Effect of US losing a War to Chile in 1885

In response to a US intervention in Panama, Chile sent the cruiser, the Esmeralda, to Panama in order to pressure the Americans into withdrawing. The US had deployed 3 ships, the Tennessee, the Galena, the Shenandoah, with more on the way, and several hundred marines. All three of these ships were wooden and poorly equipped. This was done with the intention of protecting US interests and nationals from fighting between the Colombian government and rebels. Chile feared US expansion into Latin America but by the time the Esmeralda arrived, the situation had died down and it was clear that the Americans did not intend an extended occupation.

But what if the fighting remained intense by the time the Esmeralda arrived and it appeared that the US intended a long occupation of at least parts of Panama. By all accounts the Esmeralda was far superior to the three US ships stationed, all of which were wooden and poorly equipped by comparison. The Esmeralda would have come into contact with the Shenandoah off of the coast of Panama City, and should the Americans refused to withdraw leading to the two ships firing upon each other, the Esmeralda most certainly would have sunk the Shenandoah.

At the time naval experts acknowledged that Chile had the strongest navy of all the nations in the Americas. Let's say that an ensuing war between Chile and the US goes somewhat along these lines:
  • The Galena and the Tennessee withdraw from Panama
  • Congress declares war on Chile
  • The bulk of the US Pacific fleet is destroyed by the Chilean Navy
  • Chile commences bombardment of Los Angelas.
  • With threat of other west-coast cities facing bombardment and unable to challenge Chile in the Pacific for some time, Grover Cleveland sues for peace.
  • US acknowledges Chilean influence in Colombia, and by extension South America, and faces a national humiliation.
  • The War lasts from April 28th 1885, the arrival of the Esmeralda, and ends in the latter half of 1886.
So the question here is what happens next? Cleveland will most certainly lose the next election though he does in the OTL, but there probably won't be a comeback this time. Does the US become more militaristic in this timeline? How does this change the Chilean Civil War? Can the Monroe Doctrine still survive? How long until the US and Chile fight another war? What else?
 
I want to say that it will make the U.S. drive to prove itself militarily to reassert "dominance" in the area. It could mean a more bloody Venezuela crisis, or sabre-rattling against the Porfirio's Mexico, attempts to muscle in on Central America, Haiti, Hawaii, Samoa, or set it on a collision course for a Spanish American war earlier. Either way it does mean that the populace will elect someone willing to enforce Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny. Heck, they might as well go after Canada if the opportunity arises, seeing as this was a Canadian fear well into the 1930's.

As for Chile, I know less about them, but they might now have the military prestige to enforce claims against Argentina in Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. It may cause a Chile that is more internationalist, or might want seek South Pacific and South American influence. I would like to know if anyone has more info to flesh the aftermath out better
 
This is a timeline I would love to read.

Chile and the US did have...some words during the War of the Pacific between 1879-1883 which is probably why Chile sent the Esmeralda to Panama. The US backed down during that war because it simply couldn't commit naval forces due to Chile's naval power and the fact that they'd have the home court advantage. They came close to blows again in 1891 with an arms shipment from the US to forces backing the President in a civil war that the President was loosing. Maybe it would impact the outcome of the 1886 elections and thus no Chilean civil war and not Parliamentary Era for Chile? Would Chile move on to challenge US interests in other Central American states? Or maybe Pacific expansion? How long before the US can send a strong enough fleet to beat Chile in? Would Chile gather allies before then and given them incentives to build up their own fleets? Could the US cosy up to Argentina? Would this new shift have an impact as far as 100 years later when Argentina decides to take the Falkland Islands? The possibilities are endless.
 
the populace will elect someone willing to enforce Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny.
Can the Monroe Doctrine still survive?
? Does the Monroe Doctrine have anything to do with this scenario? AFAIK, it's mostly about the RN and US not allowing new colonies to be formed in the Americas. So long as Chile doesn't go colonizing, MD should be irrelevant. As for Manifest Destiny... wasn't that pretty much over and done with? The goal was to expand from coast to coast, and we'd already done that.
as for the POD.... well, there would be nothing like a defeat at sea to PO the US population (they tended to be hyper-nationalistic back then), who are likely to demand that the US build a bigger and better navy. Congress, though, might be reluctant to spend that kind of money...
 
Why would Chile bombard Los Angelos? This isn’t an empire in terminal decline like China, this is the Colossus of the North. Bombarding a US city would be incredibly stupid as it would encourage US revanchism. And unlike China, the US has the resources and willpower to pursue it. Giving the US a smack by ravaging the Pacific Squadron and *perhaps* sailing into sight of Los Angelos and giving a gun salute would get the same message across as shelling it would, and with far less chance of it coming to bite Chile in the ass later.

In addition, I doubt Chilean influence would last long as the US would *really* want to reassert itself in the area. I can see Argentina and Bolivia getting a lot of US aid and a Carte Blanche to go after Chile (for a while at least. I’d expect the US to calm down from wanting Chile punished to merely humiliated/acknowledging their inferiority within a decade).
 
If Chile bombarded LA over a minor colonial dispute will they really just sue for peace?

If I’m in the edge of my backyard an get bit by an ant I might just walk away and leave them be, handling them with caution. If the same ants follow me into my house and bite me again I will feel inclined to go to store to get spray.

The US must have close to a 50-1 GNP advantage by this point. How long would it take to build a fleet or even just buy a few ships from Britain at a high price in the short term? I can’t imagine the major powers in Europe will look favorably on Chile randomly shelling a US city.
 
This is a timeline I would love to read.

Chile and the US did have...some words during the War of the Pacific between 1879-1883 which is probably why Chile sent the Esmeralda to Panama. The US backed down during that war because it simply couldn't commit naval forces due to Chile's naval power and the fact that they'd have the home court advantage. They came close to blows again in 1891 with an arms shipment from the US to forces backing the President in a civil war that the President was loosing. Maybe it would impact the outcome of the 1886 elections and thus no Chilean civil war and not Parliamentary Era for Chile? Would Chile move on to challenge US interests in other Central American states? Or maybe Pacific expansion? How long before the US can send a strong enough fleet to beat Chile in? Would Chile gather allies before then and given them incentives to build up their own fleets? Could the US cosy up to Argentina? Would this new shift have an impact as far as 100 years later when Argentina decides to take the Falkland Islands? The possibilities are endless.

There is this timeline, done by @Paradox-less which is about that. In any case, I do see the Yanks cozying up to Argentina or Perú or Bolivia just to get back to them later on. And it's more likely this will make Chile look as the most powerful country in South America, and a possible colonizer of South Pacific islands just for the sake of national pride.
 
It is hard to see the US actually losing a war to Chile. A single Chilean ship cannot be in two oceans at once, and would not be able to actually dislodge the Americans from Panama - if the Americans seriously tried to hold/reinforce it.

That said, this is a fascinating WI and has potentially huge butterflies. If the US tries and fails to defeat this ship a couple of times its prestige will take a tremendous blow. How hard is the US willing to try to re-assert themselves? How much more money will they put into defence long term? This could be the basis for an excellent TL.
 
First there would have to actually be a war, and Congress had not declared one over this incident historically. At best, you get a curtailment of the ability of presidents to authorize military/naval engagements short of war. If this escalates into a declared war, I'm not sure how Chile wins it.
 
taking the OP at face value, and accepting the events as posted.... the US recognizes their naval issues and works to build a reputable navy. It would sort of be a corollary to the war of 1812, where they found out their ground troop setup was garbage, and revamped the whole thing.

now, joining the 'this ain't going to happen that way' crowd.... if we continue the corollary to 1812, the US is likely to stay in the war until they can revamp the navy and go after Chile properly. US far outweighs Chile in the ability to build forces to prosecute a war. But, will the US populace have the patience to wait that long? They'll be all fired up at first and work up to a mob-like frenzy and then have to sit on their thumbs waiting for a while to engage in the next round of hostilities. will they get bored and go home? Shelling Los Angeles is no more of a slap in the face than sinking warships. Los Angeles makes it about a US 'invasion', and Chile probably doesn't want to get the masses that riled up. If they leave it at sinking the ships, it could leave the door open for making a negotiated peace. The US populace is going to want to get at least one punch in before walking away.

Neither side has the ability to project power to the other's shores. The US may decide the best way to humble Chile is to entrench itself in Panama to say 'we can do what we want, where we want'. Chile would be unable to stop this, and thus be humbled. This course of action brings in the risk of a war with Colombia, and US has to walk a delicate line there.

Any way you look at it, though, IMO, the US is not going to be slapped in the face once or twice and then walk away without some sort of reprisal against Chile. A successful response by Cleveland could propel him into winning the next election and have his two terms as consecutive.
 
It is hard to see the US actually losing a war to Chile. A single Chilean ship cannot be in two oceans at once, and would not be able to actually dislodge the Americans from Panama - if the Americans seriously tried to hold/reinforce it.

That said, this is a fascinating WI and has potentially huge butterflies. If the US tries and fails to defeat this ship a couple of times its prestige will take a tremendous blow. How hard is the US willing to try to re-assert themselves? How much more money will they put into defence long term? This could be the basis for an excellent TL.
taking the OP at face value, and accepting the events as posted.... the US recognizes their naval issues and works to build a reputable navy. It would sort of be a corollary to the war of 1812, where they found out their ground troop setup was garbage, and revamped the whole thing.

now, joining the 'this ain't going to happen that way' crowd.... if we continue the corollary to 1812, the US is likely to stay in the war until they can revamp the navy and go after Chile properly. US far outweighs Chile in the ability to build forces to prosecute a war. But, will the US populace have the patience to wait that long? They'll be all fired up at first and work up to a mob-like frenzy and then have to sit on their thumbs waiting for a while to engage in the next round of hostilities. will they get bored and go home? Shelling Los Angeles is no more of a slap in the face than sinking warships. Los Angeles makes it about a US 'invasion', and Chile probably doesn't want to get the masses that riled up. If they leave it at sinking the ships, it could leave the door open for making a negotiated peace. The US populace is going to want to get at least one punch in before walking away.

Neither side has the ability to project power to the other's shores. The US may decide the best way to humble Chile is to entrench itself in Panama to say 'we can do what we want, where we want'. Chile would be unable to stop this, and thus be humbled. This course of action brings in the risk of a war with Colombia, and US has to walk a delicate line there.

Any way you look at it, though, IMO, the US is not going to be slapped in the face once or twice and then walk away without some sort of reprisal against Chile. A successful response by Cleveland could propel him into winning the next election and have his two terms as consecutive.

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% (20% to 40% depending of the year) of the national exports, only have a tax of around 8% 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 associatetropes.

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
 
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.

this is basically the situation. Chile has the ability to slap at the US, but that's about it. A long war benefits the US, and Chile can't hit the US hard enough to force a quick victory. Each slap (naval bombardment or quick land assault and withdraw) only causes the US to dig in more.
 
Remember Chile are intervening on Behalf of Colombia being invaded by USA Troops, that are trying to annex Panama
as the OP notes, the US wasn't trying to annex Panama. In the eyes of the US population, Chile just used it's major warship to sink US vessels that were supporting US Marines who were protecting US interests in what would become Panama (the real drive to separate Panama from Columbia and annex the canal zone didn't come until T. Roosevelt's administration). The US population is going to be seriously pissed off, and will likely demand that the USN build a Pacific squadron powerful enough to take on Chile and then get revenge for the heinous attack on our forces. The real question is if Congress is willing to spend the money on it...
 
as the OP notes, the US wasn't trying to annex Panama. In the eyes of the US population, Chile just used it's major warship to sink US vessels that were supporting US Marines who were protecting US interests in what would become Panama (the real drive to separate Panama from Columbia and annex the canal zone didn't come until T. Roosevelt's administration). The US population is going to be seriously pissed off, and will likely demand that the USN build a Pacific squadron powerful enough to take on Chile and then get revenge for the heinous attack on our forces. The real question is if Congress is willing to spend the money on it...
The point Is Chile intervention Is a result of the Colombian goverment asking Chile for Support against any possible USA foray in Panamá soil, and With reason, that was The modus operandi of Washington in respect to Cental America during most of the XIX Century( banana wars Anyone?), Maybe Is not being seeing this way by The USA population, but they where invading a sovereing country using against said country wishes. There Is the reason Chile send The Esmeralda, because they we're asked to, and against The USA intervention that Acted without formal request and against The whishes of the goverment they nominally supported.
 
The point Is Chile intervention Is a result of the Colombian goverment asking Chile for Support against any possible USA foray in Panamá soil, and With reason, that was The modus operandi of Washington in respect to Cental America during most of the XIX Century( banana wars Anyone?), Maybe Is not being seeing this way by The USA population, but they where invading a sovereing country using against said country wishes. There Is the reason Chile send The Esmeralda, because they we're asked to, and against The USA intervention that Acted without formal request and against The whishes of the goverment they nominally supported.
'invading' is a bit much... more of an intervention to protect US interests; no intention to occupy the place. The US population is going to look at it as nothing more than Chile butting into a conflict it had no part of. The real question here is if Congress is going to spend the money to do anything about it...
 
'invading' is a bit much... more of an intervention to protect US interests; no intention to occupy the place. The US population is going to look at it as nothing more than Chile butting into a conflict it had no part of. The real question here is if Congress is going to spend the money to do anything about it...
Again that is the point of view from the USA historiography, the Point of view of the Chilean an Colombian Historiography is was that the 1885 Crisis was the first Attempt from the USA to annex or forced the independence of Panama From Colombia, and put that new country in his Sphere, and only the Esmeralda presence and Chilean Backing put damp to the USA intentions and the "only protecting USA interest" was a ex post facto Diplomacy save of face.
The posterior Actions of the USA in respect to Panama and Colombia give a lot force to that point of view
 
Again that is the point of view from the USA historiography, the Point of view of the Chilean an Colombian Historiography is was that the 1885 Crisis was the first Attempt from the USA to annex or forced the independence of Panama From Colombia, and put that new country in his Sphere, and only the Esmeralda presence and Chilean Backing put damp to the USA intentions and the "only protecting USA interest" was a ex post facto Diplomacy save of face.
well, Chili might see it that way, but realize that at this time, the UK was the one with the major interest in making a CA canal; the US didn't really take it over until 1900, when McKinley talked the UK into abandoning the idea. And the actual US intervention that created Panama didn't happen until TR's administration. At the time of the POD here, the US intervention was really all about protecting US business interests and citizens; the Marines basically were standing between the rebels and the Columbians, not taking sides. As the OP notes, by the time the Esmerelda arrived, the situation had died down and the Marines were preparing to leave; no extended occupation was intended. If the Esmerelda had attacked at this time, it would have been a bombshell in the US...
 
well, Chili might see it that way, but realize that at this time, the UK was the one with the major interest in making a CA canal; the US didn't really take it over until 1900, when McKinley talked the UK into abandoning the idea. And the actual US intervention that created Panama didn't happen until TR's administration. At the time of the POD here, the US intervention was really all about protecting US business interests and citizens; the Marines basically were standing between the rebels and the Columbians, not taking sides. As the OP notes, by the time the Esmerelda arrived, the situation had died down and the Marines were preparing to leave; no extended occupation was intended. If the Esmerelda had attacked at this time, it would have been a bombshell in the US...
The marines Were taking hold of the Goverment Buildings in Panama and Prohibited the enter of the Colombian Troops in Panama City, the American Arrived the 26 in the Morning, Colombian Troops the 27, and were forming Battle Lines, When the 28 of April the Esmeralda Arrived to port, Magically all the rebel and USA expeditionary force were open to start conversations with the Colombian Force, and evacuated the City the 30 of the same month, the events and timetables are suspicious to say the least
 
At the time naval experts acknowledged that Chile had the strongest navy of all the nations in the Americas.
  • Chile commences bombardment of Los Angelas.
  • With threat of other west-coast cities facing bombardment and unable to challenge Chile in the Pacific for some time, Grover Cleveland sues for peace.
  • US acknowledges Chilean influence in Colombia, and by extension South America, and faces a national humiliation.

Right because a quick decisive blow to cripple US naval capabilities would certainly deter a wider war. Nothing like that has ever been attempted before or since, and the US would surely capitulate if all their battleships were destroyed. It would be foolish to do otherwise! Long live imperial Japan!

In all seriousness, one crippling blow to the US navy would spur the population into a frenzy for revenge (as happened with Mexico, and Spain, and Germany, and Japan, and every other major war fought by the United States). Chile might be winning temporarily, but there's absolutely no way they can beat the US in a war of attrition and the only reasonable chance for victory would be a total capitulation by the US, which is unlikely given the probable public uproar. Any president who gave in to a Chilean sphere of influence would be thrown out of office and if congress didn't follow suit and declare war, they would be next in the unemployment line. It may take 3-5 years, but the US would eventually overwhelm any forces Chile would be able float in the Pacific.

(they tended to be hyper-nationalistic back then)

Back then? The US was, and still is, extremely nationalistic when provoked. One need only go as far back as September 11th, 2001 for evidence of that.
 
Last edited:
Top