost happened in OTL but fell apart.

Brazil: Similar borders but maybe with minor border differences compared to OTL.

Greater Argentina: Would be called in TTL the "United Provinces of Rio La Plata" or something like that.

Chile: Just because an independent Chile causes less headaches than a not sovereign Chile would create.

The spanish-portuguese union never ends and Spain absords Portugal completely, later creating a über latin american colony encopassing Brazil and it's own holdings. With a lot of luck they could keep this block united after independence (using brutal repression, way more than OTL) and resulting in such a state.
Brazil would not be wearing the pants in any sort of timeline where the Iberian Union continued. In fact you may as well forget Latin America becoming independent altogether in that sort of timeline. I'm sticking with post 1800 PODs since the OP wanted countries that resemble the ones that existed in our world.
 
Last edited:
Brazil could have potentially kept Uruguay and French Guyana.
Getting all of OTL Uruguay would push the border way to close to Buenos Aires. Though if you goal was to scare Argentina enough that Paraguay never secedes, then good job. Common fear of an "other" is a great way to hold new countries together. A Greater Argentina that loses Uruguay but keeps Paraguay is a fair trade IMO. Perhaps this would scare Buenos Aires enough to agree to build a new and more defensible capital further inland?
 
Getting all of OTL Uruguay would push the border way to close to Buenos Aires. Though if you goal was to scare Argentina enough that Paraguay never secedes, then good job. Common fear of an "other" is a great way to hold new countries together. A Greater Argentina that loses Uruguay but keeps Paraguay is a fair trade IMO. Perhaps this would scare Buenos Aires enough to agree to build a new and more defensible capital further inland?
I doubt it. Buenos Aires regarded itself as the glowing beacon of civilization in Argentina, surrounded by vast darkness and primitiveness. They wouldn't go for an inland capital since their elites' identity is tied to Buenos Aires itself. Also, the interior was controlled by the federalists, even the province of Buenos Aires itself, and they were adamantly against Buenos Aires' unitary project. If such an inland capital was to be built, you either have you make a total victory for the federalists (and that risks Argentina's territorial integrity), or you must have the move happen only in the late 19th or 20th century, when the Argentinian nation state is consolidated enough to make room for such a move (not to mention logistics/infrastructure).
 
Honestly, it's unlikely prior to the modern era due to logistics and infrastructure issues. If you had a POD which significantly impacted both the density and type of colonization which Latin America underwent then it might be possible, but this would require greater population density and the development of the local economy in such a fashion that industry can develop rather early and provide the resources, technology, and skills to connect the continent. And this is just something that is not truly possible if you maintain the Spanish encomienda system or any other system based largely on big absentee landholders who view the colonies mostly as a source of passive income.
 
The problems of the region are endemic. I'm not sure this can be done. Maybe the Central American republics can hold a union together, but even that's tough.
 
I would think that earlier and more aggressive European settlement led by Spain would be a requirement. I would also probably remove Portugal from the continent altogether. Beyond that, I would think that never leaving Spain before the last century (if at all) would also be a requirement. Adding Mexico makes this a lot harder.
 
Gran Colombia is the most likely candidate, they had been together hundred of years already under the Spanish. The old Incan core of Peru-Bolivia was also viable. The River Plate countries were a single new viceroyalty that had existed for less than 50 years after being spun out of the viceroyalty of Peru before independence so to keep it together would require the right people at the right time. And nobody wanted Chile, not even the Peruvians which were the overlords of Chile during colonial times so they would stay alone.

Beyond that integrating the whole of South America into a single nation is impossible due to the travel times and tech level of the era.
 
Last edited:
. And nobody wanted Chile, not even the Peruvians which were the overlords of Chile during colonial times so they would stay alone.
That Harsh, Absolute True, But harsh.
If Anyone want to know why no one wanted Chile there are 3 principal Reason:

1.- Arauco War, the Indian Flanders(300 hundred years at least)

2.- Extremely isolated, Atacama Desert (Fifty times more arid than the dead valley) on the north, The Andes mountain to the East, Sea to the West , and frozen wasteland to the south.

3.- Poor, the country was extremely poor, for the colonial empire, not rich and easily accessible gold or silver, not easily dominated native population, not easily accessible ports, nos great land to have cattle, in resume nothing (Chile have little black population because the colony was too poor and far to buy enough Slaves)

So you Could have easily five countries in America

Brasilian empire with the Guayanas
Confederacion del Rio de la Plata(Argentina, Uruguay, PAraguay)
Gran Colombia( with some part of the Guayanas)
Gran Peru (Bajo + Alto Peru)
Chile

2aVkaQT.png
 
Top