Survival of Gran Colombia

[Admiral Brown]

Interesting... If Peru has a Spanish monarch, who went there in 1807, what do you think would be the reaction in the Vicekingdom of Rio de la Plata? The British invasions would have already happened, and some independentist feeling could already have appeared...

Well, on the one hand, it would be more difficlt for the revolutionnaries in Buenos aires to justify their actions (IOTL thay claimed to be acting in the name of Ferdinad the VIIth).

On the other hand, the people from Rio de la Plata disliked Lima's yoke EVEN MORE than that of Spain, because the Spanish system established that commerce should go from Spain to Panama, from Panama to Lima, and from there to Buenos Aires BY LAND. This benefited Lima's merchants, but not those in Buenos Aires, who recieved the worst products, many times more expensive. If the King's go to Lima, that system would probably be mantained, as the Kings would likely be influenced by Lima's ruling class.

Thus, a revolution might still happen here ITTL.

 

[Admiral Brown]

And what would the Southern state be called, United Provinces of Río de la Plata?

Maybe simply "Provincias Unidas del Sur" (United Provinces of the South). Not very original, but it's one of the name our national anathem, written in 1812, uses to refer to our nation. And it has the benefit of no having any reference to the River Plate... which may make it useful to use for a state comprehending Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and/or Uruguay.

And would Bolivia still be called Bolivia?

If Bolivar stays North of Peru, he wouldn't have freed Bolivia. So this region/country wouln'd have been name that way, as Emperor of Rockingham said. It might be called Upper Peru (if it remains Spanish), Charcas, or have any other name.

 

[Gonzaga]

Well, on the one hand, it would be more difficlt for the revolutionnaries in Buenos aires to justify their actions (IOTL thay claimed to be acting in the name of Ferdinad the VIIth).

On the other hand, the people from Rio de la Plata disliked Lima's yoke EVEN MORE than that of Spain, because the Spanish system established that commerce should go from Spain to Panama, from Panama to Lima, and from there to Buenos Aires BY LAND. This benefited Lima's merchants, but not those in Buenos Aires, who recieved the worst products, many times more expensive. If the King's go to Lima, that system would probably be mantained, as the Kings would likely be influenced by Lima's ruling class.

Thus, a revolution might still happen here ITTL.

A consequence I can imagine of it is no war between Brazil and Argentina over the OTL Uruguay. João VI ordered to annex the Cisplatina claiming the territory in name of his wife, Carlota Joaquina, daughter of the king of Spain. But if the rightfull Spanish king is in South America (like the Portuguese king) I doubt he would do it. Uruguay might end just as another Argentinian province (unless the revolution still happens, and João VI offers support to the king in Lima in exchange for the Banda Oriental).

 

[maverick]

Alto Peru, San Martin, Sucre...depending on what happens...

In any case, closest thing we can get is a three-way split...Brazil, Gran Colombia (Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, Ecuador) and the Rio de la Plata/Provincias Unidas del Sur (Argentina, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay)...and even that is near ASBish....

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

How can Bolivar's Gran Colombia survive into the 20th Century and eventually come to encompass all of Spanish speaking South America right down to Argentina and Chile? I know southern South America is de San Martin's turf but it's not like their enemies or anything. So how could such a thing happen?

Bolivar's VP, who ran the country while Bolivar was off fighting in Peru, was very much an enlightenment thinker, and a firm believer in that respect for the constitution was paramount to Gran Columbia's survival. If we kill off Bolivar before he has a chance to remove that guy, then maybe he is able to exercise executive power long enough to beat off the initial attempts to destroy Gran Columbia, and come up with constitutional means of settling the disputes. This will probably end up meaning a Gran Columbia which is quite federalist.

This will be a good thing. With a very federalist Gran Columbia, with free trade or perhaps an industrial protectionism, and most importantly political stability (which I think could be achieved by a leadership that is committed to the constitution), the Gran Columbia could end up bringing the other states of Spanish speaking South America into their orbit.

Perhaps influenced by the German attempts at unification, specifically the creation of a trade league, and supported by the British, who would love to see a single, unified market, the Argentines and Gran Columbians come together to help form the American Trade League. Peru, Bolivia, and Chile all end up in the League, and its political and economic ramifications are vast. By 1900 South America, though still facing many challenges, has been massively invested in by not only the British, but also by Germans and Americans. The economic climate attracts even more European immigration, making links with Europe easier to develop.

The LAT (Spanish initials) also is able to play on a somewhat more level playing field with the Norte Americans, though the Americans clearly dominate Carribean basin and Central America. The Panama Canal is a testament to the "American Alliance" built in Panama with primarily American capital and Gran Columbian labor. By 1920 the Pan-American League is an important forum for inter-American issues, and it is believed that these exchanges prepared the Western Hemisphere to meet the challenges that the Great War brought about.

With a strong legacy of anti-colonialism the de facto American Alliance at the Versailles Conference forces Europe to back away from its proposals to divy up the German and Ottoman colonial empires (its fair to say that the Arab section of the Ottoman Empire was colonial isn't it?). Arab nationalists particularly remember the strong support they got from the LAT countries, who opposed European attempts to cut Arabia into pieces. The resulting Kingdom of Arabia (OTL Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman, with the Gulf emirates associated but basically independent) was able to effectively create a strong sense of national identity. The discovery of oil in the early 30's spurred development across the Kingdom, and allowed the Hashemite monarchy, still strongly committed to the idea of Arab nationalism, to spread that message across the Arab world, particularly North Africa. As national consciousness awoke across North Africa, they looked to the leadership of the Kingdom of Arabia. The result was that by 1960 from Algeria to Egypt North Africa had joined the Kingdom of Arabia.

 

[The Federalist]

Bolivar's VP, who ran the country while Bolivar was off fighting in Peru, was very much an enlightenment thinker, and a firm believer in that respect for the constitution was paramount to Gran Columbia's survival. If we kill off Bolivar before he has a chance to remove that guy, then maybe he is able to exercise executive power long enough to beat off the initial attempts to destroy Gran Columbia, and come up with constitutional means of settling the disputes. This will probably end up meaning a Gran Columbia which is quite federalist.

This will be a good thing. With a very federalist Gran Columbia, with free trade or perhaps an industrial protectionism, and most importantly political stability (which I think could be achieved by a leadership that is committed to the constitution), the Gran Columbia could end up bringing the other states of Spanish speaking South America into their orbit.

Perhaps influenced by the German attempts at unification, specifically the creation of a trade league, and supported by the British, who would love to see a single, unified market, the Argentines and Gran Columbians come together to help form the American Trade League. Peru, Bolivia, and Chile all end up in the League, and its political and economic ramifications are vast. By 1900 South America, though still facing many challenges, has been massively invested in by not only the British, but also by Germans and Americans. The economic climate attracts even more European immigration, making links with Europe easier to develop.

The LAT (Spanish initials) also is able to play on a somewhat more level playing field with the Norte Americans, though the Americans clearly dominate Carribean basin and Central America. The Panama Canal is a testament to the "American Alliance" built in Panama with primarily American capital and Gran Columbian labor. By 1920 the Pan-American League is an important forum for inter-American issues, and it is believed that these exchanges prepared the Western Hemisphere to meet the challenges that the Great War brought about.

With a strong legacy of anti-colonialism the de facto American Alliance at the Versailles Conference forces Europe to back away from its proposals to divy up the German and Ottoman colonial empires (its fair to say that the Arab section of the Ottoman Empire was colonial isn't it?). Arab nationalists particularly remember the strong support they got from the LAT countries, who opposed European attempts to cut Arabia into pieces. The resulting Kingdom of Arabia (OTL Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman, with the Gulf emirates associated but basically independent) was able to effectively create a strong sense of national identity. The discovery of oil in the early 30's spurred development across the Kingdom, and allowed the Hashemite monarchy, still strongly committed to the idea of Arab nationalism, to spread that message across the Arab world, particularly North Africa. As national consciousness awoke across North Africa, they looked to the leadership of the Kingdom of Arabia. The result was that by 1960 from Algeria to Egypt North Africa had joined the Kingdom of Arabia.

Great TL, even if it ends really far off in Arabia but still great. Who was the VP? Was it Santander?

 

[Lord Insane]

With a strong legacy of anti-colonialism the de facto American Alliance at the Versailles Conference forces Europe to back away from its proposals to divy up the German and Ottoman colonial empires (its fair to say that the Arab section of the Ottoman Empire was colonial isn't it?).

No, it isn't fair to say that.
That said, if the Ottoman Empire was partitioned, which it would be, if it was on the losing side, then a Kingdom of Arabia would probably be the least colonialish version of such a partition.

 

[The Federalist]

I don't know about the Southern state, depends upon the territory it encompasses. We might even see something derived from San Martin's name.... after all, Bolivar had places and states named after him OTL(for example, Bolivia, IIRC, was derived from his name. If "Bolivia" remains under Spanish control, however, this would definitely not happen....

In any case, United States would probably be more likely, seeing as a state with that name already existed(assuming the TL isn't before the ARW).

What about just San Martin and its inhabitants being called San Martinians?

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Great TL, even if it ends really far off in Arabia but still great. Who was the VP? Was it Santander?

Yes it was Santander. I think he had the quality that is extremely important in a post-independence country, a firm belief in, and loyalty to, the rule of law. If he had been allowed to continue on his constitutionalist line, I think Gran Columbia would have been much better off.

I was also thinking about how I have Gran Columbia developing, and how do you think the United States would react to having another cogent state in the Western Hemisphere? As it was the United States has been the only really stable country in the Americas, a fact which I think had a huge bearing on how the United States' foreign policy vis a vis the rest of the Americas developed.

 

[Rockingham]

What about just San Martin and its inhabitants being called San Martinians?

Yes, that sounds quite good actually.

 

[The Federalist]

I was also thinking about how I have Gran Columbia developing, and how do you think the United States would react to having another cogent state in the Western Hemisphere? As it was the United States has been the only really stable country in the Americas, a fact which I think had a huge bearing on how the United States' foreign policy vis a vis the rest of the Americas developed.

Gran Columbia would probably eventually look to the U.S. as the model American state in the decades following it's revolutionary era when there is stability, seeing as the two nations share a similar history, fighting off a colonial power for independence, common ideals and belief in Liberty, etc. Soon, Colombian leaders launch a "United Statesiaztion" of Gran Colombia, using U.S. influence to shape the country. The U.S. would reciprocate this by establishing friendly diplomatic relations and opening trade, other than that, I don't see much happening between the two countries. The U.S. didn't really have any major interests (that I could think of) in the region at that time. Much of U.S. History would probably happen as in OTL with some minor differences like the Panama Canal where Gran Columbia is put into the equation like you said in your TL. Some assistance in Cuba maybe during the Spanish-American War? So, the U.S. goes through pretty much the same historical path as in OTL (Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, Cold War), unless the existence of Gran Columbia could make a major change in that path, I don't know how though.

Maybe Gran Columbia could be more important to U.S. foreign policy much later in history, like during the Cold War when South and Central America, like much of the rest of the world became a geostrategic hotspot. In this case, Gran Columbia could serve as the U.S.'s most valuable ally in the region.

Or it could go the other way, where Gran Colombia doesn't become particularly friendly with the U.S. It pursues a development independent of the U.S., making room for possible hostilities between the two in the future.

This isn't even taking into consideration the existence of "San Martin", the possible Southern counterpart of Gran Colombia that was discussed earlier. That of course would open a whole new set of possible relations between the U.S., Gran Colombia and San Martin.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Gran Columbia would probably eventually look to the U.S. as the model American state in the decades following it's revolutionary era when there is stability, seeing as the two nations share a similar history, fighting off a colonial power for independence, common ideals and belief in Liberty, etc. Soon, Colombian leaders launch a "United Statesiaztion" of Gran Colombia, using U.S. influence to shape the country. The U.S. would reciprocate this by establishing friendly diplomatic relations and opening trade, other than that, I don't see much happening between the two countries. The U.S. didn't really have any major interests (that I could think of) in the region at that time. Much of U.S. History would probably happen as in OTL with some minor differences like the Panama Canal where Gran Columbia is put into the equation like you said in your TL. Some assistance in Cuba maybe during the Spanish-American War? So, the U.S. goes through pretty much the same historical path as in OTL (Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, Cold War), unless the existence of Gran Columbia could make a major change in that path, I don't know how though.

The existence of a cogent, Hispano-Catholic state in South America is going to change a lot of Americans long-term perceptions of the region. The rise in the United States of the Corporation was accompanied by those corporations taking their exploitation of populations and resources overseas, with United Fruit Company leading the way. With Gran Columbia being present, I think that the power of the American Corporation in the Americas might be curbed somewhat, since the United States would probably have to formulate an American foreign policy more advanced then "send in the Marines if those Latins get uppity."

Maybe Gran Columbia could be more important to U.S. foreign policy much later in history, like during the Cold War when South and Central America, like much of the rest of the world became a geostrategic hotspot. In this case, Gran Columbia could serve as the U.S.'s most valuable ally in the region.

An ally seems likely. Both countries tossed off colonial regimes, but basically the elite maintained power. The countries both embrace enlightenment ideals, and will have a sort of love/hate relationship with the British. I think the example of ending of slavery might also have some effect. Not a direct effect, but more of a push. The existence of Gran Columbia could also send the message that the Spanish American world can get united, and can't just be cut up (I'm thinking of the Ostend Manifesto here)

Or it could go the other way, where Gran Colombia doesn't become particularly friendly with the U.S. It pursues a development independent of the U.S., making room for possible hostilities between the two in the future.

Hostilities over what? I really don't see what the United States and Gran Columbia would have to fight over . . . they might be allied together in wars, but I really don't see them as enemies. With the kind of Gran Columbia we're talking about here I wouldn't expect the United States to be getting involved in its internal affairs, and I would expect that Gran Columbia would become an explicit party to the Monroe Doctrine.

This isn't even taking into consideration the existence of "San Martin", the possible Southern counterpart of Gran Colombia that was discussed earlier. That of course would open a whole new set of possible relations between the U.S., Gran Colombia and San Martin.

I don't see an easy POD for the southern cone states to be united. In Santander I think you have a man who was truly committed to constitutionalism, and in Gran Columbia I think you have a potentially very powerful nation. I don't see the same personality in Argentine/Chile/Bolivia that could provide that easy bridge. Plus Argentina ended up doing rather well on its own OTL. Throw in a Gran Columbia that is also doing well, and you have the potential for an "American Nation" or whatever, an alliance between the USA, the GC, and Argentina. The New World League or something.

 

[The Federalist]

The existence of a cogent, Hispano-Catholic state in South America is going to change a lot of Americans long-term perceptions of the region. The rise in the United States of the Corporation was accompanied by those corporations taking their exploitation of populations and resources overseas, with United Fruit Company leading the way. With Gran Columbia being present, I think that the power of the American Corporation in the Americas might be curbed somewhat, since the United States would probably have to formulate an American foreign policy more advanced then "send in the Marines if those Latins get uppity."

An ally seems likely. Both countries tossed off colonial regimes, but basically the elite maintained power. The countries both embrace enlightenment ideals, and will have a sort of love/hate relationship with the British. I think the example of ending of slavery might also have some effect. Not a direct effect, but more of a push. The existence of Gran Columbia could also send the message that the Spanish American world can get united, and can't just be cut up (I'm thinking of the Ostend Manifesto here)

Hostilities over what? I really don't see what the United States and Gran Columbia would have to fight over . . . they might be allied together in wars, but I really don't see them as enemies. With the kind of Gran Columbia we're talking about here I wouldn't expect the United States to be getting involved in its internal affairs, and I would expect that Gran Columbia would become an explicit party to the Monroe Doctrine.

Okay, I see three possibilities. The degrees of plausibility vary.

A. Because of Gran Colombia, the United States develops a different perception of South America, that of them being "unexploitable" people. So, they treat them as they would treat other unexploitable nations like the nations of Europe, essentially as equals. The U.S. fosters similar (to Europe) trade relations with the S. Americans and then go on to look for other people to exploit, possibly to the East in Asia.

B. Experiences in Gran Colombia teach the U.S. to treat all its economic partners as equals, leaving a mark on U.S. trade relations history forever. The U.S. fosters positive, fair and non-exploitative economic relations with not only Gran Colombia and S. America but with every other nation on Earth.

- If the U.S. starts seeing S. America as its equal, it won't necessarily lead to the formation of a "Western Hemisphere Unity Association" or whatever you wanna call it, it could lead instead lead to a rivalry between the two countries and the formation of Pro-U.S. and Pro-Colombian blocs in the Hemisphere. It took a long time for Europe to unite... but then again, this is the New World and the two nations seeing their commonalities and realizing that a United America could take on the world (not militarily of course) and succeed remains a strong possibility.

C. The motto "Send in the Marines if those Latins get uppity." could just prevail among American leaders causing the U.S. to fight a bloody "Banana War" with Gran Colombia. If they loose the conflict, the U.S. could experience something like either scenario A or B. If they win, then the U.S. could exploit S. and Central America even more extensively.

I don't see an easy POD for the southern cone states to be united. In Santander I think you have a man who was truly committed to constitutionalism, and in Gran Columbia I think you have a potentially very powerful nation. I don't see the same personality in Argentine/Chile/Bolivia that could provide that easy bridge. Plus Argentina ended up doing rather well on its own OTL. Throw in a Gran Columbia that is also doing well, and you have the potential for an "American Nation" or whatever, an alliance between the USA, the GC, and Argentina. The New World League or something.

Oh but there is a good POD that could hold the South together!... I just haven't found it yet.

Anyone? A good POD that can hold the South together??? I really want to see a state called the "United Provinces of San Martin".

 

[maverick]

Me too...but for getting a pod for this we might have to move the threat to the ASB section...

 

[juanml82]

Keeping the South together is nearly ASB. Note I said nearly. Let's see:

• Paraguay rejected being dominated by both Spain and Argentina (actually, at that time it was simply Buenos Aires). It gained it's independence in 1811 without bloodshed and was able to keep it without joining the independence war as their were shielded on the west by the Argentinian/Upper Peruvian guerrillas originally led by the Yavi Marquis, in the south they had Argentina witch never fell to the Spanish and the Portugese didn't attempt to invade. Fairly strong country, and hence they took care of their interest by themselves. I think the only possible pod is that they don't get their independence and a second succesful Argentinian expedition does that for them. Given the amount of firepower the Paraguayans (either patriotic or loyalist) would have at their disposal, Argentinian chances or sucess are close to none and would seriously endanger all other fronts (around 1810 that means Upper Peru and Uruguay)
• Uruguayan merchantmen were direct competitors to Buenos Aires' merchantmen and, as soon as the Spanish were far enough, many Buenos Aires' merchantmen saw Uruguayans as a threat. For some of them I guess, a larger threat that Spain . Any POD would require a large Uruguayan force sitting in Buenos Aires after the siege of Montevideo was broken. And that could cause civil war Of course, it also requires no Portugese invasion.
• Chile and the then called United Provinces grew as two different countries since the begining... I hardly see them joining as one single entity, no POD comes to my mind.
• Bolivia could be far more plausible. It was planned that, at the time San Martin was disembarking in Peru, a simultaneous offensive was to be launched into Upper Peru. The appropiate resources were never allocated, but if they were... the offensive could have been succesfull and Bolivia could have ended integrated into Argentina.
• Also note that Argentina was close to balkanization during the 1820-60, period in witch it was submerged into a low intensity, intermitent civil war. A POD to avoid such a thing is to avoid Lavalle's uprising against gobernor Dorrego, witch could have ended in Dorrego becoming the president of an unified country around 1829... but that's too late to unify the south. Let alone being able to turn that into a feasible pod

 

[juanml82]

San Martin can be removed fairly easy. His horse was shot during the battle of San Lorenzo in 1813, so simply make the Spanish soldier aim a little higher and you have it. The problem is that such a pod is likely to butterfly away the offensive through the Andes into Chile in 1817 as the Argentinian government preferred to attack through the Upper Peru in campaigns that were such a logistic nightmare fought over a defender favoring terrain that were doomed to failure (although Chilenean refugees after the battle of Rancagua might convincing the Argentinian government to lead an offensive into Chile).
The idea of settling the Spanish court in Peru is rather interesting. In the end, the revolutions weren't triggered by the lack of an Spanish king but for the simple fact that, under French ocuppation, Spain simply couldn't send reinforcements to America. So the big question is, the court goes with a small guard or they even dare to remove a large military force from Spain and take it to Peru for additional assurance against rebelions? And furthermore... WI such a force includes a condecorated lieutenant colonel named José de San Martín ?
Without a large military force for backup the revolutions would go very close as OTL. Of course Argentinian armies wouldn't claim to be fighting for the Spanish king and the flags from Argentina, Uruguay, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua would be completly different (and Argentinians could perhaps learn in elementary school the real meaning of the flag's colours ).
With a large military force... things are strange. War will break up. The South American independence war was very much a liberal vs. conservative struggle as it was a patriotic vs imperialistic struggle. The thing is that Spain was going through the same struggle as well and important parts of the Spanish army had liberal tendencies, witch led to rebellions and conflict in Spain in the 1820's. Maybe we end up with some sort of huge Spanish civil war raging in Europe as well as in America . If the court takes a large force butteflies are HUGE! It could lead to a sort of unified South American spanish speaking liberal state. Or many other things. All of them tainted with lots and lots of blood.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

San Martin can be removed fairly easy. His horse was shot during the battle of San Lorenzo in 1813, so simply make the Spanish soldier aim a little higher and you have it. The problem is that such a pod is likely to butterfly away the offensive through the Andes into Chile in 1817 as the Argentinian government preferred to attack through the Upper Peru in campaigns that were such a logistic nightmare fought over a defender favoring terrain that were doomed to failure (although Chilenean refugees after the battle of Rancagua might convincing the Argentinian government to lead an offensive into Chile).
The idea of settling the Spanish court in Peru is rather interesting. In the end, the revolutions weren't triggered by the lack of an Spanish king but for the simple fact that, under French ocuppation, Spain simply couldn't send reinforcements to America. So the big question is, the court goes with a small guard or they even dare to remove a large military force from Spain and take it to Peru for additional assurance against rebelions? And furthermore... WI such a force includes a condecorated lieutenant colonel named José de San Martín ?
Without a large military force for backup the revolutions would go very close as OTL. Of course Argentinian armies wouldn't claim to be fighting for the Spanish king and the flags from Argentina, Uruguay, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua would be completly different (and Argentinians could perhaps learn in elementary school the real meaning of the flag's colours ).
With a large military force... things are strange. War will break up. The South American independence war was very much a liberal vs. conservative struggle as it was a patriotic vs imperialistic struggle. The thing is that Spain was going through the same struggle as well and important parts of the Spanish army had liberal tendencies, witch led to rebellions and conflict in Spain in the 1820's. Maybe we end up with some sort of huge Spanish civil war raging in Europe as well as in America . If the court takes a large force butteflies are HUGE! It could lead to a sort of unified South American spanish speaking liberal state. Or many other things. All of them tainted with lots and lots of blood.

For a rather large layout of how the Spanish court moving to the Americas may look, may I recommend: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=83388
I think that it rather properly addresses many areas, though there is always room for more discussion . . .

 

[The Federalist]

I think I may have found a POD for the Southern Provinces to remain united. In 1818 or '19, after San Martin took Chile and before invading Peru, he tried to negotiate a diplomatic resolution with the Royalists and that was to turn Peru into an independent monarchy. They never accepted this of course and San Martin proceeded with the invasion of Peru through the sea but what if they had accepted San Martin's offer?

Peru would become an independent monarchy by 1820. Who would be king? I don't know, some Spanish prince maybe like mentioned earlier. This new Peruvian Kingdom however remains a hardline Royalist state and is nothing more than a Spanish puppet state. San Martin manages to negotiate the signing of a treaty between the United Provinces, Chile and the Kingdom of Peru that would ensure peace between the three states.

It is at this point where San Martin could go two ways. He could either remain in Buenos Aires and eventually become the President or Director of the U.P. or he could leave for Europe like he did in OTL.

The situation in Uruguay and the Brazilian War happen on schedule in 1925. The Peruvians take advantage of this by invading Paraguay from Upper Peru in order to fulfill their goal of reintroducing Spanish influence to the continent. San Martin, whether he is the President of the U.P. or in exile in Europe (if this is the case then he returns to Argentina), once again assumes command of the armies of Buenos Aries to fight both the Brazilians in Uruguay and the Peruvians in Paraguay along with Chile, still under the rule of O'Higgins (Let's say he manages to launch a countercoup in 1823 and stays in power).

While conducting the war, San Martin convinces Argentine, Chilean and Uruguayan leaders that the only way to survive the Peruvian-Brazilian onslaught and preserve independence was to merge the Argentine Provinces, Chile, Uruguay and the liberated portion of Paraguay into a new supernational entity, a much larger, more federalized, United Provinces of South America. This becomes the official name of the state, officially dropping "Rio del la Plata" in its title.

The merger happens around 1826 or '27 and San Martin becomes its first President or Director. After being inaugurated, he makes the final preparations for his once aborted plan of invading Lima through the sea but before it could be launched, he dies (of some illness or an assasination). Chilean, O'Higgins succeeds him as President (or Director), removing some people's perceptions of the U.P.S.A. as being Argentine dominated. The naval invasion commences under O'Higgins' leadership culminating in the Battle of Lima.

Soon after, upon the invitation of O'Higgins, Gran Colombian armies cross the border into Peru, eventually turning the tide of the war. After the war, the United Provinces of South America is renamed the United Provinces of San Martin in honor of its greatest liberator.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

I think I may have found a POD for the Southern Provinces to remain united. In 1818 or '19, after San Martin took Chile and before invading Peru, he tried to negotiate a diplomatic resolution with the Royalists and that was to turn Peru into an independent monarchy. They never accepted this of course and San Martin proceeded with the invasion of Peru through the sea but what if they had accepted San Martin's offer?

Peru would become an independent monarchy by 1820. Who would be king? I don't know, some Spanish prince maybe like mentioned earlier. This new Peruvian Kingdom however remains a hardline Royalist state and is nothing more than a Spanish puppet state. San Martin manages to negotiate the signing of a treaty between the United Provinces, Chile and the Kingdom of Peru that would ensure peace between the three states.

I think not. The Spanish simply would not accept the loss of their colonies. The Mexicans tried to get a Bourbon prince, and barring that a Catholic prince, any Catholic prince, to take the Mexican Imperial throne, and none would. The Spanish were in it to win all the way or lose all the way.

Furthermore, aren't we discounting Simon Bolivar? He definitely wouldn't accept a Spanish monarchy in Peru, even if one were to go forward, and would use all of his considerable military talent to make sure that San Martin's monarchial project doesn't succeed.

Long bit about a war I don't think would happen, a political grouping I don't think would ever want to hang-out, let alone be run by the same person, and some unlikely political leadership for the whole thing.

So I think that this is an awful big strech, and I must say that I like the idea of a surviving Gran Columbia eventually knitting the rest of Spanish South America together much better.

San Martin appears to have not wanted to play a role in the post-independence world, for whatever reason, and I don't know how your POD significantly changes this outlook.

I guess I compare Bolivar dying and Santander becoming the Gran Columbian leader, and your Kingdom of Peru, San Martin is a Liberating God, and feel the first option is MUCH more likely.

 

[The Federalist]

I think not. The Spanish simply would not accept the loss of their colonies. The Mexicans tried to get a Bourbon prince, and barring that a Catholic prince, any Catholic prince, to take the Mexican Imperial throne, and none would. The Spanish were in it to win all the way or lose all the way.

Well, since Peru was their last colony on the continent and it was on the verge of being lost to a Liberator, maybe the Spanish could think more longterm-mindedly and hatch a grand strategy in which accepting San Martin's offer of turning Peru into a monarchy is the first part. They would then use Peru as a base to reassert Spanish influence in continent and they could simply force one of their princes into becoming its king.

Furthermore, aren't we discounting Simon Bolivar? He definitely wouldn't accept a Spanish monarchy in Peru, even if one were to go forward, and would use all of his considerable military talent to make sure that San Martin's monarchial project doesn't succeed.

He could just die before he could take any action into ending the Peruvian monarchy in 1822 in the Battle of Pichincha right after winning it and making Santander President.

Long bit about a war I don't think would happen, a political grouping I don't think would ever want to hang-out, let alone be run by the same person, and some unlikely political leadership for the whole thing.

The Peruvians seeing the Argentines are busy fighting the Brazilians, invade Paraguay. The U.P. declares war on Peru, making Peru and Brazil allies. The fear of being conquered by the Peruvians and Brazilians plus lots of federalizing could make it work regardless of who is in charge.

San Martin appears to have not wanted to play a role in the post-independence world, for whatever reason, and I don't know how your POD significantly changes this outlook.

He doesn't have to, he could just go to Europe and come back when the war starts, fight it then leave again but he dies during the war.