WI: Jose de Valle doesn't die on his way to Guatemala

[Deleted member 67076]

Jose de Valle was a Central American politician, lawyer and philosopher that was prominent during the brief experiment of Central American Unification. He was a respected figure on all sides of the political spectrum, and at one who knew how to balance multiple political factions. In personal politics, he was a moderate, albiet he was of the conservative party. In 1834, he became the conservative party's candidate and won the election handedly, however he became sick and died on his way toward his inauguration.

Interesting thing about the United Provinces of Central America however: The first elections were a relatively peaceful transition of power under the liberal party of Francisco Morazon and the Conservatives under Jose de Valle. Initially, De Valle lost in 1830 and gracefully accepted his defeat. This allowed Morazon to come into power and enact relatively important liberal reforms tha, overhauled the administration to make it less Guatemala centric and more federal in nature.

However, during the second election things went to hell. De Valle died before he was inaugurated, and thus the Liberals used this as a means to continue their mandate.

Obviously, they messed up here and alienated the Conservatives. And then they further exacerbated the crisis by revising the Spanish treaties with the natives and trying to strip the Church of its power. Soon, you had a guerilla war and the Federal government was gone.

So let's assume De Valle survives and becomes president for the next 4 years, acting as a moderating influence to the liberals and as a broker between the various conservative political factions. Let's also say that the federalism is then coopted by conservatives to maintain their power in a favorable status quo, and that Guatemala and El Salvador are restrained from trying to dominate the union.

Could this have Central America develop the tradition of political stability it needs to save the union?

 

[Minty_Fresh]

Tension with the natives was a facet of many post independence Latin American governments in general due to the nature of the revolts, which were largely, at least the successful ones, led by Creoles and accomplished precisely because the Creoles were behind it. This obviously caused a racial imbalance of power that the Church largely was able to keep together during the colonial period. The Church however was a distinctly conservative entity during this time period, and Liberal governments ran up against that. Caudillism was a reaction to weak government, and not the other way around.

I can't say that I have in depth knowledge of exactly why Central American unification stumbled, but that basic pattern of post colonial racial tension and struggles over political reform and the role of the Church were consistent across former Spanish colonies. Political stability comes when a side loses and election and accepts that result while the rule of law is maintained. A better question might be what exactly unified Central America to start with. The fact that the conservatives wanted unity with Mexico sort of made the entire project a struggle. The awful regional infrastructure and inept attempts at centralization made things even worse.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

A better question might be what exactly unified Central America to start with. The fact that the conservatives wanted unity with Mexico sort of made the entire project a struggle. The awful regional infrastructure and inept attempts at centralization made things even worse.

Central America by itself kicked out the (meager) Spanish garrisons and then essentially chose to join the Mexican Empire. They then chose to leave before Mexican rule had been consolidated in the area in the aftermath of the fall of the empire. However, it is also worth noting that initially, all sides were committed to the project before one party (the Liberals) decided to dominate the political arena, prompting people to want to leave.

Hence the idea is to create a tradition of stability and peaceful regime change and see if that can create stability.