Why didnt Bolivar's revolution produced a United States

>>1400132
Geography.

File: Great_Colombia.png (89KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 550x550px

>>1400132

It sort of did, but the state failed miserably.

>>1400132
Why did glorified administrative regions develop strong national identities?

>>1400132
Bolivar was more of a monarchist desu

>>1400143
Didn't stop the u.s
>>1400154
Fucking shame
>>1400233
This shouldn't matter

File: 764x480.jpg (82KB, 764x480px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 764x480px

>>1400132
Bolivar and San Martin met and didn´t like each other very much

>>1400272
The USA conquered most of it's territory by itself, claiming it from nature or natives.

The latin american nations mostly did not with the exception of Chile and Argentina. The thirteen colonies didn't really occupy a significant part of territory for american standards, but they had no equivalent states bordering them and occupying all north america.

>>1400167
Why not? The nation has to start somewhere.

>>1400272
Yeah because the US doesn't have the fucking Andes, the Amazon and the Caribbean in the middle of it.

>>1400167
>develop strong national identities

They didn't t.b.h.

>>1400132
The people fought for the right to rule over themselves for the first time, a centralized government over all of them wouldn't have left them happy, so they decided to keep more or less the same divisions made by Spain but under autonomous rule.

>>1400303
This. Plus, the United States beyond the original 13 colonies was settled by people who considered themselves Americans, and relied on the power of the American federal and state governments to enforce their land claims and provide law and order.

With Latin America, the natives and Spanish settlers all considered themselves Spanish subjects. When Spain's rule collapsed, it produced a vacuum of sovereigntype in which many people seeking power could forge new governments and, if they didn't want to compromise with others, new countries.