Strong American nations other than the US?

[The Space Viking]

I'm bouncing around ideas for a new TL, and I'd like to dedicate as much time and effort into this one as I can, but I'll need some questions answered first before I go any further.

First, can the First Mexican Empire stay an Empire and still be competent? Maybe Agustin I gives up some power to the congress, and in turn the Constitutional Emperor becomes something akin to the Regent in the UK? Maybe it Federalizes?

Also, Gran Columbia, how long can that union of nations last? Is there any way it could have survived after Bolivar? Maybe he lives longer and enacts reforms, or possibly a good enough constitution is written and he doesn't have to become dictator?

I think if these two nations got their shit together, they could be forces to be reckoned with, and maybe even become rivals to the US in the Americas.

 

[archaeogeek]

Bolivar surviving actually reduces the chances of the first colombian republic holding together; he'd have been better off dying on the way to Peru and being replaced after a parliamentary putsch.
IMO
It would not have been a superpower but could have had the potential to be an industrial power: it was certainly wealthier than Mexico by a wide margin in the 50s if not quite as much as Argentina. Maybe an unofficial Great Power, even.

The United States of South America, with or without Chile, would also be an interesting contender, as it would be Argentina with the added benefit of controlling Bolivian coal, it would also mean no war of the Triple Alliance, and no Chaco war. The main problem is that the main military leaders of the south american wars of independence thoroughly sucked as peacetime leaders (O'Higgins, San Martin and Bolivar, equally so).

For a "revolutionary war hero" à la Washington I contend that a surviving and wildly succesful Miranda would be a much better fit. French parliamentarian, resigned in protest as the republic became increasingly dictatorial, well seen in enlightenment circles.

Interestingly he was known as "the peruvian general" in some of the correspondance about his arrest in France before he was exiled; maybe the Viceroyalty of Peru could end up split between the two spanish republic - that said nothing really prevents the two halves of it from being viable as countries or, in the case of Peru, a Spanish Canada, except for the weakness of post-Napoleonic Spain.

The First Mexican Empire is potentially too late IMO, because it came after a war that wrecked most of Mexican industry, mining, etc: this means they basically had to build from scratch.

 

[The Space Viking]

I didn't know that about the First Mexican Empire. I should probably switch the focus from there to the predecessor of Argentine, the UPSA. I also thought, incorrectly, that Bolivar was a good leader, so the Parliamentary putsch you suggested sounds like the better route to go in.

 

[archaeogeek]

I didn't know that about the First Mexican Empire. I should probably switch the focus from there to the predecessor of Argentine, the UPSA. I also thought, incorrectly, that Bolivar was a good leader, so the Parliamentary putsch you suggested sounds like the better route to go in.

I'm a bit overstating Bolivar's incompetence, but to some extent: he had some of the better political leaders of the republic exiled, he made little to no effort to integrate Ecuador in the republic as anything but an occupied country, the constitution of Cucuta was fairly well done, but his main problem was being unwilling to wait the 10 years cooling period the congressmen had decided on at Cucuta.

 

[The Space Viking]

I'm a bit overstating Bolivar's incompetence, but to some extent: he had some of the better political leaders of the republic exiled, he made little to no effort to integrate Ecuador in the republic as anything but an occupied country, the constitution of Cucuta was fairly well done, but his main problem was being unwilling to wait the 10 years cooling period the congressmen had decided on at Cucuta.

So he was impatient and not very trustworthy of other politicians. A more democratic run Gran Columbia sounds like it would do fine.

 

[Delvestius]

The entire reason South America split was due to the opportunites given to various factions leaders. I have ran a scenario in which South America (sans Brazil) stays together to create a South American union, and it's plausable to do the cultural and econmoic similarities between the previous viceroyalties. However, do to their incoherance, this allowed various men with different political agendas to rise to power and carve out their own little slice of idealogical and political heaven.

If they had better centralized their power, maybe if Europe had intervened, South America could have stayed together. However, do to their location and geography, I doubt they could have contended with America, even in parternship with Mexico. Perhaps they would contend over trade for a bit, but eventually it would crumble before any legitimate effects of their status could be felt by the U.S.

 

[The Space Viking]

The entire reason South America split was due to the opportunites given to various factions leaders. I have ran a scenario in which South America (sans Brazil) stays together to create a South American union, and it's plausable to do the cultural and econmoic similarities between the previous viceroyalties. However, do to their incoherance, this allowed various men with different political agendas to rise to power and carve out their own little slice of idealogical and political heaven.

If they had better centralized their power, maybe if Europe had intervened, South America could have stayed together. However, do to their location and geography, I doubt they could have contended with America, even in parternship with Mexico. Perhaps they would contend over trade for a bit, but eventually it would crumble before any legitimate effects of their status could be felt by the U.S.

I have no intentions of uniting South America, but I didn't know it was in such a shit situation after independence. I'm going to drop mexico as its the weakest (by far) link in the chain. The UPSA is probably the better choice with for the third American superpower I want, but the problem I see for these south american nations is that they're weak and unstable, and I need to figure out how to plausibly change that.

 

[Delvestius]

Well, in order for that to be the case, Spanish colonies would of had to of been settled for domestic purposes instead of strictly economic ones. South America had no real population base, because all of the colonies were plantation colonies. If you were to have Spain settle South America as opposed to only set up a plantation system, there would be more coherantcy.

 

[Petete123123]

The United States of South America, with or without Chile, would also be an interesting contender, as it would be Argentina with the added benefit of controlling Bolivian coal, it would also mean no war of the Triple Alliance, and no Chaco war. The main problem is that the main military leaders of the south american wars of independence thoroughly sucked as peacetime leaders (O'Higgins, San Martin and Bolivar, equally so).

San Martin won't ever be know. He decided to exile before seeing his countrymen fight between them. Besides, he had really good values,

You should read the "Maximas to Merceditas", they are really short and show of what he was made.

 

[Petete123123]

I have no intentions of uniting South America, but I didn't know it was in such a shit situation after independence. I'm going to drop mexico as its the weakest (by far) link in the chain. The UPSA is probably the better choice with for the third American superpower I want, but the problem I see for these south american nations is that they're weak and unstable, and I need to figure out how to plausibly change that.

Easy, immigration. It happened in OTL, and we received like 3,3 million immigrants in just 50 years, between 1870 and 1920. If we start with immigration 50 years before, after Napoleonic wars it won't hurt the country. Maybe some 1848 immigration to bring brains to the country in order to help development. And also avoid giving most of the land to 10 families like it happened in Argentina. Giving them to immigrants would help make more immigrants to come.
Then we have natural population growth. In OTL and until 1860, USA's population duplicated every 20 years more or less. The reason why that didn't happen in South America were continuos wars, civil wars and unestability. Argentina had 600.000 inhabitants in 1810 and by 1830 it barely had like 700.000. If it grew like the USA it would be 1.200.000 by 1830, and 2.400.000 by 1850, and then like 3.600.000 by 1860, which would be double than in OTL.

 

[The Space Viking]

So I'm going to need a much earlier PoD than I assumed.

 

[Petete123123]

So I'm going to need a much earlier PoD than I assumed.

Not really. 1800 can be optimal.

Another thing that I thought is having France keeping Louisiana and actually defending and settling it, so the USA is kept East of the Mississippi. That way it's easier to be as powerful as USA

 

[archaeogeek]

Not really. 1800 can be optimal.

Another thing that I thought is having France keeping Louisiana and actually defending and settling it, so the USA is kept East of the Mississippi. That way it's easier to be as powerful as USA

Hell, 1800 can actually avoid Mexico a lot of its OTL fate including the loss of the Central American provinces

 

[Hobelhouse]

And also avoid giving most of the land to 10 families like it happened in Argentina. Giving them to immigrants would help make more immigrants to come.

From what I understand, the reason that Argentina's industrial growth faltered is that the wealth was heavily concentrated in the landowning class, like you said, and they were more interested in living the aristocratic life than investing in business. What PODs could split up these holdings or prevent them from existing?

 

[The Space Viking]

Not really. 1800 can be optimal.

Another thing that I thought is having France keeping Louisiana and actually defending and settling it, so the USA is kept East of the Mississippi. That way it's easier to be as powerful as USA

That's a really good idea, but I'd need an earlier PoD for that, by 1800 Spain already had Louisiana.

 

[archaeogeek]

That's a really good idea, but I'd need an earlier PoD for that, by 1800 Spain already had Louisiana.

Which it would lose again in 3 years - if Haiti doesn't secede, the French would likely not have sold the whole of Louisiana. The main problem is that a victory on the ground would be pretty hard (feasible but... for what value of feasible): it doesn't necessarily stop other means of winning the rebels over.

 

[The Space Viking]

Which it would lose again in 3 years - if Haiti doesn't secede, the French would likely not have sold the whole of Louisiana. The main problem is that a victory on the ground would be pretty hard (feasible but... for what value of feasible): it doesn't necessarily stop other means of winning the rebels over.

Doesn't matter. The whole point is for the colonies to go independent.

 

[archaeogeek]

Doesn't matter. The whole point is for the colonies to go independent.

I have an idea!
IOTL, the northern provinces of New Spain almost became a Viceroyalty of New Vizcaya to be developed better, but it was shot down when they calculated that the viceroyalty wouldn't even be able to cover its defence budget, and as a result the region was still mostly unsettled when Mexico declared independence. This viceroyalty would have been the provinces of Coahuilha, Sonora, Sinaloa, New Mexico, Texas, Durango and the Californias. Instead the became an autonomous "Comandancia" of the Internal Provinces, essentially an exalted Captaincy-General. Had New Spain been divided such there might have been a republic cropping up (let's call it Chihuahua) that would have been a buffer between the US and Mexico. Although tbh this was not quite the worst problem of Mexico... Any bullshit about Louisiana and the southwest would then end up being this republic of Chihuahua and the United States. Hell, Mexico and the US could end up splitting the spoils or trying to make it go the way of the OTL UPCA

Basically you'd have Mexico losing its 7 northern states but regaining the Trans-Rio Grande parts of Tamaulipas.

On second thought I don't think it does quite much

 

[Admiral Brown]

From what I understand, the reason that Argentina's industrial growth faltered is that the wealth was heavily concentrated in the landowning class, like you said, and they were more interested in living the aristocratic life than investing in business. What PODs could split up these holdings or prevent them from existing?

Maybe if President Sarmiento (1868-1874) had been more succesful. He's a controversial figure now, since he said very nasty things about indians and gauchos. But his plan was to make gauchos sedentary farmers, and to allow immigrants cheap access to land*. He failed, and when, 1879, the pampas were "cleared" of natives, a bunch of families got the best lands. When immigrants started comming massively after 1880, the best lands were in a few hands, so the immigrants had to become tennants.

There are exceptions: many were able to get land, specially in Santa Fe and Southern Cordoba. But most of the territories in Buenos Aires Province and in La Pampa ended in the hands of a few rich families.

Sarmiento is remembered for his educational policies. But his more cheerished project (the creation of a stong class of middle-class farmers) failed.

such a class does exist today (in a way), as the properties ended up being divided between different heirs, and as, eventually, many tenants were able to become landowners. But it took far too long...


* Indians, however, didn't fit in his plan (in fact, they didn't in the plans of most politicians of the time).

 

[The Space Viking]

I have an idea!
IOTL, the northern provinces of New Spain almost became a Viceroyalty of New Vizcaya to be developed better, but it was shot down when they calculated that the viceroyalty wouldn't even be able to cover its defence budget, and as a result the region was still mostly unsettled when Mexico declared independence. This viceroyalty would have been the provinces of Coahuilha, Sonora, Sinaloa, New Mexico, Texas, Durango and the Californias. Instead the became an autonomous "Comandancia" of the Internal Provinces, essentially an exalted Captaincy-General. Had New Spain been divided such there might have been a republic cropping up (let's call it Chihuahua) that would have been a buffer between the US and Mexico. Although tbh this was not quite the worst problem of Mexico... Any bullshit about Louisiana and the southwest would then end up being this republic of Chihuahua and the United States. Hell, Mexico and the US could end up splitting the spoils or trying to make it go the way of the OTL UPCA

Basically you'd have Mexico losing its 7 northern states but regaining the Trans-Rio Grande parts of Tamaulipas.

On second thought I don't think it does quite much

Are those provinces rich in anyway? Because if it becomes a populous and economically strong nation it could be an effective rival to the U.S. and would fulfill the goal of what I want to do.