The Greater Republic of Central America and the Nicaraguan Canal

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

When independence was gained from Spain, the five Central American countries were originally in a federal union, which lasted a few years and broke up - but there were many attempts to revive it and they all retained symbolically, elements of the federal flag in their own flags.

In 1896, Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador united into the Greater Republic of Central America Greater Republic. It's capital would have been the excellent port of Amapala, located in the bay at the junction of the three countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Central_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amapala

The union was dissolved due to a military coup in El Salvador.

At the time, the USA was investigating Nicaragua vs Panama as the location for a canal - and it was pretty universally thought that Nicaragua was much the better place, both in terms of cost, ease of building & lack of disease, and location (it's a shorter journey). In OTL, Panama was chosen partly because the ability to acquire the old French company's assets, and partly due to a weird publicity campaign by one of the defunct company's shareholders that convinced everyone a Nicaraguan canal would be destroyed by volcanos.

Anyway, in my TL there's no Spanish-American War, so no TR, and no seizure of Panama. If a Nicaraguan Canal is decided upon, there is a large impetus for the union to stick together, and for Guatemala and Costa Rica to join it (they didn't in OTL because of the coup), as it will bring enormous economic benefit to the region. It would also be in US interests to prevent its violent dissolution.

If all five states are united, their population would be about equal to Peru's - it would actually be once of the more populous states in Latin America.

What do you think? Too unstable? Or would the interest in the Canal be enough to hold it together?

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

If the revenue from the Canal was large enough relative to the size of their economies, I could see it as a motivation to stick together.

I would assume that even with the population that you suggest that the US would still be comfortable secure that they could control the canal anyway.

(to deal with a possible objection)

 

[Germaniac]

Panama wasn't siezed in the Spanish American War. It was apart of Columbia and we supported Panamanian revolutionaries,

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Panama wasn't siezed in the Spanish American War. It was apart of Columbia and we supported Panamanian revolutionaries,

Yes, I know. Because there was no Spanish-American War, Theodore Roosevelt doesn't become president, and so Panama isn't separated from Colombia.

 

[Hendryk]

Anyway, in my TL there's no Spanish-American War, so no TR, and no seizure of Panama.

Interesting premise. What happens to the Philippines?

And something everyone will want to know: who gets to be president instead of Roosevelt?

 

[Nugax]

I think including Guatemala and Costa Rica is just asking for trouble, as each have strong identities (stronger than the middle three at least; spanish smallholders in the case of CR and Guatemalas bunch of Mayans and problems with Mexico) and it's spreading the Canal revenues pretty thin (when Nicaragua might just take its ball and go home ).

The Panama canal dues and attendent services only provided about half the revenue for Panama (which was less than a twentith of the new combined states size), and was very dependent on the international trading climate, far more so than the Suez - and jacking up the price will just cause the US and others to put the pressure on. It'll be nice, and help in getting loans, but not something to base a whole economy on.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think including Guatemala and Costa Rica is just asking for trouble, as each have strong identities (stronger than the middle three at least; spanish smallholders in the case of CR and Guatemalas bunch of Mayans and problems with Mexico) and it's spreading the Canal revenues pretty thin (when Nicaragua might just take its ball and go home ).

The Panama canal dues and attendent services only provided about half the revenue for Panama (which was less than a twentith of the new combined states size), and was very dependent on the international trading climate, far more so than the Suez - and jacking up the price will just cause the US and others to put the pressure on. It'll be nice, and help in getting loans, but not something to base a whole economy on.

The US deal with Panama wasn't very favorable to Panama because of the circumstances involved - but it's not just about the canal revenue, there would also be increased trade for the region. There seems to me to be some degree of impetus for Costa Rica, since the canal has to touch on their territory too, but I would agree adding Guatemala is just asking for it. You wouldn't think it, but at this time El Salvador has a population nearly equal to all the others minus Guatemala, and it's even larger than Guatemala's.

 

[DuQuense]

The union was dissolved after General Tomás Regalado seized power in El Salvador on 21 November.

So a Stray Bullet for the General, a few years earlier in some Battle.
The Union holds on for a few more years and gets established. CR joins. US and Britain start construction [Treaty giving US permission stated it would be a US/GB joint project]

 

[Nugax]

The US deal with Panama wasn't very favorable to Panama because of the circumstances involved - but it's not just about the canal revenue, there would also be increased trade for the region. There seems to me to be some degree of impetus for Costa Rica, since the canal has to touch on their territory too, but I would agree adding Guatemala is just asking for it. You wouldn't think it, but at this time El Salvador has a population nearly equal to all the others minus Guatemala, and it's even larger than Guatemala's.

Why wouldn't you think it? Its pretty much always had the most population because its both hilariously fertile and a perfect place for cash crops - it has twice as much arable land as Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua put together (which are full of mountains and jungles). The problem is this is actually a source of instability - if representative by population is adopted El Salvador will end up dominating the others (which they would dislike), and will probably end up powerful economically as well.

Any Central American polity is a complex balancing act as great as the forces working against unit in New Granada and the US. I think unless you have a external threat, or one part is powerful enough to properly dominate the others, disunity is more likily than not.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I would think that the situation in Panama would lead to a revolt anyway, tho outright independence without US assistance is questionable. However, you would have already gotten the French digging their canal in Panama.

 

[RGB]

I think Central America needs enormous amounts of investment to link the different parts together via improved infrastructure. There's a very significant challenge to keeping control of the place from one capital be because of geography and lack of infrastructure.

I don't know if the Nicaragua canal would be enough to fund all that.

 

[ninebucks]

Wouldn't the Nicaraguans start to view the other members of the union as parasites, as they'd think its their canal, and that they should have its profits? Like, if you look at the modern day Niger Delta, the profitable region has been more of an incentive for secessionism than unity.

But then on the other hand, I'm not an expert on this region, and I don't really understand why the region is so much more Balkanised than other parts of the New World?

 

[Cicero the Younger]

But then on the other hand, I'm not an expert on this region, and I don't really understand why the region is so much more Balkanised than other parts of the New World?

I was just about to ask that. My ignorance of Latin American history is considerable, and I would like to have it reduced. How did Nicaragua and Honduras and Costa Rica and all the others wind up getting their own national identities in the first place when the whole area was ostensibly just a region of New Spain for such a long time? Mexico is all one nation, as is Brazil, and even Gran Colombia didn't split into too many different nations. How did that stretch of land between Mexico and Colombia, so tiny on a map, ever become so many different countries in the first place? Maybe someone here can explain it.

 

[Nugax]

I was just about to ask that. My ignorance of Latin American history is considerable, and I would like to have it reduced. How did Nicaragua and Honduras and Costa Rica and all the others wind up getting their own national identities in the first place when the whole area was ostensibly just a region of New Spain for such a long time? Mexico is all one nation, as is Brazil, and even Gran Colombia didn't split into too many different nations. How did that stretch of land between Mexico and Colombia, so tiny on a map, ever become so many different countries in the first place? Maybe someone here can explain it.

Lots of reasons for cultural difference!

-El Salvador as I mentioned was always more prosperious, densely populated and export orientated.
-Costa Rica was all small farmers with much less native admixture
-Guatemala had the mayans, also jungles.
-Honduras is much more mestizo than the others.
-They all had differing native groups and native languages as the inital seed of seperate identity.

Main reason: The massive difficult of overland travel due mountains and jungles made the various different valleys all rather different, and economically they were linked by sea with Mexico and spain with very little trade with each other.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Why wouldn't you think it? Its pretty much always had the most population because its both hilariously fertile and a perfect place for cash crops - it has twice as much arable land as Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua put together (which are full of mountains and jungles). The problem is this is actually a source of instability - if representative by population is adopted El Salvador will end up dominating the others (which they would dislike), and will probably end up powerful economically as well.

Any Central American polity is a complex balancing act as great as the forces working against unit in New Granada and the US. I think unless you have a external threat, or one part is powerful enough to properly dominate the others, disunity is more likily than not.

Because it's so teensy!

Yes, El Salvador on more than one occasion tried and nearly succeeded in militarily tried to conquer the others. But it didn't stop the others from agreeing several times to attempt unions with her anyway.

It really depends on the nature of union. If it's something like a USA of Central America, it's incredibly unstable, especially as El Salvador is the more powerful state but Nicaragua will benefit the most economically. If they can go a more centralize route, it won't matter as much. That seems unlikely to the point of vanishing though, given their differing interests.

It seems to me that a union wouldn't have much chance without strong external support, but if it could survive for a while it's chances increase.

Having Guatemala as a buffer between Mexico, and Panama on the other side seems a positive to me.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Lots of reasons for cultural difference!

-El Salvador as I mentioned was always more prosperious, densely populated and export orientated.
-Costa Rica was all small farmers with much less native admixture
-Guatemala had the mayans, also jungles.
-Honduras is much more mestizo than the others.
-They all had differing native groups and native languages as the inital seed of seperate identity.

Main reason: The massive difficult of overland travel due mountains and jungles made the various different valleys all rather different, and economically they were linked by sea with Mexico and spain with very little trade with each other.

Also, they had had separate identities as provinces for 400 years under Spanish rule - that may be nearly as decisive as the communications issue, which by the 19th c is at least addressable.