No, I don't mean the religion 
In 1820, a major battle broke out in Argentina (or as it was called then, the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata) over which ideology would predominate in Argentina, at least at that moment.
On one side were the Federalists. They were conservative, somewhat populist and defended autonomy for the Argentine provinces. On the other were the Unitarians, they were classical liberals who defended free trade, were heavily inspired by European ideas of development and defended the centralization of Argentina, with Buenos Aires having more control over the finances of the country and being a more powerful entity within the state.
The Battle of Cepeda was then the logical conclusion to the civil war that had been taking place in the Rio de la Plata since the declaration of independence in 1810. The Unitarians were defeated by the Federalists in the battle and what followed was technically the end of the Argentine state, as caudillos became predominant, each one controlling their own region, and this was only "stabilized" years later.
The Unitarians weren't however the "good guys" (nor were the Federalists) in this battle. They were heavily prejudiced against the interior provinces, seeing them as backwards and uncivilized. José Rondeau, who took the title of "Supreme Director of the United Provinces [...]" , supposedly had monarchist sympathies.
There was another major consequence of this battle beside the destruction of Argentina as a country, and it was that with the defeat of the Unitarians, the liberal-leaning Constitution of 1819 stopped existing. This delayed the crafting of an Argentine constitution, which was followed by a new one in 1826 and finally the 1853 Constitution, that's still in force to this day.
So what would be the consequences of the Unitarians triumphally defeating the Federalists at the Battle of Cepeda? Would we see a stronger Argentine state that would be able to fight Brazil better in the Cisplatine War? Would a Bourbon be crowned King of the United Provinces? Or would it simply delay the Federalist movement's growth in the 1820s?
In 1820, a major battle broke out in Argentina (or as it was called then, the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata) over which ideology would predominate in Argentina, at least at that moment.
On one side were the Federalists. They were conservative, somewhat populist and defended autonomy for the Argentine provinces. On the other were the Unitarians, they were classical liberals who defended free trade, were heavily inspired by European ideas of development and defended the centralization of Argentina, with Buenos Aires having more control over the finances of the country and being a more powerful entity within the state.
The Battle of Cepeda was then the logical conclusion to the civil war that had been taking place in the Rio de la Plata since the declaration of independence in 1810. The Unitarians were defeated by the Federalists in the battle and what followed was technically the end of the Argentine state, as caudillos became predominant, each one controlling their own region, and this was only "stabilized" years later.
The Unitarians weren't however the "good guys" (nor were the Federalists) in this battle. They were heavily prejudiced against the interior provinces, seeing them as backwards and uncivilized. José Rondeau, who took the title of "Supreme Director of the United Provinces [...]" , supposedly had monarchist sympathies.
There was another major consequence of this battle beside the destruction of Argentina as a country, and it was that with the defeat of the Unitarians, the liberal-leaning Constitution of 1819 stopped existing. This delayed the crafting of an Argentine constitution, which was followed by a new one in 1826 and finally the 1853 Constitution, that's still in force to this day.
So what would be the consequences of the Unitarians triumphally defeating the Federalists at the Battle of Cepeda? Would we see a stronger Argentine state that would be able to fight Brazil better in the Cisplatine War? Would a Bourbon be crowned King of the United Provinces? Or would it simply delay the Federalist movement's growth in the 1820s?
