1885 Chilean-American War

In 1885, when Colombia limited its military presence in Panama in order to send more troops to fight rebels in Cartagena, the US Navy intervened in Panama to maintain peace as the US had rights to do so to protect its transit rights in the isthmus as per an 1846 treaty between the US and Colombia. Colombian Marines showed up shortly after to restore order in Panama and the US marine contingent in the area supported them.

Chile, responding to the US intervention, sent a cruiser to Panama City with the intention of prevention a potential US annexation of Panama. By the time the Chileans showed up though, the Colombians and Americans had handled the situation and the Americans had moved out.

What if things had been a bit messier in 1885 and the Chileans and Americans had come to blows?
 
I Invoke @Paradox-less to help me to give a Answer.

Well as we wait he arrived I give my answer

Well the situation is Fucked
The Chilean navy is the more powerful Navy in the Pacific hands downs, there is no other country with pacific ports that could dispute this situation, Chile have control of the Magellan strait and the drake passage, the only know passage from the Atlantic to the pacific until 1915(panama canal opening) vital for the USA, and well everyone else, Pacific Shipping, and also Have control of the principal port of the Pacific, Valparaiso(remember that Peru was occupied by Chilean Forces until 1883), Ecuador and Colombia are Allies of Chile and in case of war Caused by The panama crisis, Colombia is a Chilean co-belligerent.
Brasil and Chile have a really cordial Relations, only Argentina could be a problem, but in this age they are inward looking and consolidating his Desert conquest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert)

Chile is still in war footing, they are taking Peruvian and Bolivian territory and until 1883 they still have forces in Lima, the process of soldier demobilization was ended, but still have a pool of veterans readily available to recruit in case of war

they still Have a strong pacific fleet,the ships, from weakest to strongest

CORBETA "O'HIGGINS
Year 1866
Despl. 1101 tons
Weapons
4 de 40 lbs.
3 cannons of 7"
2 de 70 lbs.
machine power
1.200 HP.
Max Speed
9 knots
CORBETA/CAÑONERA "PILCOMAYO"
Year 1864
Despl. 600 toneladas.

Weapons
4 cannon de 12 lbs.
4 cannon de 40 lbs.
2 cannon de 70 lbs.
machine power
1.080 IHP. a 10 knots
Max Speed
11 knots.

BLINDADO "COCHRANE"
Year 1873
Despl. 3.560 tons
Weapons
2 torpedo tube 14" above water line
2 torpedo tube 14"under water line .
3 Gatling de 1".
4 cannons de 1 pdr.
4 cannons de 6 pdr.
4 cannons de 4.7".
6 cannons de 8".
machine power
2.920 HP.
Max Speed
12.75 knots
lenght 210 pies

BLINDADO "BLANCO ENCALADA
Year 1875
Despl. 3.560 tons
Weapons
2 torpedo tube 14" above water line
2 torpedo tube 14"under water line .
3 Gatling de 1".
4 cannons de 1 pdr.
4 cannons de 6 pdr.
4 cannons de 4.7".
6 cannons de 8".
machine power
2.920 HP.
Max Speed
12.75 knots
lenght 210 pies


MONITOR "HUÁSCAR"
year 1865
Despl. 1.180 tons (B.O.M).
Weapons
1 Gatling .44.
1 Cannon 12 pounds
2 Cannon de 40 pounds
2 Cannon de 300 pounds (custom made to shore bombardment)
machine power
300 HP.
Max Speed
11 knots
lenght 195 foot

PROTECTED CRUISER "ESMERALDA"( the one send to Colombia)

you know the Izumi(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Izumi) is the same ship
Type: Protected cruiser
Displacement: 2,930 long tons (2,977 t)
Length: 82.29 m (270 ft) w/l
Beam: 12.8 m (42 ft)
Draught: 5.64 m (18 ft 6 in)
Propulsion:
  • Horizontal double expansion steam engines, 6,083 hp (4,536 kW)
  • 12 boilers
  • 2 shafts
  • 600 tons coal
Speed: 18.25 knots (21.0 mph; 33.8 km/h)
Complement: 300
Armament:
Armour:
  • 25 mm (0.98 in) deck armor (slope)
  • 12 mm (0.47 in) deck armor (flat)
Plus a series of minor ship for coastal defense and support

For USA I can´t find his pacific fleet composition or strength in this period. The Atlantic USA fleet is irrelevant, they don´t have how arrive to Chile, as I say Chile control all the passages from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the would have to operate from the other side of the world, without friendly ports and the long road (Atlantic-Indian ocean-Pacific) it´s not feasible.

Saltpeter, the principal exporting good of Chile representing 30% of the national exports, only have a tax of around 2% of the value of the export total, so in case of war they could easily be go up to pay the necessities of the war, and if the companies question this they would be refereed to make his complaints against the USA, as the USA aggression war is the culprit. Remember Chile are intervening on Behalf of Colombia being invaded by USA Troops, that are trying to annex Panama.

Chilean Saltpeter are also vital to the agricultural sectors of the UK, France, Germany and Scandinavia, an only really important to the economies of Europe in general
And to complicate more the USA situation most of the Shipping is in English hands, so they Couldn´t implement and embargo against Chile, well they could try but it ´s a embargo against the Royal Navy.

Chile have in this year a Defense Budget of US$4.300.000 (US 77,994,483.30 as 2005 Dollar) VS the little more than US 100.000.000 AS 2005 that USA spend the same years (source 1 http://www.saladehistoria.com/PSU/Preuniversitario/2013/GM814.pdf source 2 https://www.usgovernmentspending.co...0USm_19s2li011mcn_30f_Defense_Spending_Spikes), So in theory there is not a mayor economical difference.

Most of the Chilean weapons are imported, but Chile could produce Bullets and Cannonballs for the weapons that they have.

Chile could send ships to bombardment California, San Francisco, an even disembark troops, but don´t have the logistical means to maintain a occupation, so they only could do is pillage, and the associate tropes.

In Case the Chileans use the the Colombian Docks of the Atlantic side as base to continue the war I don´t know how the war would develop, In theory Chile have the upper hand but are far from his base and supply train and i doubt they could touch the Atlantic cost of USA, Is feasible that a Chilean navy Presence on the Atlantic disrupt enough the USA influence on the Central America, that we could see a end of the Banana republic funding by USA interest but again i´don´t know enough of the political situation in this age.

In conclusion is a situation that Chile could theoretically project force until California and San Francisco without problem, send troops to reinforce the Colombian situation, an even burn San Francisco, but can´t touch the Atlantic side of USA, and USA can´t touch Chile, or enter in the Pacific, and couldn´t disrupt the Chilean commerce because more of the commerce was done by English and German ships.

So all in all a lose for the USA. if the war takes longer, the industrial and sheer size advantages of the USA take hold, but i doubt the war last this long
 
Last edited:
For a thousand years, I lay dormant. Who dares to invoke me!?

Ah, the Panama crisis. Always a fun subject for me.

There's actually a fragment from Sater's War of the Pacific that could very much apply here.

20171128_171729.png

Like @Lenwe said, Chile could very much attack any US ship in the Eastern Pacific with impunity in this scenario.

The Esmeralda alone was described as being able to "sink our vessels one by one and not get hit once."

And there's also another quote that I've used before.

"The US naval force there, "The South Pacific Station" consists of four unprotected ships(...)the Pensacola can make eight knots; Alaska, eleven knots; the Lackawanna eight knots; and Adams eleven knots. None of those ships can reach or flee from the Almirante Cochrane or the Blanco Encalada. The whole squadron does not have enough strength to even compete with one of those ironclads, and does not have enough speed to avoid a lost confrontation(...)It is sure that in a conflict with that little nation, the United States would be helpless to resist the first attack (...) and Chile could impose tribute to the city of San Francisco or seal the Golden Gate as an iron wall."

This was in 1882. 3 years later, the addition of the Esmeralda tipped the scales some more.

IIRC, the US Navy is mostly ships of the Civil War era.

Chile could field a respectable army(and there's Korner to be considered a couple years down the line) with the pool of veterans not yet destroyed by a civil war. But in Panama, it would be a nightmare to supply.

Let's just say that it would remind some people a little too much of the logistical hell that was the Peruvian sierra.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
For a thousand years, I lay dormant. Who dares to invoke me!?

Ah, the Panama crisis. Always a fun subject for me.

There's actually a fragment from Sater's War of the Pacific that could very much apply here.

View attachment 361755
Like @Lenwe said, Chile could very much attack any US ship in the Eastern Pacific with impunity in this scenario.

The Esmeralda alone was described as being able to "sink our vessels one by one and not get hit once."

And there's also another quote that I've used before.

"The US naval force there, "The South Pacific Station" consists of four unprotected ships(...)the Pensacola can make eight knots; Alaska, eleven knots; the Lackawanna eight knots; and Adams eleven knots. None of those ships can reach or flee from the Almirante Cochrane or the Blanco Encalada. The whole squadron does not have enough strength to even compete with one of those ironclads, and does not have enough speed to avoid a lost confrontation(...)It is sure that in a conflict with that little nation, the United States would be helpless to resist the first attack (...) and Chile could impose tribute to the city of San Francisco or seal the Golden Gate as an iron wall."

This was in 1882. 3 years later, the addition of the Esmeralda tipped the scales some more.

IIRC, the US Navy is mostly ships of the Civil War era.

Chile could field a respectable army(and there's Korner to be considered a couple years down the line) with the pool of veterans not yet destroyed by a civil war. But in Panama, it would be a nightmare to supply.

Let's just say that it would remind some people a little too much of the logistical hell that was the Peruvian sierra.

Chilean Hawaii!!
 
Interesting. Chile was only concerned that America was going to establish a permanent presence in Panama, which they didn't. The arrival of the Esmeralda was to remind the US of the capability of the Chilean Navy and hopefully dissuade them from staying if that had ever been their intention. But let's assume that Columbia proves incapable of maintaining order and the US decides to form a permanent protectorate over Panama to safeguard the isthmus railroad. The Columbians would be pissed, and Chile could legitimately act on request of the Columbian government. But what can they do?

Admittedly Chile has a few vastly superior naval units, and quite an efficient army. But they are surrounded by growing threats at home, especially from Argentina. This was one of the main reasons for them backing down over the Baltimore Crisis six years later. Would they really commit themselves to war in Central America against the United States? Not IMO without some aid from another major player. And who would that be? France?
 
Interesting. Chile was only concerned that America was going to establish a permanent presence in Panama, which they didn't. The arrival of the Esmeralda was to remind the US of the capability of the Chilean Navy and hopefully dissuade them from staying if that had ever been their intention. But let's assume that Columbia proves incapable of maintaining order and the US decides to form a permanent protectorate over Panama to safeguard the isthmus railroad. The Columbians would be pissed, and Chile could legitimately act on request of the Columbian government. But what can they do?

Admittedly Chile has a few vastly superior naval units, and quite an efficient army. But they are surrounded by growing threats at home, especially from Argentina. This was one of the main reasons for them backing down over the Baltimore Crisis six years later. Would they really commit themselves to war in Central America against the United States? Not IMO without some aid from another major player. And who would that be? France?

No you are wrong the backing down in the Baltimore Crisis is have more to do that Chile just came out of a civil war that decimated the army, the veteran forces of the War of the Pacific dead, and a decimated navy with the destruction of the Pilcomayo and the Blanco Encalada

The Navy of 1891 of the USA was vastly more powerful that their 1885 Navy. Why do you Ask? Because after the 1885 Crisis, They commissioned The protected Cruise: USS Atlanta(1886), USS Boston (1887), USS Chicago (1889), USS Charleston (1889), USS Newark (1891). None of these where a Factor in the 1885, plus even in the event that the USA rush the Commission of the USS Atlanta y the USS Boston, that fact remain that they are in the Atlantic ocean, and the Chilean Fleet in the Pacific, in 1891 there at least 2 protected cruiser as part of the Pacific Fleet

Argentina is not issue also in 1885, contrary that in 1891, as in 1885 Argentina was inside the Conquest of the Desert and just coming out of another Civil war The 1880 Revolution and the Federalization of Buenos Aires, and a lot of Centralist Argentinean flee to Chile, So Argentina is in a process of rebuilding and with a frail government that couldn´t call to war in and aggression war, plus the Pan-Americanism in the 1880-1900 was pretty strong in Argentina will mean that Declaring a war against Chile could provoke another civil war.

Chile have and Alliance treaty with Colombia in the specific Case of and intervention inside of both Countries, so at least Chile will declare Hostility against the USA intervention.
 
Chile is certainly more likely to oppose the Americans in 1885. I did say Argentinian hostility was only one of the reasons. The marked improvement in the US Navy, and exhausted condition of the Chilean armed forces were obviously others. If only they'd had the Capitan Prat!

But as to 1885, as a naval wargamer, the Chilean/US conflict is fascinating, but I honestly don't believe Chile would have acted unilaterally against America.
 
Chile is certainly more likely to oppose the Americans in 1885. I did say Argentinian hostility was only one of the reasons. The marked improvement in the US Navy, and exhausted condition of the Chilean armed forces were obviously others. If only they'd had the Capitan Prat!

But as to 1885, as a naval wargamer, the Chilean/US conflict is fascinating, but I honestly don't believe Chile would have acted unilaterally against America.

No, Chile wouldn´t act unilateral against the USA, But Chile Acted in the 1885 Crisis as Petition of the Colombian Government that feel that the USA intervention was against the 1846 Treaty and where Wary that the USA intervention was an excuse used by the USA to Annex Panama, that would go in accord with the modus operandi of the USA in Central America during the 1800. So if Colombia make a declaration that the USA intervention was and Aggression act, Chile will ratify the 1821 Treaty and Support Colombia againts USA.
From the USA historiography point of view they tend to minimize the fact that the Colombian government fell threatened with the USA intervention and that Colombia Asked Chile to intervente

Source on that affirmation(in Spanish)
https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-23762004000100009#nota43
http://memoriacentroamericana.ihnca.edu.ni/uploads/media/23.pdf (pag 61-79)

this one in english

http://www.ijnhonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pdf_tromben_english.pdf

Edit: the treaty is from 1821 not 1823 as first indicated
 
Chile would have the initial advantage, maybe even inflicting a significant defeat on the US early on.

No US administration or party could let such a thing stand. The war would continue until the US's industrial advantage decided things.
 
Chile would have the initial advantage, maybe even inflicting a significant defeat on the US early on. No US administration or party could let such a thing stand. The war would continue until the US's industrial advantage decided things.

But there is nothing significant Chile can do in an offensive war. Sure, they can bombard the US west coast, which is morally devastating, but they have too few ships and are too far away to instigate any sort of blockade or invasion. And there is absolutely nothing they can do on the east coast. Even in Panama the US can feed troops and supplies in unimpeded from the Atlantic side.
 
But there is nothing significant Chile can do in an offensive war. Sure, they can bombard the US west coast, which is morally devastating, but they have too few ships and are too far away to instigate any sort of blockade or invasion. And there is absolutely nothing they can do on the east coast. Even in Panama the US can feed troops and supplies in unimpeded from the Atlantic side.

Yeah it is not like the world wants Chilean bat shit....oh wait!

Far more likely than bombarding cities is the predation of trans-Pacific and West Coast trade which hurts financially, that and withholding the supply of nitrates could be fun for the US economy. In the 1880s a lot of the US Army is still policing the West against restless Native American tribes. On the other hand the US merchant marine is larger than it would be (its decline is ongoing until the late 1890s) so there is more shipping for transport. I do not see either side deploying very large forces in Panama.
 
Smaller Chile in the long run depending on how the US perceives the war in the future. For starters, the US will make sure that Tacna and Arica become Peruvian once again. Probably during the 1890s/early 1900s you'd see the proposed plebiscite regarding those provinces held under the watchful eye of the US Navy, and it just so happens the result would confirm Peruvian rule.
 
Yeah it is not like the world wants Chilean bat shit....oh wait!

Far more likely than bombarding cities is the predation of trans-Pacific and West Coast trade which hurts financially, that and withholding the supply of nitrates could be fun for the US economy. In the 1880s a lot of the US Army is still policing the West against restless Native American tribes. On the other hand the US merchant marine is larger than it would be (its decline is ongoing until the late 1890s) so there is more shipping for transport. I do not see either side deploying very large forces in Panama.

But withholding Nitrate is a double edged sword. The Chilean economy relies on the income from Nitrate sales.
 
Smaller Chile in the long run depending on how the US perceives the war in the future. For starters, the US will make sure that Tacna and Arica become Peruvian once again. Probably during the 1890s/early 1900s you'd see the proposed plebiscite regarding those provinces held under the watchful eye of the US Navy, and it just so happens the result would confirm Peruvian rule.
Not to be that guy but that Is what Happen in OTL but during The 1920, that Is The only reason Tacna Is Peruvian Today, as Chile was "asked" to return Tacna to Perú By the USA situation that was resistes by chile until 1929, when The crisis( Chile was the most affected country Worldwide) make The Chilean situation unsustantable
 
But withholding Nitrate is a double edged sword. The Chilean economy relies on the income from Nitrate sales.
To the world...the impact will be felt but at least at first should affect the US more than Chile
As I Say in my first post, Chile don't even need to stop The nitrates Sales, they could easily just tax it more Stronger, as I say, The export tax of Nitrates during The age was around 8%(actulised figure) thst represented around 20-40% of The tax base of Chile, so Is relative easy for The Chilean goverment to do a tax increase, and an especial one to the USA destined export, so Europe get their Nitrates and feud againts USA as their agresión make The nitrates more expensive. The other think Is that most of The mines was in English hands, and The English love to intervene when their economic interest áre involved
 
Not to be that guy but that Is what Happen in OTL but during The 1920, that Is The only reason Tacna Is Peruvian Today, as Chile was "asked" to return Tacna to Perú By the USA situation that was resistes by chile until 1929, when The crisis( Chile was the most affected country Worldwide) make The Chilean situation unsustantable

But the Treaty of Ancón stated that Arica and Tacna would hold a plebiscite after 10 years (1893) to determine which country would get Arica and Tacna. Things didn't go that way and it took until 1929 for a solution to happen. Chile and Peru argued about the solution between the 1890s and 1929.

Here, I think any potential humiliation of the US will be returned to Chile big time. The US will make sure to insert themselves into the negotiations regarding Tacna and Arica, and Peru will absolutely love it since they can be sure the US will be backing them in their foreign policy toward Chile. That's where you get a "wake up call" to the US Navy (this war), and said revamped US Navy (new cruisers and battleships) showing up in an act of battleship diplomacy to make sure that Peru (US ally) gets what they think is theirs.
 
While Argentina was far less inestable in 1885 than it was 30 years earlier, I don't see Roca going to war against Chile in behalf of the USA
 
While Argentina was far less inestable in 1885 than it was 30 years earlier, I don't see Roca going to war against Chile in behalf of the USA

Even in 1891 they weren't going to go to war against Chile on behalf of America, only offer them use of their territory as a base of operations.
 
As someone with little knowledge of Latin American history, looking through this thread it seems like what would happen is that Chile would sink the US Navy, probably keep Panama out of American hands, but not really be able to do a whole lot else, especially since the only way to do something after retaking Panama would be to make an action on the US Mainland which is really really really not gonna be fun.
 
Top