What if the Inca Plan went through, and Colonel Dionisio Inca Yupanqui was crowned constitutional King of Argentina?
In their proclamations in their bulletins, in their bands, in their manifestos, in the articles of their periodical press, in their warrior songs, the patriots of that time invoked with enthusiasm the manners of Manco Cápac, of Moctezuma, of Guatimozín, of Atahualpa , of Siripo, of Lautaro, of Caupolicán and of Rengo, as to the parents and protectors of the American race. The Incas, especially, then constituted the mythology of the revolution. Their Olympus had replaced that of ancient Greece: its symbolic sun, was the sacred of Prometheus, generator of patriotism. Manco Cápac, the American Jupiter who fulminated the rays of the revolution and Mama Ocllo, the indigenous Minerva that sprung from the head of the father of the new world shining of majesty and glory.
That is why Don Manuel was criticized by both liberals and revisionists, accusing him of 'illusion', of 'not very serious', of 'absurd proposal', of 'monarchical'. Of "conspiracy of generals" it called the Buenosairean pro-british press commanded by Manuel de Sarratea using the mercenary pen of Pazos Silva - in fact Pazos Kanki, a scribe at the pay of the Buenosairean interests - since those involved in the idea were the Generals Belgrano , San Martín and Don Martín Miguel de Güemes. The same former secretary of Don Manuel in the army of the North, Tomás Manuel de Anchorena will accuse him of being a monarchist when Belgrano proposes the Inca monarchy, but he would accept very willingly - like the rest of the Buenosairean directors - the proposal to crown Prince De Luca or a member of the Spanish royal family. A position that encouraged from London the frightened Don Bernardino, disconsolate at the prospect of having 'a king of the caste of chocolates' a 'cuico'.
This line necessarily should do from American emancipation from the great rebellion of Tupac Amaru. This is what Astesano points out and our forefathers point out in particular Castelli, Moreno and Belgrano, who see in the great revolution of the dismembered Inca, in the hundred thousand rebellious Indians murdered by the 'civilized' Spaniards, the origin of our liberating feat and not in the English invasions, as claimed by the pro-British Liberalism of Rivadavia, Miter, Sarmiento and Vicente Fidel López; but also the Hispanic nationalism of Palacio, Irazusta or Ibarguren. The Spaniards themselves were clear about what it was about and when it had all begun: the imperial political police called our revolutionaries of 1810-25 the Tupamaros, leaving no doubt about when Spain began to fear the loss of its colonies.
The proposal of the Inca King encloses the idea of the continental nation that Mayo had illuminated in Moreno's Revolutionary Plan, which Castelli tried with his march to the North. Returned later by the Lautaro Lodge in the October Revolution of 1812 - San Martin, Guido, Manuel Moreno, Monteagudo - that deposed the counterrevolutionary First Triumvirate. The Continental Plan is the cornerstone of San Martin's strategy and its close alliance with Belgrano, Güemes and O'Higgins. The Plan is inscribed in the South American tone of the Declaration of Independence that was made in the name of the 'United Provinces in South America' and not 'of the Río de la Plata' as Mitrism would later distort.
As a strategic fact, the plan of the Inca King allowed to revolt and incorporate to the revolution the great masses of Peru and Upper Peru - 2.5 million people versus the "Argentine desert" - demolishing the Spanish power in its Peruvian bastion. It also allowed incorporating the artiguist nation that under the flag of the federation and the republic already occupied half of the territory of the United Provinces. That is why the proposed Inca Monarchy was constitutional, with a life chamber of Caciques and another one of elected deputies. The proposal of the Inca King had to be well taken by the Indian masses Guarani and Charrúas that composed the majority of the artiguistas troops and that were related from immemorial times with the Incario, whose solidary essence had revived under the Jesuits in the missions. The question of Rey Inca also solved in one fell swoop the problem of all the problems that the American Revolution would insolutely burden: the egalitarian and democratic distribution of the land.
El Historiador has published a very interesting article on this subject here. Unfortunately I don't have the time to translate it into English, but it talks at lenght about the philosophical and historical concept of the revived Inca monarchy and the Patria Grande, and how those concepts proposed (or at least supported) by independence heroes such as San Martín, Belgrano and Guemes and provincial representatives constrasted with the Buenos Aires elites.
Some excerpts that I found particulary interesting:
Bartolomé Mitre, a *liberal* president of Argentina and one of the historians who have knew at lenght about the Incan Plan, wrote:
Even Mitre, a representative of the Buenos Aires oligarchy who later does not hide his racist comptempt for the plan (calling it "'Monarchy in sandals', 'this is a king of dirty feet' and the proposal a blemish on Belgrano's legacy), describes as such the fervor and romanticization of the Inca Empire by the early patriots. The description is frankly poetic and makes me wonder how would the art and culture of such a nation would develop.
Manuel Belgrano, the main supporter of the proposal, was very criticized by both his contemporaries and later historians such as Mitre. Among the usual racist criticisms of having a "barefoot king" from the "chocolate caste". Later memories, even in Rosas' time, would recall the "high contempt" towards the proposal of crowning an "Indian" who probably was "drunk in chicha" and had to be "dragged and dressed towards the throne.
So, there was MUCH opposition by Buenos Aires' elites.
Many people were in favor of a consitutional monarchy, but they would rather prefer a Spanish or Portuguese king rather than a "chocolate king".
However, the support for the Inca Plan was not unconsiderable, either; indeed, it was widely talked about by later historians. It included generals such as Belgrano, Castelli, Güemes, Moreno, and (probably apocryphal) San Martín.
This is why it was, by some, considered a "conspiracy of generals".
San Martín was in favor of a constitutional monarchy, though his support for the Incan Plan was never explicitly stated AFAIK. During his time as Protector of Perú, AFAIK, he never attempted to reintroduce the Incan monarchy or otherwise mess too much with Perú.
(My personal theory is that he did not want to become a politician at all. His personality seems of a man who felt more confortable in battle, not politics.)
Little is known for the popular support for the idea. Some sources say it was adopted by provincial representatives in the Congress of Tucumán, but it was drowned by the voices of Buenos Aires and the elites. All the main supporters I mentioned early, for all their ideals, died early deaths in poverty or were displaced in political disputes. There could have been popular support, but there was little
For Castelli, Moreno, and Belgrano, our independence struggle began not with the English Invasions of 1807 (when Buenos Aires organized by itself to fight against the British) but with the figure of Tupác Amaru. The Spanish apparently thought so, too.
Worth nothing that even in contemporary Argentine schools, there is great weight given towards the English Invasions, not so much to Tupác Amaru.
The Inca Plan was not only for Argentina, but it was part of a greater plan for a true Patria Grande, the unification of all Latin America. In the Inca Plan, the Argentine founding fathers saw the possibility of creating a nation that would also encompass the rest of the former Perú Viceroyaltly, or even all of South America.
This is why the declaration of independence of Argentina explicitly says United Provinces in South America, not just the Río de La Plata.
Worth noting: the original text of the declaration is both in Spanish and Quechua.
![]()
And now for some details on how the Incan proposal would work in practice. The idea of incorporating Peruvian and Bolivian natives to the revolution seems logical; but it's worth keeping in mind that in the Independence Wars, many natives sided with the Spanish instead, fearful of losing protection and priviliges given to the Indian elites. There was another article, I don't remember where, that especulated that the brutal repression of the Tupác Amaru rebellion destroyed the pro-independence Incan elites, and so they didn't play as an important part to the revolution as expected.
Now, the author is clearly biased towards the Patria Grande viewpoint, but the historical sources he uses are all accurate and put a perspective on this plan that is much talked and known about in Argentina and American history, but the actual ideas behind it are poorly known.
For another retelling of the idea, see here, http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201607/154527-belgrano-y-el-rey-inca-la-idea.php, of note is that the main candidate that Belgrano proposed, José Gabriel Condorcanqui Noguera, was imprisoned in Cetua, a Spanish enclave in Morocco.
...
Now, would it have worked? Could Argentine generals gain enough power and crown a descedent of the Inca as king? It is certainly possible. The Latin American Independence wars were so full of missing opportunities, power struggles and PODs that it could have been done.
Would have it the intended effect of creating a great South American nation? That is the big question. Historically, Argentina descended into pointless civil wars until the late XIX century, with Uruguay and Paraguay seceeding. The brief Perú-Bolivian Confederation failed, and for most of the history of those two countries, natives remained as an underclass. Chile was never really interested on joining anyone. Simón Bolívar, who had similar Pan-Americanist ideals, failed on keeping Gran Colombia together. And Brazil under its monarchy was more interested in waging war against the United Provinces rather than unification.
Could an Incan emperor reverse the trend?
I imagine we would see a civil war between the Porteño, pro-European elites and the provincial/criollo/natives pro-Incan camp. Who would win? In this case, assuming natives adopt the proposal enthusiastically, by sheer numbers, an revived Incan kingdom would win.
Could it keep its massive territory, virtually half of South America, together? Very unlikely. But if at that point it would already had achieved the impossible: reviving the Incan monarchy and defeating the pro-European elites, what is there that a new Incanate could not do? I have seen more unlikely events on history.
So yes, if history had played differently, a revived Incan Kingdom it would have been possible. Far from an utopia, but a very interesting possibility nevertheless.
Excatly, very unique and take..maybe an alternate war with argentina later on?If the arguments about Buenos Aires and the Plata estuary settlements being more racist than the other provinces are to be believed, then i think it wouldn't be a stretch to rule out a secession of BA (both the city and the province, and perhaps some unsettled lands in Patagonia). This could have interesting effects on Uruguay, as the Inca Empire (assuming that's the adopted name), controlling the northern half of OTL Argentina (and maybe also Paraguay), will now consider the Banda Oriental as strategic territory for securing their trade routes to the Atlantic.
Thank you.@EnvarKadri i summon your knowledge!.
snip
Yeah, that was basically the gist of it, but keep in mind that the centralist vs con/federalist dispute permeated all of this discussions more then race, after all, Mitre himself admites that even if the representatives from Buenos Aires weren't happy about having a relative of Tupac Amaru as king instead of an european prince, they were ready to accept it because of how enthusiastic the peruvian (and bolivian) representatives were about it and because of the surprising support of most of the governors of the northern provinces, but the real point thet provoked such an hostil reaction from the porteños was the proposal of elevating Cuzco to new capital of government and for Buenos Aires would not accept any kind of union were the real power wasnt in Bs. As.. To illustrate the situation, here is a map of the United Provinces at the time:If the arguments about Buenos Aires and the Plata estuary settlements being more racist than the other provinces are to be believed, then i think it wouldn't be a stretch to rule out a secession of BA (both the city and the province, and perhaps some unsettled lands in Patagonia). This could have interesting effects on Uruguay, as the Inca Empire (assuming that's the adopted name), controlling the northern half of OTL Argentina (and maybe also Paraguay), will now consider the Banda Oriental as strategic territory for securing their trade routes to the Atlantic.